|
|
resurrectionsongAugust 25, 2003On ProstitutionI don't like the idea of prostitution. I'm probably a little too much of a prude. I've never visited one and doubt that I ever will, but I understand the urge. That said, I've pretty much always been for legalization--not because I want to be a customer, but because if someone else wants to charge for their time, who am I to say no? Legalization would bring, hopefully, a more sanitary and safe trade for the women who work the streets, would bring tax revenues, and would clear court dockets like nothing except the decriminalization of marijuana use. Today, I read "In Defense of Prostitution" by Heidi Fleiss, though, and was struck by something that she said that seemed to me to be remarkably wrong headed. Prostitution should be legalized throughout the United States. The laws are currently written by and for men. I've been out of the business for 10 years, but I still hear stories of men who hit women, walk out without paying, or write checks to hookers and then stop payment. It's outrageous. Here's a woman who has performed a service to the best of her abilities and to her client's satisfaction. But nothing will happen to that client because he knows he won't be prosecuted for refusing to pay for sex. They go after the women in those cases, not the men.It seems to me, actually, that prostitution laws exist to protect two things: women who would otherwise be victimized and used by Johns, and our public sense of propriety (which I do believe there is value in protecting). The idea that prostitution laws exist "for" men is a little bit of a joke to me and taints her whole argument (not to mention that it completely ignores the role that male prostitutes play in the trade). Although it's a pretty interesting read, her contention that "there is no downside" to legalization also shows her partisan view on the subject. That's like me saying that there would be no downside to drug legalization. I back legalization, but I know that there would be some social costs involved (a certain level of addiction similar to the social cost seen from alcoholism, for instance). To deny that such a change as blanket legalization of prostitution would not have social costs is foolish whether you feel that the trade should or shouldn't be legalized. For example, will legalization promote an increase in sex trafficking? That is, right now, there are a certain number of women and girls that are shipped to the US illegally every year for the sole purpose of working in the sex trade. Often, the situation is functionally slavery. This problem is worse in Israel and Russia, right now, but would the reallocation of police forces away from the sex industry make it easier and more lucrative to ship slaves into the US for the sex trade? This is a single example, but nowhere does Heidi Fleiss even acknowledge that legalization could conceivably cause social problems. I'm a proponent of both drug legalization and liberalizing laws concerning prostitution. The problem I have with many that are on my side is that they try to paint a picture of a solution to a problem that is squeaky clean. If we just legalize, not only will the government reap the benefits, but the industries will suddenly clean themselves up and be almost family-friendly in their perfection. That attitude is harmful; it does nothing to further the debate and even manages to give the other side some useful weapons in their arguments against legalization. If we really want to make strides toward liberalizing laws like these, we need to first be honest about both the benefits and the costs involved. A Good Article Against Legalization. Posted by zombyboy at August 25, 2003 12:44 PM | TrackBackComments
I agree with you that too many want to paint legalization as the solution. It is a solution to a few problems, but wouldn't solve all the associated problems. Legalizing won't get rid of drug abusers and the problems they cause. It may lessen that problem, but it will never go away. I would think with decriminalized prostitution we would see fewer incentives to bring in "sex slaves". A few more "native" women may decide to pursue this profession lessening the "need" to bring in others. There might also be more oversight as to who is providing the services making it harder than it is now to bring in others. Noteworthy also, is the other side of the argument that claims anarchy will happen if we decriminalize and that everyone will become drug addicts and prostitutes. That is no more true than proponents saying all the problems will be solved. Alcohol is still a problem for many people in our society, but cops and robbers aren't killing each other because of it anymore. Posted by: trigger at August 25, 2003 02:07 PMAbsolutely true on that last bit--those opposed to legalization often don't even acknowledge the potential good in liberalizing policies. As for the sex slave part, that's what I would have thought, too. Follow the link at the end of the entry to the "anti" article. There was a good bit of surprising data there. Admittedly, the source makes not pretense at an impartial view on the subject, though. Posted by: zombyboy at August 25, 2003 02:19 PMAhh, the link didn't work so I didn't try very hard to read it. It had an " on the end. Interesting article but really biased. It was hard to make much sense out of much of it. Some good points there and I am not by any means up to speed on prostitution and female trafficking. I find it interesting that they think women should not be charged with prostitution but men should be charged for using the "services". They lost some credibility for that from me. I wonder how many trafficked females work in the legal places in Nevada and if it was their choice to come to a place where it is legal or if they were forced to do it. There's a lot more to this issue than I thought. Posted by: trigger at August 25, 2003 05:41 PMIf prostitution laws were "for" men it would be mandatory, not illegal. In the Old West, a land of, by and for men if ever there was one, prostitution was plentiful -- and regulated only to the extent that local officials had wives to put up with. Posted by: McGehee at August 26, 2003 12:36 PMIn Ancient Rome, they had state run brothels, free for all Roman citizens. The idea was to stop civil strife by giving men an outlet for their sexual energy that didn't involve cheating with another man's wife. Posted by: sama at August 26, 2003 01:13 PMRight on, on all points. There's an article in the current National Geographic on current slavery, focusing especially on sexual slavery -- including in the US. This link is to a teaser, but it's all I find on-line: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/index.html In my esperience, most discussions of prostitution start from the premise of endorsing or condemning it, rather than trying to understand the "side effects" (e.g. street crime, violence against the women) and propose ways to mitigate them. Posted by: Shelby at August 28, 2003 12:03 AMRight on, on all points. There's an article in the current National Geographic on current slavery, focusing especially on sexual slavery -- including in the US. This link is to a teaser, but it's all I find on-line: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/index.html In my experience, most discussions of prostitution start from the premise of endorsing or condemning it, rather than trying to understand the "side effects" (e.g. street crime, violence against the women) and propose ways to mitigate them. Posted by: Shelby at August 28, 2003 12:03 AMWill my comments make a difference, probably not unless I get involved. I cannot imagine my freedoms lost One thing that certainly would get the attention of countries who turn a "blind eye" to the slave trade is to cut off immediately monies funded by the U.S. Money seems to get everyone's attention. Get involved, make a difference! Posted by: Betty at September 2, 2003 07:33 PMyhis is a very god thing yous are doing you need to make it more freightnig and realistic to make peoplre realise the reality of it Posted by: ariana at September 11, 2003 04:24 PMmy words will move a nation and rock all generations the discrimanation of the people of this world is horrifying people selling them selves because of their race and skin colour thats some crazy shit the people like you can stop generous scandelous Posted by: scandelous at September 11, 2003 04:32 PMstiriping is 1 thing selling your virginity is another david BOOK - MILLIONAIRES AND MODELS - HTTP://WWW.MILLIONAIRESANDMODELS.COM Please check on the internet and see if ever in 2000+ years a book on prostitution has ever been written by a male madam How many firsts are there in books these days.
It was then through my search for answers that I finally found the phobia for the rejection to the truth of free commercial prostitution People have a fear of Prostitutes - Cyprianophobia? Fear of Prostitutes : (Cyprianoophobia, Cypridophobia, Cypriphobia, Cyprinophobia, Fear of Prostitutes) It appears the hetrosexual world in all its forms is effected in the same way as the gay world is with homophobic people DAVID JOHN WADE 0011 61 2 93103011 SYDNEY AUSTRALIA Posted by: DAVID JOHN WADE at February 25, 2004 07:42 PMPost a comment
|
| All content ©2003 by the authors of ResurrectionSong.com except where noted. |
