Was reading one of the (many) abortion threads and got thinking about this.
Why is it accepted that the government can legislate what a woman does with her own body? If someone wants to accept money for sex then surely it’s her (or his I guess) own prerogative? Similarly for illegal drugs - if someone chooses to take them and accept the consequences why should anyone else be involved in that decision. I can see the argument that some drugs make people more likely to commit a crime, but then the illegal part of that should still be the crime itself, no?
If you mean, is it constitutional for the feds to do it? The answer is, “of course not”
If you mean, can a state pass pretty much any law they want, assuming it doesn’t violate the federal constitution? Pretty much.
I agree with you that I don’t buy that slippery slope stuff - drugs = crime, therefore they need to go. You could make the same argument about drinking, about a bunch of things. How can anyone reasonably draw the line?
The founders knew you couldn’t, which is why they left it to the governments closest to the people to decide this stuff.
The argument against both is that the total social cost of prostitution or drugs is much greater than the corresponding loss of liberty. It isn’t really much more complicated than that; the idea is that your right to do as you please is trumped by the overwhelming social cost of the behaviour.
To use a somewhat less dramatic (but still controversial to some people) example, why should the law require you to wear a selt belt? It’s your body, right? If you want to take a chance of torpedoing out your windshield or being smushed by the steering column that’s your choice. Seat belt laws are a restriction on liberty. However, as a society we have decided the benefits of preventing death and injury outweigh the relatively minor effect on our freedom.
Now, with respect to drugs and prostitution you have some pretty interesting arguments that the pros of those laws DON’T outweight the cons. Indeed, in the case of drug laws there is some evidence the laws do more harm that the drugs themselves. However. the underlying principle of reducing societal harm is there, even if your position is that it’s misguided.
I’m not American so the legalities (which are very much location based) aren’t as important to me so much as the actual thinking behind it. In the vast majority of countries prostitution is illegal - is it just a kneejerk response to the fact that people find it distasteful? Or is there a more reasoned argument for legislating what a woman (or man!) can and cannot do despite it not hurting other people.
E.T.A
I guess my question is, where do people think that the line is between reduction of social harm and overriding someones autonomy over their own body?
I think free speech, free assembly and due process are human rights. I’m not convinced that prostitution, drug abuse, disturbing the peace and creating public nuisances are.
Whether the state’s laws with regards to drugs or prostitution are sensible is another matter. With respect to the US, I would advocate a harm reduction approach.
I think it has a lot to do with the fact that while prostitution in theory seems to be about a woman’s control of her own body, in practice it has a long history of women being exploited and abused: for every self-actualized $5000/night call girl out there, you have many, many strung-out teenagers living lives of quiet desperation and turning their income over to a “boyfriend”.
Now, the obvious solution is to make the exploitative type illegal and not the self-actualized type. And in practice, that’s kind of what we do: expensive call girls don’t get busted like teenager on street corners. Legally, as a society we seem to have decided that it’s too much trouble to try to sort out which is baby and which is bathwater, since the non-exploitative type is such a tiny fraction of the overall practice, and its better to be unfair to the handful of women who could be happy prostitutes than to allow the much larger portion of vulnerable women be abused.
It’s like drinking ages. Sure, some underage kids would be perfectly fine to drink, and some really aren’t mature enough to drink even when it’s legal. But its impossible to test each individual, so we make a blanket law that leans towards the more cautious position.
From a legal standpoint, the answer is definitely yes. It’s the doctrine of police power - the government has the authority to uphold social standards of morality on individuals.
In the US, this is not unrestricted. See Lawrence. If the SCOTUS was being consistent, anti-prostitution laws would be unconstitutional. But they aren’t being consistent.
I think the idea is prostitution is assumed to be never a career by choice, by allowing it to be legal you’re aiding the exploitation of woman unable to escape a horrible situation.
On the other hand the government exists to preserve your liberty and safety, so as long as you aren’t hurting or infringing on others you should damn well be able to do whatever you want.
I absolutely agree that the “pimping” style of prostitution is disgusting. But I think that the illegality of prostitution is what has reduced it to that. (If we ban guns then only criminals will have guns )
But if it was legal and without the current stigma, then I wonder how different it would be? Much as I hate the idea of women being bought and sold, I can’t really get on board with making it an offense for a woman to accept money for sex if she’s willing.
Also, I think the exploitation of women aspect should really be considered a different crime. Prostitution shouldn’t be illegal, but maybe there should be a term similar to “statutory rape” for the women being used as cash cows for pimps. (In some cases, no doubt, the standard definition of rape would cover it unfortunately )
My somewhat cynical view is that the primary purposes of prostitution being illegal is to one, produce the illusion it doesn’t exist - you can still sell sex for profit, you just have to pretend you aren’t. And two, raising the price of sex by making it scarcer; the same logic that’s behind cutting off a girl’s clitoris so she won’t enjoy sex.
Ah yes, the nefarious gang of super pimps running the world are making prostitution illegal to drive up prices. Just like those car manufacturers suppressing electric cars so oil prices will remain high.
No, women in general. The anti-sex crusaders of all varieties have always been heavily female. Just like the people who sexually mutilate women to destroy their ability to destroy their ability to enjoy sex are also mostly women.
Can you explain how you think making it illegal is what makes it exploitative? I really don’t have a dog in this fight, but the analogy to guns doesn’t really hold for me. Even if legal prostitution were available, pimps are going to be willing to sell blow jobs from the girls they control more cheaply than free-choosing women. The market will still be dominated by exploited women because they are cheaper, and they will be harder to detect if they are masked by legal prostitution.
I am not totally unsympathetic to your point of view in theory: I just don’t know how to make it work in practice, and since we are very aware of just how disgusting and exploitative prostitution can be, I think we have to be very cautious of anything that could encourage those aspects.
I have no facts to back this up so take it as the rantings of just one dummy…
First I believe drugs and prostitution are completely different.
Some drugs are so inherently dangerous that they should be illegal.
Prostitution is inherently dangerous because it’s illegal. I personally find it distasteful but that’s no reason to ban it. I honestly believe that legalizing prostitution and providing the means to make it safe are the answer. These should include rules on an equitable split between the prostitute and the “house” or whatever you call it, as well as mandatory STD screenings for ALL participants, and (I know someone will crucify me for this) mental health screening for prostitutes to ensure they are capable of making this choice AND for johns to ensure they pose no threat.
Honestly I agree, I wouldn’t particularly call myself pro prostitution either. The guns analogy was mainly a joke, rather than a serious point.
I think legal prostitution would reduce exploitation simply by making it easier for people to get help from police without fear of prosecution. You can’t really seek help from being beaten up by your pimp for not handing over your illegally obtained money.
I disagree with this for the same reasons, it’s still an intrusion into personal autonomy.
)
)