Pride-Swallowing Spitzer Stumbles On The Case for Legalizing Prostitution

Since a lot of prostitutes are forced into prostitution through human traffiking, by making it illegal, they hope to deter human traffikers.

If you would bother to do your homework you would realize that 90% and upwards of prostitutes have been mentally and/or physically and/or sexually abused as children. Secondly 90% and upwards are the victim of human traficking as stated above. Thirdly the idea that legalizing it somehow makes it easier to control or oversee has already been proven false in The Netherlands. Prostitutes there fit the same categories as stated above scientific research has shown.

So it seems a bit distastefull to allow the traficking and exploitation of defenseless, traumatized, socioeconomic depraved women in order to satisfy male sexual appetite.Same goes for porn really.

 Men oughta just grow up and wank off if they need to get off or find a willing woman to give it up on a voluntary basis. People aren't objects, people are human beings. It's about basic decency, intelectually and spiritually.  

There is a reason why Moses came back w/ 10 Commandments and one of them was DO NOT CHEAT ON YOUR SPOUSE!

Well dying is natural, and can be done somewhat painlessly.  So lets legalize murder just beuase it will happen inevitably.

When our children are born, their minds are a clean slate.  What do you want to teach them from such a young age?

Men and Women of power tend to take the law in their hands and claim they represent us, well we all know that is not true!  We need to remember that we have power in our democratic country and need to have our voices heard.

I really feel sorry for the 3 daughters, they must be going through hell!

Young Daniel Koffler is to be credited with yet another mauling upon common sense and good argument. It is nearly impossible  to open people's eyes to either reasoned debate or the element of right and wrong if they prefer to keep them shut with self-inflicted ideology.

Laws against prostitution are as old as America itself and rooted in the same foundational precepts of  all good law, namely, such laws protect citizens and add to our society.  It would be unthinkable that anyone would actually disparage such a law--even 30 years ago.  Note that things are changing so quickly that here we have on a Jewish site, people who say they simply have no idea why prostitution should be illegal and wish it could be legal tomorrow.  Anyone interested in intellectual honesty would be quick in overturning over 200 years of precedent to argue forcefully for the benefits of such a change.  Typically, no hint from Daniel.

Ironically, as this case has demonstrated, America is in trouble by failing to enforce the laws which are on the books since prostitution is only partly enforced--leaving half of its social ills under the radar screen but still apparent. Prostitution is illegal, in part, because we as a society wish to enhance women and protect marriage and family life. Such laws are essential and exist because they have been demanded.  If I was wrong, there would be millions of people waiting to admit that they want the benefits of this supposedly unfairly prohibited activity.  Nope, instead, this is a case like abortion where the proponents want it to be legal and rare--an impossible contortion where people's lives are ruined under a banner of freedom that only makes  mockery of real freedom.  Ipso facto, legalizing prostitution will mean more prostitution.  If a small number of people want this--the overwhelming majority do not and it is the job of our nation to side with the decent against the indecent.  This is why prostitution is illicit and these kinds of sex acts are exactly the opposite described by Daniel.

Daniel's punchline is therefore a case study in "writers gone wild."  He states that:  there is no good reason anyone should go to jail for paying for
something totally natural and healthy, that would be perfectly legal to give away for free. Sex in a marital context is both natural and healthy--it is illegal because it is neither.  In many many instances, what is legal in one context is illegal in another.  He evokes the silly syllogism that says if selling is legal and sex is legal, then selling sex must also be legal.  Nope.  Drugs are legal, selling drugs must be legal--no.  Driving is legal, driving 60 mph is legal, then driving 60 mph is legal--no-- not if the limit is 20 mph.  He then treats us a link to George Carlin's opinion as if a potty-mouth drug addict is a respected source of opinion.  This is not even sane and ignores evidence and argument.

The most frustrating part of all of this is how blind people are to the reality.  Prostitution is horrible for thousands of women who work as hookers and ruins thousands of marriages and the lives of men who get sucked into the enterprise.  Liberals are so quick to look at an innocent marketplace advantage and scream bloody murder that there must be a law to make things equivalent.  They see a truck like mine that gets 7 mpg and want to tax it to death for their moral purposes against my legitimate needs and freedom.  And yet, they look at societal decay of prostitution and they see no evil--they have so little imagination to understand the consequences of turning strip joints into sex shops by legalizing prostitution.  The suggestion that this is a victimless crime is so removed from the devastation I can't believe the foolishness.

Greater enforcement of the laws will mean that the decent women and families will not see the sex trade in their neighborhoods and their daughters will be less likely to grow up seeking employment in such a way.  And yes, laying bricks is honest decent work--seducing a man into sexual sin would be a bit different--good grief. 

