19 thoughts on “Prostitution”

  1. Does it matter what the consequences of legalization would be in determining whether it should be legal or not? For example, if it were to become legal, would it become a lot more common? If so, might there be more divorces as a result. If more divorces then more kids growing up in broken homes? If so, more bad outcomes for kids? If so, does the state have a valid reason to outlaw it?

    1. Wow.. if only there were other countries in the world where you could observe the result of making prostitution legal.

      Anyway, let’s assume you’re right and making prostitution legal results in all these things that you think are bad.

      If so, does the state have a valid reason to outlaw it?

      Do you mean, do politicians have the right to outlaw free association and trade between consenting adults in order to play social scientist at the expense of personal liberty? Or, as the article put it:

      If your political philosophy requires the micromanagement of all individual behavior as a means of achieving established societal aims, then you will presumably find little wrong with the status quo in this area. But if you are of the view that republics are supposed to maximize the liberty of the individual and to privilege its protection above the vagaries of national schemers, then perhaps you might reconsider your position.

      The logic of “I can imagine bad things happening, so let’s not try it” can be used to justify any part of the status quo. If marijuana is legalized, everyone will become pot heads and there’ll be no-one to man the cash registers!

      1. Honest . . . as the day is long!

        A young woman has just approached Rick (Humphrey Bogart) that she and her husband need money to escape the Germans in WW-II Casablanca, her husband is digging himself into a hole trying to win that money at Rick’s gambling tables, and she hints that the Claude Raines character is willing to “fix things” in exchange for her “doing something very bad.”

        Not only does the Humphrey Bogart character take pity on a woman “too young to even be here (in the casino)”, what he has been told gives him an even lower opinion of the Claude Raines character. He winks at his croupier, tells the woman to have her husband to bet a certain number “once, and then walk away” and then that number comes up. This chain of events provokes the famous movie line.

        The historical record is that the oldest profession tends to be a career choice under difficult or perhaps desperate circumstances. I think I remember some discussion about how U.S. flyers during the Berlin Airlift talked about the friendly Frauleins, but in being the well paid and well fed benefactors of the people of Berlin, the privation that the civilian population endured that made the Frauleins that friendly was not properly taken into account.

        Maybe selling your body in response to financial stress doesn’t cross the same line as selling your organs for transplantation, but a Libertarian has to make some moral choice, and I don’t mean simply “relations outside of marriage are morally wrong.” The circumstances under which a woman would accept money goes to drawing the line as to what properly constitutes “consenting adults.”

        1. If you fear some women turn to prostitution to avoid starvation, give generously to the Salvation Army.

        2. That’s a bizarre argument. You want to deny freedom to the people who need it the most, because they need it the most. What do you imagine happens when someone who is “forced” to turn to prostitution finds out that prostitution is illegal? They just magically get a warm meal?

        3. I don’t get it either. You want to remove an avenue by which one can provide for and better oneself because people would be rather desperate in order to choose it? That same issue crops up to some degree with a variety of jobs, for example, janitor, soldier, and coal miner. Should we ban those careers because desperate people might choose them out of necessity?

    4. The US had legalized prostitution in the 19th century, and a low divorce rate. The high 50% divorce rate in America is due to feminist legislation passed in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The (anti)family court system and post 1970’s divorce industry contributes to high divorce rates, not prostitution.

    5. And, oh by the way, dating and modern american “marriage” are also other forms of prostitution except unlike prostitution, dating and modern american “marriage” are dishonest transactions. At least with prostitution, the cost is set upfront in an honest manner.

  2. This discussion draws the contrast as to why I am a Conservative and not a Libertarian. Jerry Pournelle explains this distinction over at his fine Web site along with “line drawing” as to whether a Libertarian would countenance the sale of organs by persons in grave financial need.

    I mean, what is so wrong with parting with one of two good kidneys, or even a lobe of your liver as they tell me that part can even grow back, especially when it could make a life-changing boost in one’s finances? We allow people to sell their blood products — we have a commercial blood donation facility in town — and we allow people to sell their bodies for drug-safety screening — and we have that in town too.

    A life-changing boost in finances lead those unfortunate women in that article to sell their bodies and end up dead. OK, OK, I know where this is leading, if prostitution were legal, those women would not be dead because the State would regulate it and keep the homicidal creeps away?

