Horse racing may be the “Sport of Kings”, and fox hunting that of the aristocracy, but prostitution has been the sport of the masses.
Ever since the beginning of human history, women and men have traded their favors for goods (money), position in society, and power. It is the way of life, always has been, always will be.
Sexuality in general was accepted for what it was, a good, healthy, and natural way of life until the 12 century (or thereabouts) when the church decided its priests were not exactly obeying the rules and needed to be put in line. The decision for celibacy was a conscious one of necessity, at least in the minds of the church leaders. Before that, even the popes had families, with wildly varied results, just as in the rest of society. The family lives of the early popes makes for great reading.
With the degree of success they had, the next step was to try and control the general populace. When simply making rules didn’t work, they created demonology. Maybe the fear of the “Incubus” and Succubus” would work. When that failed, for the next few hundred years, they turned to torture and physical punishment with the “Inquisition” and the witch hunts. It is interesting to note that there were a lot more witches than warlocks hunted down and burned. Women always did get the worst of it.
After the advent of romantic love in the Middle Ages, and more attention to the nuclear family, at least on the surface, you would think prostitution would be eliminated, it wasn’t. In the United States there was little effort in that direction until after the beginning of the 20th century.
Notorious places like the Barbary Coast in San Francisco and Chicago had its share of brothels and cat houses, but so did most towns of any size, and some country sides. It was, if not an accepted business, a quietly tolerated one. After the Great San Francisco earthquake of 1906 destroyed most of the Barbary Coast, it was never rebuilt, and acceptance ebbed. Prohibition finished it off in Chicago.
Probably the forces that brought us the failed effort of prohibition had a lot to do with the passing of anti-prostitution laws, driving the entire business underground. And as with all attempts to regulate social behavior with government regulation, it was a dismal failure with horrendous results.
The Baltimore Examiner on August 13th ran a story entitled “Who is Killing the Prostitutes”. Already 5 have been killed this year making a total of 26 over the past decade. A Task Force has been set up by the Mayor, good luck. This is not particular to Baltimore; the same scenario plays out daily across our country.
Add to this the transmission of STDs, especially AIDS, and you see what a hellish mess this brings to our society.
Of course, one of the first responses is “let’s get the Johns, they are the real criminals”.
I believe the real criminals are the weak-kneed legislators that made prostitution a crime in the beginning. No degree of law enforcement will ever make a dent, let alone curb the business. The efforts are futile and the manpower is needed elsewhere.
My answer is to legalize it, regulate it, and tax it. It is just a business after all. Develop zoning to accommodate it properly, require weekly medical examines, and protect the workers in the industry with OSHA rules. It is the only humane thing to do.
If your religious or social beliefs run counter to this, work to educate your family and friends, but mind your own business. Again, this is not an area that should be the federal government’s purview and thankfully there are no federal laws against it. Keep it that way.
Each locality obviously can pass laws and ordinances as the community sees fit, that is their right, but the public that supports such laws should be made aware of the cruel results of those actions.
I know all of the objections, but they just do not hold up to scrutiny in my opinion. I am however more than willing to discuss them, here or in a future article.
This is another example of government interfering with nature and trying to regulate social behavior, and as usual, it simply doesn’t work.
The best government is the one that hurts the people the least.
The Hammer
Copyright Crickard Publishing 2008. All rights Reserved
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
Men have a problem with sexual activity and if they have no way to get what is needed sexually then they will have prostate problems and mental problems.
Legal Prostitution will reduce the rape and the pedophile crimes in this country.
A vice sting costs you and I thousands of dollars to launch and prosecute. Let's dress a policewoman like a hooker and see if men will be willing to pay to screw her. Think so? Duh.
http://friendsofdanh.gather.com.
Our goal is to help you further your exposure and to support other gather members.
You give your litany of when prostitution became illicit, and it doesn’t seem to fit biblical history nor some of the reasons of I have heard for celibacy. But not being a scholar I will let those stand but questioned.
You acknowledge that people have reasons for discouraging prostitution and yet you don’ seem interested in addressing them. Aside from taxes I didn’t gather any real reasoning about the benefits to prostitution. You must admit that as soon as you tax something people will be working on ways to circumvent it (acting illegally). That seems to put the whole thing of legal/illegal back into play.
I am surprised you didn't more opening use the latest argument the college presidents are for lower drinking age, the only real appeal is that it is illicit.
You mentions STDs and how the prostitutes are the victims, doesn’t if fit that if they refrain from that role they would reduce their risk of disease much more.