The dream of a world in which one's daughter can legally sell sex acts with hundreds of men and call that healthy and natural is one that exists for only a tiny minority.  For everyone else, it is a nightmare.

David, seeing as how willing you are to discard the issue of principles or rights in favor of utilitarianism and protectionism, why don't you go ahead and cite me one single instance of where the effects of a social or personal ill were reversed through the kind of stigmatization that can only be achieved through legal mandate. 

Anonymous commenter "Very duh" speaks of a high rate of abused children going into prostitution. Is this an example of some kind of circuitous reasoning that supposes that if prostitution didn't exist then they wouldn't have been abused?   

Abused children are going to grow up needing jobs too!

That's right, Craig. And if the argument is that prostitution reduces intimate encounters with the opposite sex to a degrading financial transaction, then is there any better way for those children to later regain a sense of control over the sex that abused them than by reducing their clients to nothing more than that?

Erhmmmm stop ASSuming things and putting words in my mouth. Obviously I dont believe that making prostitution illegal will stop child abuse. What does one thing have to do with the other? I am stating that prostitution equals sexual slavery and that most people in that industry need lots of good natured help from society. Abused kids need guidance and help to overcome their trauma. They dont need people ready to throw them into more hell as vulnerable teens (average age of first time prostitute worldwide is 15).

Moral relativism scares the crap out of me. People are not market place goods or utilities. No child grows up with the hope of becoming a hooker some day. Would most sane men want their mother, daughter or wife being a hooker? Daddy little girl strutting the streets in fishnets?

Move to The Netherlands if you want. Be a part of that society. I lived there and found no place more devoid of soul.  

Koffler wrote: Legalization won't come until we get past the unstated, unargued
assumption that prostitution is for some reason icky, which rests on
the idea that sex itself is icky, which, in turn, rests on ages of
cultural discomfort with female sexuality.

Daniel, with all due respect, prostitution is icky - and I say this as a guy who loves sex and is not at all uncomfortable with female sexuality. You seem to have some kind of idealized perception of what prostitution is - characterizing it as a simple and benign transaction where one consenting adult cheerfully exchanges money for the services of another equally cheerful consenting adult. Even if one were to exclude cases of human trafficking which I am assuming any decent person is opposed to, even conventional escort service type prostitution, with it's well groomed women and discrete encounters is indeed icky. And those crack/heroin addicted street walkers in Fair Haven that charge $20 for head, you know the ones I'm talking about - very, very icky. Unless you're broke or something.

You graduated from Yale in 2006? So you're a little pisher, probably grew up in a nice house in the suburbs somewhere - there's nothing wrong with that at all. Really. But you trot out your high fallutin' theories in a way that demonstrates, to your credit and to the credit of those that raised you, a certain sheltered perspective that is ignorant of the realities, the very icky realities, of the sex trade.

You've got the extreme poverty, high incidences of rape and violence, severe drug addictions and rampant disease - but you can read about that anywhere - even at Yale. From personal experience, I can tell you that each and every sex trade worker I ever spoke to expressed nothing but utter contempt for her clients. They described encounters whereby for the most part, the scenario was not a slow, languorous and erotic coupling, but rather rushed transactions whose sole purpose was to get the client off as quickly as possible and get out - with the cash. The men in this typical scenario, were only too happy to oblige once they came. As Charlie Sheen once noted "I don't pay them for the sex, I pay them to leave." That doesn't sound very sexy does it? It sounds icky.

Oh those poor delusional saps! You should check out the message boards where "hobbyists" congregate. They try to characterize their encounters as a kind of genteel and sophisticated hobby where connoisseurs of sexuality and sexual expression keep company with intriguing courtesans. Is it any wonder that the latest technique to treat men who are addicted to prostitutes is to prescribe Prozac and other anti-depressants? Noo, of course it's no surprise! These guys are depressed losers!

I'll tell you what, I'll agree to legalize prostitution if you successfully convince either your sister, mother or favorite cousin to become a whore. Justify legalization any way you like but please, throw out that Pretty Woman DVD and understand that prostitution is about the ickiest thing two people in an otherwise civilized society can engage in.

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

Thanks Jewlicious for your response but Daniel will not respond.  Almost no one who writes the indefensible headlined entries responds on this blog since their ideas lack merit and cannot be defended.

If America legalizes prostitution, it will be a very different a much coarser country and even though we are on a downward slope--we are not there yet. I liked your quip about putting aside the "Pretty Woman" dvd and you bring up the notion concerning how often prostitution is glamourized in the movies and on TV.

