3 posts tagged “prostitution”

With the current financial crisis, the government has an urgent need to increase revenues.  At the same time,  taxpayers struggling in the current economy don't need to have their taxes raised in order to provide this revenue.

But two obvious means of quickly generating a healthy amount of revenue have never been considered.

The means?

The legalization of drugs and prostitution in all fifty states.  Making these two things legal would subject the billions of dollars already spent on these things to taxation, both from customers and through licensing and operating fees from the businesses.   

It would also allow the tax dollars now allotted to law enforcement and the criminal justice system to be used elsewhere more efficiently.

I'm not  holding my breath that this will ever happen, however, unfortunately.

While reading an article on Alternet, 9 Ways to Halt the Right Wing Culture Wars and Bring Sanity to Sexual Policy by David Rosen, I came upon a reactionary comment to the article that focused on prostitution, which wasn't even the main point of the article.  This caused me to respond more to the comment than the article itself.  Below follows the original comment, plus my response.

The original comment:

Do we really want to make pornography and prostitution more acceptable? 

In a world where everyone had a fair share of resources, prostitution would not exist--it is the result of inequality and poverty. I'd much rather see a guaranteed minimum income, not decriminalization.

Sex (especially with someone you know and like) is great. But buying and selling it is sad.

My response:

Selling's Legal. Screwing is Legal. Why Isn't Selling Screwing Legal? -- George Carlin 

Why do you think it's the government's place to legislate "proper" reasons for having sex? I'm guessing that you think the only "proper" reason to have sex is to express love for one's partner and that throwing laws at people having sex for other reasons is an effective way to handle it.

This is not only staggeringly naive, but it's an improper use of government power, plus a waste of their time and resources.

People have sex for all sorts of reasons -- to procreate, to express love, because they're horny, to relieve stress, and so on. And there's nothing wrong with any of those reasons.

There's also nothing inherently wrong with seeking sex from a paid sex worker, which is done for a variety of reasons as well: those who are unable to find a free partner because of unattractiveness, disability or whatever, those out of town away from their regular partners, those who are horny but don't want to or don't have the time to invest in a more serious relationship and don't care for the bar scene, those who want to try certain sex acts but their regular partner isn't interested, and so on.

Needless to say, sex workers should also have the right to use their bodies however they wish, even for profit.

The only interest the government has in the sex acts of private citizens is to ensure that any sex act that occurs is between fully CONSENTING ADULTS. As long at those conditions are met: consenting and adult, then the government needs to butt out. No consenting adult should have to have a "proper" reason to have sex.

I chose to address one of the two main reasons why people oppose legal prostitution.  The most common reason is that opponents believe that all prostitutes are exploited and are forced to be prostitutes.  While this is undoubtedly true in many case, it's obviously not true in all cases.  Plus they ignore the fact that it's the abuse itself that is the problem, not the selling of sex per se, and that there are already laws a-plenty to address the root causes without prostitution itself having to be illegal to prosecute. 

When the existence of high-class call girls and escort services are pointed out them, where it's obvious the choice of occupation was freely made and no exploitation is occurring, most opponents will shift to the second reason for their opposition, which is the reason I address here, that I believe is the core, though often unconscious, reason for their opposition.

That is, many opponents believe that there are strictly defined "proper" reasons for engaging in sex and those having sex for what they deem "improper" reasons, should be legally prohibited from doing so, even if those involved are fully consenting adults.

Your thoughts?

Some time ago, I read an interesting article on Alternet, Craigslist Is the Newest Target in the War on Prostitution. The article was about law enforcement cracking down on prostitutes who use Craigslist to advertise their services. After reading it, I ended up writing a novel of a comment, which I am posting here. Also included are replies to my comment and my rebuttals.

My original comment:

Prostitution has been around for thousands of years. And it will be around for as long as humans occupy the planet. Sex is a basic human drive, and those who aren't getting sex, who are away from their regular sex partners, who aren't getting the type of sex, the frequency of sex, and the variety of sex they want, will go about meeting this need in any way they can. If a person can't get it for free or can't/won't take the time to engage in the mating ritual to acquire a willing free partner, they will seek out a prostitute.

Prostitution meets a need and provides a service. And as long as this is true, it will exist.