I apologize, for the disjointedness of my remarks, this note is to remind you that because you believe something and say it doesn’t necessarily make it so.
I understand the reasons for discouraging it, and I agree with some of them. I just feel that like with a lot of forbidden things a large part of the appeal is the taboo.
The disease factor is a major concern, not only for the prostitutes but for the families and friends of the "Johns" be they female or male. Today (probably in the past) women are seeking out non-committed intimacy more and more.
STDs are going to go on exponentially to hundreds of people with infected sex.. One trip to an infected worker can be spread to literally hundreds of innocent people. I have seen this first hand with acquaintances. It is not a pretty picture.
I did not go into the moral reasons for discouraging it, because I do not believe that is a function of government, and too often people try to control morals through legislation. Our tax structure has many attempts within it to do just that.
I believe that morals are a function of social and religious discussion, and to be effective must be within those confines. They must be taught at home and in the churches, and groups such as the Scouts. By the time prostitution is a factor, it is way too late.
The college presidents and alcohol is a different situation, and quite frankly, I haven't made up my mind. I see both sides. Although the 18 years have a point, they have been sheltered so much that they are still children at that age (which I blame on society and will be writing about it). They should be adults and responsible, but we have coddled them so much, I don't think they are ready for that responsibility. If they are in the military, yes. You have to grow up really fast there. So maybe there shouldn't be a general rule.????
Of course, if no one went to a prostitute all discussion would be mute. but that isn't going to happen.
To understand biblical history, you have to know when the books were written, adapted and edited, and the effects of various translations, and you would have to go to a seminary for that. I did have a couple classes entitled "Law, Myth, and Ritual in the Old testament" and it was very eye-opening, It was at St. Mary's seminary in Baltimore. But the writing above is a condensation, all be it very brief, of other readings.
And, just for the record, I have never been to a prostitute and at this age have no interest or reason to do so, though I can sometimes understand the need.
For there to be a discussion it seems there needs to be some point of reasoning to discuss. Simply saying that something should be legalized is more to cutting off discussion.
I am no longer clear on having of laws if they are not to establish generally accepted standards of practice. I too will leave morals to the church, to individuals, and families. I hear much about “moral authority” and I have yet to have someone give me a definition or description, so I will leave morals out of a discussion of law (I have yet to see it applied).
If your reason were simply for taxes then you have a sheltered life. My limited experience has shown when a “vice” is legalized there is a whole regulatory and enforcement structure that must be established, none of which is free.
Simply saying that people partake of a vice should make it legitimate suggests that if more than a handful of people do something than it should be legalized, I think there are a lot of violent things and even many less aggressive things people do that shouldn’t be legal. Without knowing a bit more detail about why it should be legalized it is hard to discuss legalization.
Drinking seems to relate, it is legalized at two levels, when it is age appropriate (I presume in your consideration age would also be addressed), and there is a level of use and activity. I am not sure how either would be addressed.
With regard to the age of drink, as I recall there have been some studies that demonstrate that the human brain is still developing and that generally underdevelopment (into the early 20s) can noticeably effect the impulsive judgment.
If, in your case, prostitution were legal how would it have differentiated Spitzer from Edwards?
I fail to see what Spitzer or Edwards have to do with prostitution, other than Spitzer used a call girl, a rather expensive one. The issues there were public trust issues. Other than that, both affairs were family problems that needed to dealt with at home.
If I don't understand your questions, please enlighten me.
I think that laws/legislation addresses all of the points you feel are up for discussion. It seems that all laws are based on historical experiences. They are written to capture a generally agreed upon standard of practice. Those practices commonly developed to stabilize civil society.
“The issues there were public trust issues. Other than that, both affairs were family problems that needed to dealt with at home.” If the infidelity was a public trust issue then why shouldn’t it have an established standard so all will have a common point of reference? Or is that if infidelity were legitimized there wouldn’t be the public trust concern?
You say you prefer no legislation and yet readily admit by legitimatizing prostitution you would have to add new laws (zoning and health/sexual practices). If you have to add new laws then there will have to be added government enforcement of those laws so what is the benefit of legally sanctioning prostitution (since you have no interest in taxing it)?
I do not delude myself into thinking this would ever take place because we are discussing "sin" which is certainly more important to most people than the lives of prostitutes and their "johns", since they are "sinners" and they deserve what they get.
If I sound a little cynical, after spending 62 years here observing and reading, please forgive me. I don't hold out a whole lot of hope that people will start to care. It is somebody else's problem after all.