Daniel has establish the standard for prostitution as "HEALTHY AND NATURAL" and this is so off the mark it is astonishing.  His point was that sex in the eyes of the opponents of prostitution  is "icky" and this has nothing to do with the topic.  He figures that since sex between a husband and wife is healthy and natural, all sex is healthy and natural.  He makes this kind of mistake but would never make the mistake that because it is moral to kill an ememy in a context of war, it is moral to kill a random person on the street.  

I made a similar point in my entry concerning the faulty moral compass of those who pen the subject entries on this blog. If they are sincere about what they believe, they automatically wish to have more of it--this is what a moral test involves.  If prostitution is healthy and natural--it must be recommended for anyone inclined who wants be partake in something healthy and natural--a bit like pomegranate juice only with a better kick, right?  I don't expect Daniel would encourage his daughter to be a whore but in the same way radical college professors tell their female students to consider being a stripper and stripping is a legal activity, surely many would also encourage them to be prostitutes if Daniel's wish was reality.  Without societal shame, many young women could be tempted to earn more money and prostitute themselves.  

Must we be forced to spell out to Daniel why having sex with hundreds of anonymous people is different than a construction worker laying hundreds of bricks?

It is just way too obvious. 

Daniel: Just for the record - you stated that "Spitzer deserves the maximum penalty." However, it's not a crime to be a hypocrite. Furthermore, you also noted that Spitzer's "career is over, thanks to a double-whammy of acquiring the services of prostitutes and paying for them with campaign funds." Correct me if I am mistaken but the source you cited makes no mention of any admission by Spitzer that he used campaign funds for the purpose of hiring a prostitute, merely that authorities are investigating that possibility. This flies in the face of your celebratory declaration of Spitzer's absolute guilt in that regard. Don't y'all have editors?

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

All right! All right! Prostitution's icky. I get it. Now can we make Brussels sprouts illegal?

Surely virtue is as meaningful when it is enforced by the state as good taste is when it is decreed as such by the state.

Freedom Fries are good. 

Along the same lines:

"Pigs are filthy animals"

"Yeah but bacon tastes good. Pork chops taste good."

"Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know because I'd never eat the filthy motherf*%$@!s"

Governor Spitzer, are you going to make me eat a sewer rat?

Clearly you've never had anyone make you good Brussels sprouts. My Mom makes Brussels sprouts and they are very yummy. Very yummy indeed. 

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

have you read this article? apperently, some escorts also provide defecation services.

Jewlicious - Yes prostitution is icky, but does that mean it should be illegal?  I don't gamble, and I think gambling is stupid (and icky in its own way), but I wouldn't suggest making it illegal. I think that reality show with Flava Flav is also icky, but again, the idea of proscribing something like that is absurd.

Also, while I do believe that prostitution should be legalized, I would never want a close family member or friend to become a prostitute.  That's not a contradiction - it just means that I don't believe the government should be involved in individual's personal moral choices.

The government is already involved in individual's education, it might as well also involve in educate individual's morality.

I too do not believe that "the government should be involved in individual's personal moral choices." But a "personal" moral choice ceases to be that when it has a serious impact on others and on society. You do what you want to do in the comfort and privacy of your own home, but when your personal choices detrimentally affect me, you bet I am going to want to do something about it. In enlightened jurisdictions, the exchange of money for sex is not in and of itself illegal. Those sorts of transactions happen all the time outside of the context of conventional prostitution. But all the unsavory activities that are part and parcel of prostitution are illegal, like soliciting, living off the avails of prostitution, being found in a common bawdy house, the drug abuse that seems to be an intrinsic if not absolutely necessary part of prostitution, human trafficking etc. Prostitution is a trade that depends upon poverty, human misery, drug addiction and victimization in order for it to continue functioning. The societal price paid for the continued trade in human flesh is the spread of disease, increased drug addiction, violence and rape and a whole host of other problems, the detrimental effects of which are usually inordinately borne by the sorts of economically disadvantaged people who do not read this blog. Prostitution is not a victimless crime, it is not based on a personal moral decision that affects no one else. As such it is indeed icky and government regulation is perfectly appropriate.

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

Imagine a well-educated, independent young woman, unencumbered by an impoverished background or a history of abuse, and who uses drugs no more than the average bond trader. She chooses to go out on "dates" with men in return for payment.

Such a profile surely doesn't describe most prostitutes, but there are undoubtedly such women, i.e., women who choose to earn money by selling sex not because of addiction or abuse or poverty, but because....well, because they choose to.

