Prostitution: Victimless crime or Should be a crime?

[shetuck]

I dunno man - when you are a well known anti-prostitution crusader, the price goes up.

And now that he's reduced to an anti-crusading prostitute you think he'll get a discount?

 

[Gatorubet]

And now that he's reduced to an anti-crusading prostitute you think he'll get a discount?

Well, as 1) his wife ain't giving him any; and 2) He's now unemployed; then 3) hell have to buy cheap sex if he wants some.

 

[ytownbuckeye]

ho's gotta eat too

 

[shetuck]

... 1) his wife ain't giving him any;

I doubt she was exactly lighting things up in the bed to begin with...

... He's now unemployed;

He wasn't doing much before...

... 3) hell have to buy cheap sex if he wants some.

Yes. Buying cheap sex and "such" will probably land you in hell.

 

[Mike80]

I love all the attention this stupid story keeps getting.

Unfortunately they won't let us change the channel at work (God forbid they might treat us like adults at the hellhole I work at) and the boss is a conservative so it's ALWAYS on Fox Noise.

I really really don't care about which whore is banging whatever prostitute he can afford....I really don't.

 

[Buckeyedynasty]

I love all the attention this stupid story keeps getting.

Unfortunately they won't let us change the channel at work (God forbid they might treat us like adults at the hellhole I work at) and the boss is a conservative so it's ALWAYS on Fox Noise.

I really really don't care about which whore is banging whatever prostitute he can afford....I really don't.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[Mike80]

Sorry to hear that.

I don't want it on CNN or HLN either at least not all the friggin time.

These same people would want it on the news if the Super Bowl was being played. Of course these same people whine and complain when I show them I've done 3x as much work as they've done because they think I'm making them look bad, but I digress.

I understand their need to put the news on, but when they are talking about the same stupid stuff all day long, let me turn it to the military channel or ESPN (since the Big East and others are doing their tourneys right now)....

 

[Buckeyedynasty]

I don't want it on CNN or HLN either at least not all the friggin time.

These same people would want it on the news if the Super Bowl was being played. Of course these same people whine and complain when I show them I've done 3x as much work as they've done because they think I'm making them look bad, but I digress.

I understand their need to put the news on, but when they are talking about the same stupid stuff all day long, let me turn it to the military channel or ESPN (since the Big East and others are doing their tourneys right now)....

Don't forget the History Channel, Discovery Channel, and History International Channel. I'd be there in a heartbeat

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

I think this is what he paid for:

Photos Of Eliot Spitzer's Hooker - March 12, 2008

So he paid $5,500 for a good make-up job...

 

[NJ-Buckeye]

The price was probably totally immaterial... Spitzer's family is worth over a half billion bucks... so money has no value

 

[Mike80]

Don't forget the History Channel, Discovery Channel, and History International Channel. I'd be there in a heartbeat

We don't get History International at work.

I'd settle for ESPNews at this point

 

[Buckeyedynasty]

We don't get History International at work.

I'd settle for ESPNews at this point

Yeah I hear you. I'm not supposed to watch tv or listen to the radio at work.....pfft even on gamedays.

 

[Clarity]

Jo/Longwood told me about a recent article which noted that you can't buy sex toys legally in Alabama anymore, unless it's for "medical purposes." The comments from some of the politicians in the piece where rather hysterical, as they attempted to justify the legitimate government/social interest served by making sure people don't jerk off (nice of these guys to pull out of their boyfriends long enough to say so -- it is a bit funny how many of the staunchest crusaders lead double lives).

Anyway, it got me thinking about this thread and issue in a couple different ways, particularly how it seems to suggest that the legality should or does hinge on whether or not it's victimless crime. Focusing entirely on that issue, I'm inclined to agree that without special qualifiers, it rightly falls into this group. There's little to no question that people can be victimized by elements of prostitution. Poverty could leave some feeling forced to participate, others could be pushed into prostitution against their free will as a result of external influences (sex trade, pimps, drugs, etc.), but these are all secondary considerations to the act itself; which is at its essence an economic exchange (not just legal, but nearly a form of religion in this country) based upon a sexual act between consenting adults (also a legal act). We put commerce above nearly all else in this country, including some lives -- why draw the line when it comes to sexual congress?

One could come up with a number of reasons why prostitution can be problematic (several are mentioned above), but again, each of these are external qualifiers that add on to the base act. With these qualifiers stripped away (which could be, and in most cases already are, addressed by law in their own right), there can be no victim (in the legal sense) when two able-minded free-willed consenting adults choose to be intimate. Whether that choice is based on a psychological, physiological, or even pecuniary motivation is irrelevant. Health and welfare concerns could be better addressed through regulation such as mandatory testing, community concerns could be better addressed by regulating where (and where not) such 'business' would be legal, abuse and coercive concerns could be better addressed simply by taking the trade off of dark, seedy, late-night street corners in bad parts of towns.

Having said all of this, I don't intend to champion the cause of legalized prostitution (and it's *only* the lack of championship that keeps it illegal, in my opinion), nor do I personally agree with the act itself -- but it's hard to imagine who the victim may be when one considers the base act without qualifiers, and (more importantly) what the purely legal basis may be (I'm not convinced there is one) for its prohibition.

 

[cincibuck]

There's a very good book, Brothel, written by a Harvard Doctor (female) who spent a good bit of time with the women at the Mustang Ranch. It is hardly a glamorous life and I'd have to say that the women are all victims, albiet the degree to which they are victims is greatly lessened by being able to work in a licensed system.

Licensed or illegal, the fact remains that women are exploited in this business.

 

[Clarity]

There's a very good book, Brothel, written by a Harvard Doctor (female) who spent a good bit of time with the women at the Mustang Ranch. It is hardly a glamorous life and I'd have to say that the women are all victims, albiet the degree to which they are victims is greatly lessened by being able to work in a licensed system.

Licensed or illegal, the fact remains that women are exploited in this business.

Most are, certainly. But then a lot of people are exploited (although not nearly as intimately) when they go to work in a cubicle every day with little room for advancement or real gain. I guess the bottom line for me is that I don't know how or where it's my place to tell able-minded adults why they can or can't do something with their own body, provided it doesn't present a tangible threat to their own physical health and safety, and certainly that of others.

I think the 'best' argument for legality, is what you present above -- that the degree to or by which they are victimized may be lessened by legality and oversight.

Like many other issues, it takes on different shades according to the hat you choose to wear as you regard it. If I address it as a purely legal issue, it presents as a very simple, almost binary, consideration; the precedent is all there to legalize it, at least in the bedroom. If I address it less clinically, with health, safety, and even economic efficiency in mind, then I come to the same conclusion, but with by an entirely different path; the 'best' argument from the preceding paragraph. If I address it personally or morally, I start to think about confounding factors such as our country's sexual constipation and/or discomfort. It's easy to say that (in a vacuum) there should be no prostitution. But that's a bit like saying there should be no adultery. The human condition is such that these things are going to exist whether we accept them or not, so the question remaining is how we treat those who engage in it, and how we might best protect them from the threats and dangers within.

I'll look for that book, definitely interested.