Undoubtedly there’s someone in the United States who is desperate enough to work for four dollars an hour. Nonetheless the government does not allow anyone to work for four dollars an hour. Minimum wage laws protect people who are in desperate financial circumstances by not allowing anyone to hire them for a pittance. Likewise workplace safety laws protect people who are desperate to take extremely dangerous jobs. And it the same manner, laws against prostitution protect those who are financially desperate enough that they might turn to prostitution.
The best approach is for a country to have both a strong social safety net and a ban on prostitution, thus providing two layers of protection against women being exploited as prostitutes. Similarly the best way to prevent deaths from mines collapses is to ban the most dangerous types of mining of have a system of safety inspections, but the absence of one type of protection does not mean that a nation should not implement the other type.
Certainly true. It’s an argument Kennedy has made before. My point was simply that his discussion of sexual intimacy makes clear that there aren’t the societal interests at stake that there would be in, for example, prostitution.
I don’t know. I think it’s a valid point that sex within a relationship should be protected while a commercial transaction like prostitution can be regulated.
It’s admittedly headed off in that direction but I felt the OP
was asking about the legal basis for the government’s power to regulate prostitution.
I recently posted the following in a different thread, and I feel a lot of it may be of interest to the debaters. The statements I made were based on information given to me my the police and based on my personal observations. I realize this is not the hard statistics that work best in Great Debates, but hard statistics can be hard to find in an illegal industry.
When I lived in DC, I volunteered for HIPS, Helping Individual Prostitutes Survive. The focus was on streetwalkers, who generally are desperate people who don’t have a ton of options available to them. We did things like give them condoms, let them know where they could get free STD testing and other healthcare, put them in contact with homeless shelters and battered women’s shelters, help them get their kids on food assistance, etc. We had a lot of contact with the DC police, although we did not work for them. Based on those experiences, I can make the following pertinent statements.
-
If you think trying to help prostitutes is only about helping women, you’re completely wrong. More than 1/3 of the streetwalkers were men. Half of the men were cross dressers or transgendered, the other half just openly worked as men. Their clients were also men (in case you’re wondering). Apparently DC has a slightly higher than average rate of openly male streetwalkers when compared to other American cities.
-
Streetwalking is not the most common form of prostitution, and most prostitutes do not have pimps. According to the DC police, most prostitutes advertised on the internet, or worked as “bar girls.” Bar girls would flirt with men in a bar, then offer to leave with the men and seal the deal in exchange for cash. These types of prostitutes rarely had pimps. There were a few brothels and call girl services, but these were not common. Many of the streetwalkers had pimps, but certainly not all of them. Some of the prostitutes complained about their pimps, but the far more common complaint was that people tried to rob them. The male prostitutes also suffered a lot of random attacks, since some people’s version of a good time was to beat up a male prostitute.
-
The version of a pimp from movies or music, in which the pimp makes a lot of money and has a “stable of hos,” is almost never realistic. Most pimps are desperately poor individuals themselves, who essentially live off their girlfriend who happens to be a prostitute. And yes, they tend to be exceptionally scummy individuals, and most them are violent towards the prostitutes they extort or mooch from. Of course the wheel always keeps spinning, and many pimps who violently extort prostitutes are themselves subsequently extorted by other, tougher criminals.
-
The police do arrest pimps, although rarely for some sort of direction of harlotry charge, which are difficult to prove. Most of them get arrested for assault or extortion. Someone who is pimping out underage girls will usually be charged with statutory rape or child molestation (very serious crimes). Depending on the exact circumstances they will sometimes be prosecuted with kidnapping, or under some old “white slavery” laws which involve transporting a female for the purposes of prostitution.
Prostitution is legal in Nevada, but heavily regulated. I think their version of legalized prostitution is okay, but it doesn’t really “solve the problem” of illegal prostitution, because from what I gather, they have just as many illegal prostitutes as anywhere else.