How do you regard her choice? Absent the irresistible push of a sordid history, can you condemn such a decision? If so, on what grounds? How does her decision rend society's fabric? I suppose you could make the argument that it is impossible for a woman to perform as free sexual actor in a still-unequal society, but that would be infantilizing and arrogant, and the argument becomes definitional-"It's impossible for anyone to make such a choice freely-there would have to have been some aspect of her history that degraded her ability to act sensibly", etc., etc.

I'm not crazy about anyone choosing to be a prostitute (I'm even less crazy about anyone choosing to be a bond trader, who does more damage to the social fabric than even the most enthusiastic fellatrix-for-hire).

But the arguments presented here depend on the tawdry circumstances of most prostitutes' lives. What is the objection in principle, the one that would cover the instance I described above?  

Ismail: The scenario you describe happens all the time. Women (and men) often trade sexual favors for material or other benefits. It can often seem distasteful to some, but it's not illegal - ie sleeping with one's boss in the hopes of getting a promotion, having sex with a professor knowing that one will get a better grade as a result, having sex with someone wealthy for the gifts etc. These sorts of things happen ALL the time and of course they shouldn't be proscribed. But in the realm of conventional prostitution, men who call themselves hobbyists like to think that they are employing sophisticated courtesans, libertines for whom the financial payoff takes second place to the erotic and personal experience. These men are delusional. The scenario you painted above is an extreme rarity in the industry, but it is a scenario many johns like to imagine exists in order to justify their activities. 

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

Jewlicious: you write that a "'personal' moral choice ceases to be that when it has a serious impact on others and on society. 

If that's your standard, then no decision a person can make will be out of government's hands, because no one lives on an island--every decision a person makes will affect someone else.  

You need a more coherent standard for deciding when individual rights should give way to the government's need to regulate.   

--Z

...I said "serious" impact, not any impact at all. A woman who willingly sleeps with her boss in order to get a raise or a promotion might affect me if I were also competing for said raise or promotion. It might also affect other women who might in the future be subject to unwanted advances from said boss, but a) I don't think that's serious enough to justify legislation. And b) even if one were to proscribe that sort of behavior, the violation of individual rights needed to enforce it would be more onerous than the activity targeted. I think they call that a balance of interests.

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

The thing is legalizing eqauls condoning. Since we know prostitution has grown up to mean human trafficking, we are essentially condoning sexual slavery and human trafficking. Should those be legal too? Extremely few adults FREELY CHOOSE prostitution as a career, most have considerable threat forcing them into prostitution.

Laws should reflect majority opinion and be broadly applicable. Since u admit the vast MINORITY of prsotitutes fits or describes your scenario, its not a valid argument for legalizing prostitution imo.

Adding the word "serious" contributes nothing to a standard for lawmaking, because everyone can have a different opinion about what's "serious".  Also, if I marry someone who my mother disapproves of, my actions will have a "serious" impact on my mother.  That doesn't mean the law should protect my mother's interests in such a situation.

 On the other hand, the second part of your 2-part test ("balance of interests", as you call it) is a bit more workable.  You acknowledge here that enforcing behavior through state-sponsored violence (that's what all laws do, by definition) has adverse consequences that should be factored into any decision about whether to criminalize activity.  It's not enough to just say an activity is "icky" or "immoral" to justify government restrictions--you need to show a level harm commensurate with the inherent "ickiness" of having government control our decisions. 

Of course, you still have a problem of application--no two people (much
less society as a whole) will agree on where the harm of enforcement
"balances" the harm of the activity being targeted.  I can easily envision reasonable people intelligently arguing both sides of the issue regarding prostitution and never reaching a "correct" answer.  I am also troubled by the idea of a legislator or bureaucrat "balancing" these interests on my behalf, rather than allowing me, as an adult, to be responsible for my own actions. 

Let me suggest more workable standard: Government should not prohibit an individual activity unless that activity adversely impacts the liberty or property of another human being.  Of course, people can and will disagree about what constitutes liberty or property.  I'm not suggesting that any standard will give us a formula for determining whether any law is desirable.  But I like my standard because it gives room for government to protect the public from the negative effects of individual actions, while at the same time respecting the fact that adults must be made responsible for their own actions.  

--Z

Ismail somehow misses the point that sex for hire is illicit activity.  How can anyone be against bond trading--huh?

The married man who frequents prostitutes is very vulnerable to being discovered or blackmailed.  His activity illegal BECAUSE it is illicit and society, our free society, has a lot at stake in disallowing socially dangerous behavior.  Prostitutes are not somehow analogous to adventurous individuals who get a kick out of jumping out of a plane.  Those persons are individuals and arguably, they can do what they wish.