    The point of this is that even were we to legalize prostitution because “people are going to do it anyway and making it illegal places women at higher risk of harm”, the facile Libertarian reasoning of “consenting adults” runs up against the meaning of consent when large amounts of money are offered to someone in need.

    I am right away told that I am making a bizarre argument, but how about if I am single and have a lot of money, am I committing a moral wrong to not patronize prostitutes because I am hurting someone trying to make a living?

    I may end of supporting making prostitution legal as a least-worst resolution of a bad situation, but am I bizarre in my reasoning that I would not go so far to consider the practice and patronizing of prostitution to be a “civil right”, that the State could not even restrict it with ordinances against open solicitation and other efforts to keep that activity “down to a dull roar”?

    1. I am right away told that I am making a bizarre argument, but how about if I am single and have a lot of money, am I committing a moral wrong to not patronize prostitutes because I am hurting someone trying to make a living?

      I guess you’re assuming these prostitutes are too proud to accept charity.

    2. You can’t make a argument that can convince an adult of average intelligence of your brand of morality, so you want to use the law to enforce it instead. This is exactly what the US Constitution was designed to prevent. If you want a theocracy, go elsewhere.

  3. Are you sovereign over your own body or not…. it seems to be a simple question? Lots of interesting side effects over the answer especially as to what is coercion, and how do you back out of already made agreements….

    1. Are you sovereign over your own body or not…. it seems to be a simple question?

      As a matter of law, I’d have to say that the answer is no. I’m not saying that it should be no but that is the case. Legally, there are a lot of things you can’t do with your body. It varies considerably from state to state. It can even vary depending on not just age but your sex. For example, in some states, a husband has to get his wife’s permission before getting a vasectomy but a wife doesn’t need permission to get an abortion. A teenaged girl can’t get her ears pierced or a tattoo without permission but can get an abortion. A person can be arrested for prostitution but not if they’re making porn. And, as Paul M. notes, you can’t sell your organs.

      I didn’t say any of this made sense and most certainly didn’t want to divert the discussion to abortion. I was just showing some examples where the law is inconsistent with a person being sovereign over his or her own body.I

  4. Well, NR led on the Conservative side with pushing for marijuana legalization, too – Buckley was a very early proponent.

    (And contra Mr. Milenkovic [and Jerry Pournelle], there isn’t anything wrong with selling a kidney or part of a liver.

    It is in fact a positive good to increase the supply for those in need, who’ll die without them.

    Note also that for “large sums of money”, we all might qualify as “in need”; as the old joke goes: “A man asks a woman, ‘would you sleep with me for a million dollars?” “Yes.” “How about 20?” “Do you think I’m a prostitute?” “We’ve already established that – we’re just haggling on price.””… There are plenty of tasks I would perform for a large pile of money I wouldn’t even consider for smaller amounts. This we call “economics”.

    As Mr. Hallowell said above, what’s the relevant difference between sex for money and, say, being a masseur? Both involve touching people’s skin with yours, for money, because they enjoy it.

    Or between selling an organ for a large pile of money and working for 20 years at a crappy job – because you’re not getting that time back any more than you’re getting a new kidney.

    Only that “you/we” don’t like the one, but think the other is normal; pure cultural expectation, nothing more.

    The last thing I want is some else’s “ooh, icky!” controlling my life, or anyone else’s. And that includes me not thinking my “icky!” should control someone else’s.)

  5. > Why do you think there would be more divorces?

    More husbands committing adultery = more divorce = more broken families. I don’t have this data but I wouldn’t be surprised if this association were to occur.

    > Honestly asking here, do we have outcomes data from modern societies that legalized prostitution? US data from 19th century compared with today seems to me to be comparing apples and oranges.

    People are not responding to the children part of my question. If the actions of consenting adults have negative consequences on children, then does the
    State have an obligation to protect children who did not participate in that decision?

    1. More husbands committing adultery = more divorce = more broken families. I don’t have this data but I wouldn’t be surprised if this association were to occur.

      If that’s your concern, then why aren’t you talking about making adultery illegal?

      People are not responding to the children part of my question. If the actions of consenting adults have negative consequences on children, then does the State have an obligation to protect children who did not participate in that decision?

      Won’t someone think of the children!?

Comments are closed.