It is very unlikely that legisaltion will be changed if no case is made for the change. This has nothing to do with cyncism, it has to do with giving reason for change.
In the presidentia campaign one candidate is making a case for change without desribing what the change migth be, what it would take to make the change, and what will probalby be the results of the change. If anyone should be the cynic is it me and my belive that anything can be in politics can be change as long as you can give a reason for the change.
Bert, when did regulation and taxation become THE solution to anything?
The truth is that like the slavery and child labor market, the commodity here is not acting with free will. Prostitutes do not act as legal or economic free agents. The vast majority of them are under physcial duress, and that fact is not changed or influenced by "regulation" as anyone knows who is familiar with dominance of the Eastern European maifias in the "legal" European sex trade.
The basic element of prostitution, trading sex for money may seem to be a straight-forward economic exchange but even a cursory research into the industry quickly reveals a stark economic reality: the cash reward is RARELY sufficient to attract a willing participant.
This economic gap is filled with violence and addiction (almost alway both).
From a strict Libertarian approach, considering the actions and actors, the social policy of suppressing prostitution by law, makes far more sense than comprimising the Libertarian principles of regulating and taxing involuntary human behavior.
As long as it is illegal it will be slavery for the most part. Keeping things in the shadows is the main reason for this.
When it is legal, it can be a life choice, not a forced labor situation.
Under the current approach men and women are getting diseased, or dying and leading horrible existences, and I don't think this should be accepted or tolerated in a civilized society. Those who oppose it usually do so on "moral grounds", but where is the morality in this.
You simply can't pass laws to control human behavior. The church has tried for centuries and it has been an utter failure.
With an average price around $500, in cash, most customers are married men on business trips. Cash is withdrawn from ATM's, and show up as such on receipts.
Medical checkups are monthly, and some taxes are paid, even in Nevada.
I could not disagree with you more. The European experience is that prostitution, though legal, is for the most part still "forced labor" controlled by violent Eastern European mafias.
Society simply looks the other way and pretends this does not exist.
Sure, but right down the block are sordid "cattle-houses" where sex-trafficed girls are held against their will and violently forced to provide "services" they do not want to provide for a fee that they see little of.
All legalized prostitution will do is legitamize the high-end while making regulatory enforcement of the middle and low end far more difficult.
We have this problem right now. Much prostitution is run out of legal businesses such as "massage parlors" which are regulated but still practice sex-slavery.
The present situation is totally intolerable. Government and rules do not work.
The big cities, where it is illegal, have the same problems as the rest of the country.
Suppression means you have "less of" something rather than "none of" something.
If prostitution were legal, it would be far more difficult to suppress trafficking and sex slavery. Under current statutes the authorities have a freer hand to break up prostitution rings. If it were legal we would have to protect the rights of pimps to deny the rights of prostitutes.
We live in a weird imperfect world.
I suppose what bothers me the most Bert, is that you are actually advocating government regulation and rules. We know these things don't "work" either.
Do you actually think for one instant that a hooker with AIDS or any STD is going to quit working?
All they have to do is move to another city or across town and falsify their paper. This is what they do in Europe and it is a HUGE public health problem.
Frankly, anyone who makes their living off of $25 BJ's or even $4,000 full nights is not the kind of person who is going to give up even a shift because a doctor tells them to.
You make some very valid points.
I may have mis-stated some of my intents as to rules and regulations, zoning, health, etc., because. I want to simplify not make things more difficult I don't have any answers on this one, just a lot of questions.
Also, I really don't see where suppression is working at all. Maybe you're right, but I see nothing to prove it is the answer. I see disease and death.
Again, I only have questions, and I fear that unless sins are more left up to the church than to the government there may never be improvement. The government should not be in the sin business.
It seems to me that most of the objections to legalizing it is from the moralists, not the citizens concerned with the well being of those involved. Maybe that is a bit cynical, but that is what I feel.
I appreciate the honesty in saying you have no answers, just questions. That is my view too, although I will add that most of us have something else - our experience and observations.
I also appreciate your willingness to explore and discuss an interesting topic.
I notice you keep coming back to morality. Let me address that. But before I do, allow me to clear the air. I am not a religious person nor am I a believer, though I am a proponent of religion.
Religion is a mechanism by which society retains its lessons. Think of it like a notebook where society writes "Notes to self". Religion is cultural DNA. A way to retain and transmit painfully learned knowledge.
Let's look at morality, specifically the religious variety that is evidence in our current culture wars. It is not that old. Most of it only dates back to the reform movement of middle ninetieth century.
