# Subsidized prostitution **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 25, 2009, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573 "2009-12-25T19:12:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2009, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573/1 "2009-12-25T19:12:43Z")
Progressives are much concerned with inequality of wealth, yet have little concern for inequality of social status, which arguably more important for happiness. One facet of this is inequality in access to sexual partners: there is a huge disparity between the number and quality of sexual partners of attractive vs. ugly women, and of high-status vs. loserly men. To be logically consistent, progressives should support policies to reduce sexual inequality, as long as they aren’t too coercive (no more than taxation is coercive). Fortunately, we already have people who don’t have to be coerced to provide sex for a price - these are called prostitutes. Legalizing and subsidizing prostitution would be a highly “sexually progressive” policy - it would benefit low-status men and women much more than high-status men and women. (It would also be lovely, and perfectly consistent with other strains of progressive thought, to levy a tax to pay for this that falls entirely on the beautiful and charming. Or to establish a Sex Stamps/Prostit-aid Bureau to coerce them into providing services to deserving citizens at below-“market” rates. After all, they happen to be blessed with gifts that nature hasn’t granted everyone. And their gifts wouldn’t be worth anything if society hadn’t provided them with an opportunity to make use of them. But one step at a time; let’s not get ahead of ourselves here.) ---
**Author:** ![Amp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Amp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amp)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2009, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573/2 "2009-12-25T19:20:01Z")
Lay off the eggnog. You’ve had enough. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2009, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573/3 "2009-12-25T19:36:19Z")
Instead of a chicken in every pot, we could have a hooker and a dime bag of pot… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2009, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573/4 "2009-12-25T19:40:54Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Progressives are much concerned with inequality of wealth, yet have little concern for inequality of social status, which arguably more important for happiness. Progressives don’t think everyone should be equal in every way. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2009, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573/5 "2009-12-25T19:47:52Z")
Conservatives are against premarital sex. They are really against poor people. To be logically consistent, all poor, unmarried people should have their genitals removed. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2009, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573/6 "2009-12-25T20:07:39Z")
Of course everyone would be dead set against this in _public_, but with the secret ballot and all, I foresee a landslide victory for the “free hookers” candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2009, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573/7 "2009-12-25T20:19:29Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > Of course everyone would be dead set against this in _public_, but with the secret ballot and all, I foresee a landslide victory for the “free hookers” candidate. Yeah, 'cause they’d all be thinking of Julia Roberts in _Pretty Woman_. Then they’d open the door and see their government issued toothless crack whore. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573/8 "2009-12-25T20:22:04Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Progressives are much concerned with inequality of wealth No they aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573/9 "2009-12-25T20:23:11Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Fortunately, we already have people who don’t have to be coerced to provide sex for a price - these are called prostitutes. Nearly all prostitutes are coerced, or addicted. This is why in countries where prostitution is legalized, the vast majority of prostitutes continue to work illegally (not pay taxes, not register, not go in for medical screenings, etc.) And those who do work as a prostitute are nearly all regularly beaten, raped, and/or forced to become addicted to something. Legalizing prostitution has historically and consistently increased the amount of illegal, unsafe, detrimental prostitution taking place. Illegalizing it has been shown to be effective at reducing all of this. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573/10 "2009-12-25T21:11:34Z")
IMHO, the OP falls under the “too stupid for serious discussion” catergory. At best, it is a segway into a book report on Harrison Bergeron. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Nearly all prostitutes are coerced, or addicted. This is why in countries where prostitution is legalized, the vast majority of prostitutes continue to work illegally (not pay taxes, not register, not go in for medical screenings, etc.) And those who do work as a prostitute are nearly all regularly beaten, raped, and/or forced to become addicted to something. > > Legalizing prostitution has historically and consistently increased the amount of illegal, unsafe, detrimental prostitution taking place. Illegalizing it has been shown to be effective at reducing all of this. Do you have any cite for this? Because that is not my impression of how things are in Amsterdam. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573/11 "2009-12-25T21:30:10Z")