It's time society accepted that reality and made provision for legal prostitution. The benefits of legalizing prostitution are many. The government would tax it, thus providing a new source of revenue. The government would also regulate it; mandating that all sex workers get regular screening for STDs, along with other regulations designed to protect the health and safety of prostitutes and clients. With prostitution aboveboard and out in the open, it would be easier to protect sex workers from abuse, clients from scamming, and to ensure that those engaging in sex work are doing it entirely of their own free will.

Some have made the point that prostitution exploits women. Well, no, it does not inherently exploit women. It presently being illegal and clandestine in most parts of the world is what allows exploitation and abuses to occur. And we have to remember that not all prostitutes are women.

Laws against prostitution are essentially Nanny laws, based upon the notion that sex should only occur in the confines of a legal marriage or committed relationship. That is a view that should remain a personal opinion and not be mandated as law. Consenting adults should be free to get sex however they wish and are able to obtain it.

A reply from someone who disagreed:

Prostitution has not been around for as long as humans have been on the planet. Two to five thousand years to be more precise. So it has been around as long as there has been Patriarchy. Humans have been living in communities with culture, art, spirituality etc. for over 50, 000 years.

Sex between equals who respect each other is Sex.

Prostitution is about dominance, violence, and exploitation. You are in the dark about the realities of prostitution but apparently are content.

My rebuttal:

Your comment: "Sex between equals who respect each other is Sex" is a personal opinion that is a good one to live by, but it shouldn't be mandated as to limit the liberty of others. Sex occurs in a wide variety of venues for a variety of reasons, yet it is all still sex. What you are describing is "Making Love", not sex, per se. You are stating what you believe sex should be, not all what it is. And who says that a prostitute must necessarily be disrespected for providing a service?

Prostitution is selling a commodity like any other commodity. It is not inherently dominating, violent, or exploitative, any more than going to a restaurant and buying your supper is compared to having a home-cooked meal. Nor is exchanging sex for money an inherently unequal transaction. Is the car salesman exploited because he sells you a car, rather than giving it to you because he loves you? I think not.

Her second reply:

Sex between a dominant and subordinate is violence in every way.
Do you know that prostituted women call it paid rape?
Do you know that, when someone bothers to ask, they say they despise their so called "clients" and usually fantasize about killing them?

A man paying to ejaculate is not sex and it is not equality. It's a function. Like having a bowel movement.
The demand belong in jail. [sic]

My second rebuttal:

You are arguing from emotion and not logic.

Not all prostitutes are streetwalkers controlled by drug addicted pimps. Some are high priced call girls living in luxurious surroundings who only work for a few years, then retire then live off their earnings.

Money changing hands for sex doesn't inherently have to involve dominance and submission.

You have not interviewed every prostitute on the planet, so you could not possibly know what every single one of them feels about it. And I'm quite certain that all prostitutes do not have identical feelings and opinions.

You are arguing from a worst case scenario. You take the worst examples and present that as representative of all prostitutes.

You do not recognize that it is precisely the illegality and clandestine nature that allows the worst of abuses to occur because unwilling prostitutes are afraid to go to the police for help because they are afraid of being arrested themselves.

History teaches us that when a wanted service is prohibited, organized crime steps in to fill the need, bringing along the abuses and exploitation that goes along with that. Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s allowed the Mafia to solidify their position in this country and should be a lesson for us all. Unfortunately, many of us cannot remember history, nor learn the lessons it teaches.

You fail to recognize that there are laws already in place to help those who are exploited that do not necessitate prostitution being illegal across the board: laws pertaining to rape, kidnapping, assault, and the like. The emphasis should be on enforcing these kinds of laws to protect the unwilling sex worker, and not on those who engage in it, eyes wide open.

Women are not children, thus they are capable of making choices for themselves and taking responsibility for those choices. To say that women must be "protected" from engaging in prostitution, even if they choose willingly to do so, is to reduce them to the status of children, and is inherently sexist. Indeed, I've not seen comments on this article lamenting the "plight" of male prostitutes, as it's assumed than men can look out for themselves.

And those who visit adult prostitutes and have a non-violent encounter do not belong in jail because it is a consensual exchange. It is not your place, nor that of the government to define what sex is and is not between consenting adults.
___________________________

Your thoughts?

----
This post is a reposting from one of my other blogs.