What we know as religious morality, did not start out as religion, rather it was the result of social movements that infused their morality into religion. These movements were working to abolish slavery, child labor and sexual exploitation of women that resulted from the horrid conditions of the early industrial revolution, potato famine and wars.
Religion is became the media that society used to transmit its ideas.
When you think about it, civilization has some difficult hurdles to over-come: 1) Humans are all born ignorant and 2) Half the population has an IQ under 100.
What other mechanism would society use to get the idea out that if you engage in prostitution, your risk syphilis (the AIDS of its day) and will die? How do you tell that to an eighteen year old male who is not that bright? How do you get him to avoid unacceptable risk?
Religion is how society has done things like that for the last six thousand years.
So before we start talking about "morality" and its media religion, we need to stop and think about all the mechanisms involved.
I really like reading your thoughtful comments.
When I speak of morality, I speak only of it being a factor in governing. Those who govern should be moral or they shouldn't be there.
It is my observation that too many want to push their concept of it on us through legislation. A prime example was former AG Ashcroft. The only concept of morality he observed was his, and he was bound and determined to force it on everyone else. That it in my opinion the definition of immorality.
Marx was right that religion is the opiate of the masses, and you are right that it does exert a certain control. I'm all for it unless I am forced to belong to it or to adhere to any specific set of beliefs.
I am a very spiritual person and I have my relation with God, which I very seldom talk about because it is very personal. The "business" of religion lost me 36 years ago.
I do not want to lead anyone's life, and I surely don't want them to control mine. That is the moral bottom line.
Most people agree with that -- but life is never that clean.
The way I see it - I pay 20% of my earnings in the form of Federal, State, County and Sales taxes to compensate for the poor moral choices of others.
That is one hell of a bill.
I give up my earnings because society has decided that it is intolerable to allow children to go hungry or addicts to freeze to the sidewalk.
Some people will insist that our social problems have skyrocketed because we protect people from the consequences of their actions. The trouble with this thinking is that the consequences most often fall on the wrong people. It is the child of the unwed mother who suffers most from lack of social support. It is the neighborhood who suffers from crime and addiction more than the criminals or addicts.
Social problems created by lousy moral choices will never be solved by creating more effective government, or by draconian social measures like the way the Cubans handle "social parasites". The only way to change social behavior is to change the public narrative of how to live a life, and there is no other social mechanism that I know of that can do this more effectively and consistently than religion. The only one that comes close is government - and that is far scarier than religion.
Bert, you tend to see religion as spiritual. I see it as practival -- messy but practical.
We see religion very differently --
I do not see religion in a spiritual light. I see it as a psychological and social mechanism, created by the evolution of the human mind.
I see AG Ashcroft channeling the social opinions of a majority of Americans into politics and decision making. To me that is the very essence of democracy. It is how society SHOULD work.
If AG Ashcroft over-reaches (which he and the Bush Administration did) they lose popular support and political power. I couldn't think of a more perfect scenario for a political system functioning as it should.
It may have been bad politics on Ashcroft and Bush's part but it was perfect democracy.
Bert, correct me if I am wrong but both you and I tend to favor a more Libertarian view of the world. Our challenge is not to change law, the constitution, nor even politics. Our challenge is to change culture. It is to find Libertarian solutions for common every day problems.......like how to stop teens from driving drunk or getting knocked-up, and what to do when we fail.
If the Libertarian philosophy becomes the cipher for finding practical solutions, it will in time find its way into what people believe – in a sense, into religion.
You cited Marx's comment about religion. Can you see the irony of that statement? Marxism, for a time, was the world's largest most virulent religion. Marxism succeeded because, again for a time, it seemed to answer society’s needs.
Human beings are not rational creatures; they rely on religion and believe to function effectively. The challenge is to compete with other social forces to gain control of that imprint.
I have tried to do my best over the last 40 years to effect any kind of change when I woke up to the facts of life, but it has been hard. I took a few years off, because I got tired of putting my cape on and getting shot out of the sky.
I see religion as a necessity for the mental survival of most people. I simply accept my relationship with the Universe and go on about my business, trying not to invade anyone else's space. I guess that does make me a Libertarian.
I wish you paid 20% in taxes. Try figuring it again and you will come closer to 80%.
Maybe if people were allowed to keep a modicum of their earnings, that would be a moot point.
The 20% figure is what I calculate I pay for other people's poor choices. The rest goes for government greed and inefficiency. :)