A single prostitute in a small community can wreck that community.  This is why laws against prostitution have always been on the books.  I happen to own an antique sign that prohibits "loose women"--the implication being that even if you APPEAR to be a prostitute--you must leave the premises.

As a free-market libertarian who wants few laws, if I could build a society from scratch, a prohibition against prostitution would surely be on the books.  It protects the men, the women, married families and the whole character of the community. 

Those radicals who have the nerve to suggest legalizing prostitution should at least acknowledge the truth that legalization brings with it MORE prostitution and the implications which follow are hardly jovial. 

Jewlicious, this Canadian government vs. Ezra Levant position of yours is the baldest attack against free will I've ever heard under otherwise enlightened circumstances. Sure, free will should not be denied. But only to those whom you deem "delusional". And every crime associated with prostitution will magically disappear if prostitution is proscribed - oh yeah, I mean proscribed under the guise you find most "icky". And then we can have ministers of culture and cabinet level positions to mandate what color one paints one's house - because surely dilapidated surroundings are a negative externality impacting on one's psychological well-being, and worth regulating from the top down. And grungy surroundings contribute to crime. My Utilitarian's Guide to Re-Interpreting Orwellian Thought in a Positive Light decreed it so.

Jewlicious, since your mother makes such wonderful Brussels Sprouts, can I come over for dinner? Isn't it a part of her national obligation to better me as a person? And does your family conform to the Leave It to Beaver standards that you think the U.S. government should enforce or merely to a Jewish version thereof? Because I'm just chomping at the bit to see for myself what kind of private and familial patterns lead one to conclude that the government should mandate a certain type of psychological experience - and every other decision that somehow ceases to become personal merely because others decide to be affected by it. 

 Anonymous wrote: Because I'm just chomping at the bit to see for myself what kind of
private and familial patterns lead one to conclude that the government
should mandate a certain type of psychological experience - and every
other decision that somehow ceases to become personal merely because
others decide to be affected by it.

I found your rant quite amusing. I'll have to ignore most of it because it's nonsense but your last paragraph merits some response. Some of those affected by prostitution do not decide to be affected by it. Ask those people who wake up one morning and find that their neighborhood has suddenly become inundated with street hookers, pimps and drug dealers. Or ask people who own condos and find that a high priced escort in-call service has opened up in their building. Or ask people who have been victimized by crime - the drug dealers, users and violent criminals who seem to be an intrinsic part of the industry. or ask the women who have been forced into the sex trade by human traffickers. How about the wives and girlfriends of Johns who wake up one morning and find that their free thinking husbands have infected them with an incurable and fatal disease? I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point.

"Leave it to Beaver?" dude, you don't know me. My family and I are as far from that standard as one can be. We're not prudes, we're loud and we're definitely lusty. But we don't live in a society that allows unlimited personal freedom. Like, duh?

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

Glad you found the last sentence of my two-paragraph "rant" amusing.

Actually the only point you've made is that you think because something could be linked to something else, it needs to be banned as a necessary cause of it. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. And nonsense by definition.

I don't need to know you to read what you obviously advocate in your Edwin Meese version of U.S. society, ca. 1985. Sorry, but I already lived through the eighties. And not just the VH-1 version. And I'm still waiting for an invitation to sample your mom's Brussels Sprouts. You never said I needed to know you to know of the unlimited and enduring power of your virtues, but I like to experience things first-hand. And in case you missed it, unlimited personal freedom is different from freely consented personal choices. Like, duh. 

How many stories must you weave to distract from the fact that your main point fails? Or was that your whole point in the first place?

the drug dealers, users and violent criminals who seem to be an intrinsic part of the industry

David Lewis divides explanations into the linguistic, the pictorial, and the magical. This would count as magical. An entire industry is outlawed, and a black market with all that comes with a black market, has subsumed it. What else could that be but an intrinsic property?

or ask the women who have been forced into the sex trade by human traffickers.

Fascinatingly, the law is capable of recognizing such fine-grained distinctions as the one for example, between consensual sex and rape. 

Yes! As Shakespeare said, The first thing we do, we kill all the pimps!

Daniel, are you saying that if prostitution is outlawed, then drug use and violent crime will not just magically disappear? If breakfast cereal is outlawed, will milk not disappear? If iced tea is outlawed, won't Sweet n' Low disappear?

(Rubs eyes).

I'm shocked. You've ruined my understanding of the world.

Anonymous, you don't understand...

Glad you found the last sentence of my two-paragraph "rant" amusing.