I don’t see banning prostitution as a “restriction on a womans use of her own body”. Sex isn’t illegal; taking money for it is. The “use of her own body” part isn’t what’s restricted.
Prostitution of the street-walking sort is a public nuisance and its criminality is therefore quite justified IMO. I’m less sure when it comes to more discreet forms of prostitution.
The perception of sex workers as vectors of disease has a lot to do with it. A lot of the red light districts in the US were shut down by the feds after World War 1, particularly those near military bases, because of these fears. See Foucault’s History of Sexuality and also this book.
Nowadays there’s a lot more recognition that criminalisation itself promotes the spread of disease, for example, by discouraging sex workers from carrying condoms since they are often used by police as evidence of prostitution (policies of this sort are amazingly widespread). In Sweden since buying sex was outlawed in 1999, a common complaint of street sex workers is that their “normal” customers have gone elsewhere due to fear of arrest, but the ones who demand unsafe sex are still around and they (the sex workers) feel more pressure to concede because their incomes have decreased and so they have a greater need for the money.
In New Zealand condom use in commercial sex is mandated by law and this will be enforced if the sex worker presses charges. I suspect you are unlikely to see that happening where prostitution is illegal.
Actually I’m really most interested in the divide in thinking between “Abortion should be allowed because otherwise you’re removing a woman’s right to do whatever she wants with her own body” and “Prostitution should not be allowed because the social cost outweighs the personal freedom”
The specific laws as such vary from country to country anyway, it’s just the mindset I’m wondering about.
(Although obviously, I’m not queen of the thread or anything, people can discuss whatever they want 
)
The DC stats are interesting. I’m very suspicious of all these complaints that most prostitutes are sex slaves imported by organized gangs, because people who dislike prostitution have a long history of using this tactic to make it appear all prostitutes are hapless victims of criminals, thus outlawing prostitution is a way of going after the criminals behind the prostitutes. You can still see stuff like this all over broadcast media. I don’t really KNOW what the facts are, I’m just real damn suspicious of their purveyors, based on their past histories.
Arguably your analogy of mine safety would mean that for prostitution the best approach is for a country to have a strong social safety net, (so that those who don’t want to participate aren’t forced into it), and enforce safe working conditions (so that those who do want to participate are as safe and supported as is possible), and then let those who wish to mine get on with mining.
One factor is that criminalizing prostitution doesn’t seek to prevent anyone from doing anything with their own body. It simply prevents that person from charging for it in a specific way.
Is that reasoning the view held by most who believe abortion should be legal? A lot of pro-choice propaganda talks about “back-alley abortions” – the premise being that people are going to do it anyway, so it should remain legal so it can be regulated and kept (relatively) safe. It’s not just about letting women do what they want. Abortion is a pretty complex issue.
Of course it’s an unfair restriction.
So having sex to barter for housing, transportation, day care, or chickens would be OK so long as no cash is exchanged?
It’s probably legal under most prostitution laws, and certainly wouldn’t be prosecuted. If I have sex with a man in exchange for him paying my rent and other bills, how could someone on the outside distinguish that situation from a relationship?
A question just popped in my mind, how do porn movies/cites get around the fact that they are paying for people to have sex?
I’m not sure why we should have a policy of preventing unskilled people from making more money than they would usually get. This argument seems about as valid as stating that they shouldn’t be allowed to get an education because then they would find better paying jobs too.
As for prostitution being unproductive : it isn’t. It’s providing a service that people want, which is what most jobs amount to nowodays. You could equally argue that casinos shouldn’t be allowed because gambling isn’t a productive activity, movie directors, game designers and singers be arrested because watching movies, listening to music or playing games isn’t productive, etc…
There might be good arguments against legalizing prostitution, but those two definitely aren’t.
What’s not “honest” about being a prostitute?
I dunno, if you can legally pay me to have sex in a porn film, but removing the director and camera man makes it magically illegal then I think that it’s a bit *too *specific to be justifiable.