Both income inequality and social status inequality are impacted by involuntary factors such as upbringing and genetics. So what’s the distinction? Is there a legitimate philosophical difference, or does it just come down to what groups we like (the deserving poor) and don’t like (the undeserving ugly)? Prof. Hanson [has more](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/explaining-unequal-inequality-aversion.html): > [@](#): > > My interests starts mainly from being puzzled by what kinds of inequality bother people, and what kinds do not. In much of social science, _gender, race/ethnicity, and class_ are such overwhelming issues that someone like the political scientist blogger Paul Gowder states his positions on his about page. And most discussion of these “sensitive” categories is about various associated unequal and presumed unfair outcomes. Policy discussions are often overwhelmed by concern for how policies may differentially effect sensitive categories. And intellectuals face enormous social retribution should they ever be seen as speaking generally and negatively about a presumed unfairly maligned sensitive group. > > Yet other “insensitive” categories are associated with huge inequalities, which few folks seem interested in talking about, much less considering how policy might influence. There is no social pressure whatsoever against maligning these groups. Especially striking are inequalities in attractiveness as a friend, lover, etc. not mediated by sensitive categories. These factors include\* physical appearance, vigor, charisma, personality, height, etc. \* Folks are well aware such inequalities exist, but have little concern about them, and no interest in policies to reduce them. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2009, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573/12 "2009-12-25T21:44:48Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Both income inequality and social status inequality are impacted by involuntary factors such as upbringing and genetics. So what’s the distinction? Is there a legitimate philosophical difference, or does it just come down to what groups we like (the deserving poor) and don’t like (the undeserving ugly)? It has to do with the fact that you can’t legislate social status or measure it quantitatively, but can redistribute money and measure it quantitatively. They are quite different things. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2009, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573/13 "2009-12-25T22:06:25Z")
Of course, in any decent socialized healthcare system access to a minimum level of sex is fundamental. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2009, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573/14 "2009-12-25T22:07:55Z")
Come, **athelas**! :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2009, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573/15 "2009-12-25T22:10:50Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > IMHO, the OP falls under the “too stupid for serious discussion” catergory. At best, it is a segway into a book report on Harrison Bergeron. [Segway](http://www.segway.com/) [Segue](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/segue) Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2009, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573/16 "2009-12-25T22:53:46Z")
Progressives’ concern is about inequality of opportunity and access to wealth, and to upward social mobility, not to “inequality of wealth,” _per se_. That’s just a typical, Limbaugh-stylke strawman. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2009, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573/17 "2009-12-25T23:15:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Progressives’ concern is about inequality of opportunity and access to wealth, and to upward social mobility, not to “inequality of wealth,” _per se_. Well; to nitpick slightly I do know a fair number who get concerned over the real extremes in inequality of wealth ( including me ). But you don’t need to get to the point where you light cigars with thousand dollar bills to pay for your own prostitutes. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2009, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573/18 "2009-12-25T23:45:53Z")
**athelas** - Nobody cares about trying to reduce inequalities in physical appearance, vigor, charisma, personality, height, etc. because, quite simply, you can’t. What policies would you enact to make someone more attractive? Or more charismatic and personable? Or taller? People are born with a certain set of tools and attributes and it is up to them to use them to the best of their ability. What people get upset about is when the system prevents them from competing for reasons that are irrelevant to what they are competing for. For example, preventing qualified students from attending college because of their skin color. > [@Malacandra](#): > > [Segway](http://www.segway.com/) > > [Segue](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/segue) > > Carry on. Nobody likes a wordsmith. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2009, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573/19 "2009-12-25T23:47:39Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No they aren’t. To elaborate, it’s more typical for a liberal (who has done any thinking) to be concerned about inequality of opportunity, rather than inequality of wealth. To the OP, what do you mean by saying equality of “social status” is more conducive to happiness than equality of wealth? What would it mean for people to share the same “social status” with everyone else? Why would it make people happy? ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573/20 "2009-12-25T23:58:01Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Progressives are much concerned with inequality of wealth, yet have little concern for inequality of social status, which arguably more important for happiness. One facet of this is inequality in access to sexual partners: there is a huge disparity between the number and quality of sexual partners of attractive vs. ugly women, and of high-status vs. loserly men. To be logically consistent, progressives should support policies to reduce sexual inequality, as long as they aren’t too coercive (no more than taxation is coercive). I can’t see how this would possibly work, as the perception of valued sexual access depends on its availability, and availability would be a function of cost. If your government cheesecake is affordable enough for everyone to have a slice, then you don’t possess sexual access of any value. Conversely, if you price it high enough to keep it exclusive, then by nature this fails the progressive goal. I’m not against legalized and regulated prostitution for other socially progressive reasons… I just don’t think it addresses social status at all. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subsidized-prostitution/522573.md?page=2)