I found your entire comment amusing! And your response too! Lookit Anonymous whipping out the Latin! He's clearly done a lot of book lurnin' yet he hasn't learned how to read. Look carefully at the language I use. Try to discern its nuances. This goes for you too Mr. Koffler. I mentioned "regulation." I mentioned "proscription." I mentioned "balance of interests." My perspective allows for "fine-grained distinctions" and I have never stated that all the unsavory activities I associated with the sex trade are caused by or are an inevitable consequence of peddling in flesh. I think you eggheads call that a straw man argument but I'm not sure because I never took Intro to Philosophy 101. I mean, maybe I could have spelled it out for you a little better, you know, threw in some references, maybe a fancy shmancy latin phrase or two, but I'm not writing in an academic Journal. This is a comment on a blog post. I guess it's my fault for assuming a minimal level of reading comprehension. Oh well.

Anyhow, I have to get up early in the morning and go to a lovely village just north of Hebron. If you don't hear from me within 24 hours, you can assume I've been kidnapped by the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Call my Mom and tell her it was my final wish that she prepare a banquet featuring her beloved Brussels Sprouts in honor of her boy. Tell her she should invite Mr. Koffler and his buddies. It'll be well worth the trip to Montreal, boys.

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

Hey, if you find "after, therefore because of" daunting, you could always ask for a translation or "lookit" up. But then you couldn't ridicule knowledge as a way to pretend you had some kind of folksy point. I mean, I know nuances, balances, and other bullshit are fine Canadian traditions in the art of not understanding the difference between mutually exclusive distinctions, but maybe that's the kind of sophistry you're peddling that belongs in a journal. You'd think it wouldn't be too much to ask that a commenter on a blog post know the difference between things like "is intrinsic" and "is not intrinsic", but I digress - especially when it comes to dialogue with a participant who absolves himself of any responsibility for understanding basic logic. And the only "fine-grained" distinction is that you didn't even see that term as sarcasm directed at you. But I guess if pointing that out further serves your need for self-pity, then it's all good, right?

Hey, no hard feelings. I'd be glad to try out the Brussels Sprouts regardless of whether your luck prevails. But wits are good too. 

This is a Jewish blog right? Jews are supposed to understand, but I mean really understand sarcasm, no? But I tried to be clearer this time without outright spoon feeding you. When I wrote that I have never stated that all the unsavory activities I associated with
the sex trade are caused by or are an inevitable consequence of
peddling in flesh... I thought it would be clear to even the thickest lad in the class that I was well aware, or at the very least could easily discern the meaning of Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Then there was that straw man thing, once again demonstrating my use of sarcasm (because I used the term to correctly identify the nature of your faulty argumentation) and what I felt was my brilliant (albeit perhaps too subtle for you) retort regarding fine-grained  distinctions - see Daniel thinks that the difference between rape and consensual sex is REALLY HUGE, but in many cases, that's not actually true. HA HA, get it? He was trying to make fun of me but really he was... oh never mind. I'm off to the West Bank or Palestine or whatever facebook is calling it today. 

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

David - Doesn't illicit mean illegal?   That sounds circular to me.  If prostitution was legalized, then there would be no danger of discovery or blackmail.

If someone intends to cheat on his wife, he's going to do it.   I don't see why whether or not he's paying to do it is relevant.  Conversely, a happy, stable marriage is not going to fall apart because a prostitute lives a mile away.  Presumably she just wouldn't get very much business.

Also, your apparent support for prohibiting "loose women" hardly seems libertarian.   It's easy to be a libertarian when you only care about laws that affect you.

"Those radicals who have the nerve to suggest legalizing prostitution should at least acknowledge the truth that legalization brings with it MORE prostitution and the implications which follow are

hardly jovial."

Since prostitution is not legal in most parts of the country, prostitutes and the men who seek them tend to flock to those parts.  So that would account for increases in prostitution in those areas.  It's comparable to companies incorporating in Delaware - it just makes life easier.  That's why there are so many of them there.

the drug dealers, users and violent criminals who seem to be an intrinsic part of the industry

That's unambiguous. You are free to mischaracterize what you wrote later on, but it's still a mischaracterization.

see Daniel thinks that the difference between rape and consensual sex is REALLY HUGE, but in many cases, that's not actually true.

Fascinatingly, the fact that mutually exclusive (and thus coarsely distinct) concepts nonetheless have vague borderlines (bald vs. not bald; tall vs. not tall; thin vs. not thin; fine-grained vs. not fine-grained) doesn't prevent us from grasping the twain, or compel us to confuse one with the other.

Notice a qualifier there Daniel? It goes like this: "seem to be" - see? That qualifies intrinsic. That's not an ex post facto mischaracterization of what I wrote. It is exactly what I wrote. You just chose not to acknowledge it, in much the same way you and your buddy "Anonymous" haven't really dealt with the substance of my argument.

Now lets deal for a moment with the sarcastically put "fine-grained" distinction between consensual sex and rape. You know, there's a whole body of legal academic writing as well as a number of actual laws that deal with this issue. Some actions that might appear to be consensual sex may sometimes be deemed to actually be rape! Like when a high school teacher has sex with a student. The student may seem to have consented but that's irrelevant. The power imbalance inherent in such a situation is such that the law often deems any resulting intercourse to be non-consensual, and thus rape. I can offer many other examples, but hopefully, this time, you'll get my point and we can move on and deal with the substance of the discussion. Some progress was made when Zbird interjected but I'm afraid we got caught up in, you know, whatever the heck point it was y'all were trying to make.

Anyways, made it back from Halhul, a little village in the Palestine Authority just north of Hebron. It was a lovely day and I even got to feed some goats! Consequently, there won't be a Brussels Sprouts buffet at Mom and Dad's place in Montreal. If you are ever in Montreal, let me know and I can ask Mom to make you some yummy (as opposed to icky) food. You'll have to bring Anonymous along because we have no way of knowing who he actually is otherwise.

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

We could take the assertion that violent crime, disease etc. "seem to be" intrinsic to prostitution in one of two ways:

1) It's a mere seeming, when actually crime is not intrinsic to prostitution. I agree. But then there was no point in writing:

Ask those people who wake up one morning and find that their neighborhood has suddenly become inundated with street hookers, pimps and drug dealers. Or ask people who own condos and find that a high priced escort in-call service has opened up in their building. Or ask people who have been victimized by crime - the drug dealers, users and violent criminals who seem to be an intrinsic part of the industry. or ask the women who have been forced into the sex trade by human traffickers. How about the wives and girlfriends of Johns who wake up one morning and find that their free thinking husbands have infected them with an incurable and fatal disease? I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point.

So the interpretation you're now claiming eviscerates the point you believed you made. So that's not what you meant.

Alternatively, 2) "Crime 'seems to be' intrinsic to prostitution" asserts that the best evidence suggests that crime is intrinsic to prostitution, but doesn't go so far as to assert Cartesian certainty. That, plainly, is what you did mean. It's a qualifier alright, but not a relevant one.

Some actions that might appear to be consensual sex may sometimes be deemed to actually be rape!

Indeed, in some cases the evidence will be insufficient to tell one from the other, in other cases all the evidence may be in and it will still be difficult to make a call. As with baldness, tallness, thinness, etc. Concepts have blurry borderlines. Which doesn't close the gap between the concept of being bald, and the concept of being not bald.

The existence of sex slavery is no more relevant to a discussion of legalizing voluntary prostitution than the existence of agricultural slavery to legalizing voluntary agricultural labor, or the existence of rape is relevant to a discussion of legalizing consensual sex. Even though there are borderline cases. Your issue is less with me than with the excluded middle.

Ok! Despite your uhm... tone, we're actually getting to the uh... meat of the matter at hand! You stated that The existence of sex slavery is no more relevant to a discussion of legalizing voluntary prostitution... It would seem that way, right? But real world experience shows otherwise. We know that there is a tremendous demand for the services of prostitutes, particularly those most sought after prostitutes - you know, the kind that look the least like prostitutes, the kind that are new to the business. So what does an industry do when domestic supply cannot meet demand? It imports! Does it come as any surprise then that Holland, where prostitution is legal, is struggling with a severe human trafficking problem? The numbers are actually quite shocking, as is the involvement of crime syndicates like the Hells Angels in otherwise legal sex clubs. Google it if you don't believe me.

So in theory, the voluntary exchange of sex for money sounds like an acceptable idea. Like I noted to Ismail, it happens all the time in certain contexts. The question we need to ask is at what point is government intervention in personal freedom required or advisable? Is the Dutch model one we ought to follow given the Dutch authorities' difficulty in separating the benign from the harmful aspects of the industry? Is there another model? Going back to the human trafficking issue - in most cases, women brought into the industry against their will are not offered to clients until they can be broken and can convincingly fake consent. The client walks away honestly thinking he has engaged in consensual sex when in reality he has just fucked someone against her will. Are all women in the industry forced into it? No. Are you absolutely certain a horny guy with $200 burning a hole in his pocket can discern between women who are prostitutes because they want to pay for grad school and women who are doing it because some guy called Igor has her passport and is threatening to harm her family back in Odessa? Or are doing it because their boyfriend is employing less direct but similarly coercive tactics to get her to sell her ass?

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

Prostitution is illicit regardless of whether it is illegal.  This is why, even at "best"--what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.  This is to say, do it with the assurance no one will ever know about it.  This is why Spitzer employed the high-priced call girl.  $500 is for the sex--the $4000 is the assurance no one will ever know.  Let's get to the reason why letting no one know is so crucial so that people go to such lengths to hide the activity.  It is because the activity is shameful, wrong, embarrassing, immoral  and hurtful.  The fact that it is illegal means very little---otherwise, the expression could be changed to "what happens in Vegas, will soon be on You Tube and your wife and family can watch it happening."  Daniel believes that the legalization gets rid of the additional criminal baggage.  This has very little to do with the law and its genesis.  Daniel will not consider for a moment why the law is there in the first place.  The existence of such immorality is toxic to a community and all communities have something at stake in keeping the activity at the fringes of society at the very least. 

This is why police visit massage parlors and strip clubs to make sure the women do not go the additional step towards all the ills that prostitution provides--this has nothing to do with criminality.  It has to do with serving and protecting the community.

DMT maintains:  If prostitution was legalized, then there would be no danger of discovery or blackmail.If someone intends to cheat on his wife, he's going to do it.   I don't
see why whether or not he's paying to do it is relevant.  Conversely, a
happy, stable marriage is not going to fall apart because a prostitute
lives a mile away.  Presumably she just wouldn't get very much
business.

Wrong.  IIN the same way that the government now has all kinds of laws regarding contracts sold over the telephone because old people were being preyed upon by unscrupulous predators taking their money in shady but technically legal transactions--we have much at stake in maintaining a prohibition against prostitutes.    It is a transaction laden with problems--embarrassed men, abused women, blackmail, recriminations, etc.  A man or woman seeking an affair is a willful act.  Elegant, legal houses of prostitution absolutely corrupt men not really interested in voiding their marriages. There are horror stories about men going to Vegas, getting seduced and then being sent a video tape with a blackmail letter.  This is a very professional operation.  Daniel wants to pretend he can keep crime out of this process and it can't be done because the activity is sinful and requires privacy.  Perhaps a good man can go to a strip club.  Legalize prostitution and that same good man looking to test the boundaries of having a harmless diversion will succumb first to touching and then intercourse.  After all, it is legal and no one will know.

We are social animals and we have too much free time on our hands.  The combination is lethal and will harm a fragile institution already gravely under attack.  We need to do things that stregthen married life and not increase the number of prostitutes who make a living on the married ones since young single men generally do not pay for sex and generally cannot afford to pay.  This also goes for male models selling themselves to affluent women--greater availability of such men would corrupt women--even if they are far less likely to go down that road.

DMT says:Since prostitution is not legal in most parts of the country,
prostitutes and the men who seek them tend to flock to those parts.  So
that would account for increases in prostitution in those areas.

Response:  Precisely.  So what happens when every community becomes a veritable Las Vegas?  Thousands of women who would be fit for nursing or teaching would be drawn into a disgusting lifestyle for easy cash and thousands of men not prone to kill their lives, would be drawn into trouble. 

Why do you want this?  Choose life.

It appears you misread my last statement.  I did NOT say that more people would decide to become/seek prostitutes if it is legalized.  That is your position, and I disagree with it.  What I did say is that it's easier for *existing* prostitutes to work in places like Vegas, since the cops are not on their tail (so to speak).

Anyway, you're claiming a nursing student is going to give up her career to have sex for money just because she won't get arrested if she does?  That the allure of being a hooker is so strong that she can't resist? Just like the happy married man can't resist the siren song of the prostitute.  What happened to personal responsibility?

If a man can lose his family and his job over visiting a prostitute (not to mention catch some icky disease), why bother making it illegal? If he's smart, he'll stay away, without government intervention.  If he's not (or he's so horny that he can't control himself), then keeping it illegal won't matter much anyway (as we saw in the Spitzer case). If a woman doesn't have a problem selling her body for money, who are we to stop her? That's her decision to make, not the government's.

Daniel addresses the issue that the prostitute may be abused: "sex workers are forced onto the black market, where they are at the mercy of pimps and mobsters... filing a rape allegation would be tantamount to turning oneself in" - in other words, prostitutes face abuse and can't receive help because prostitution is illegal!  Because the only people who employ prostitutes are by definition criminals!

I feel the same way about prostitution as I do about gambling, drinking, reality TV, and junk food.  They're not for me, and people should be aware of the risks (which you point out quite clearly for prostitution), but should not be hauled off to jail if they decide to get involved in those things anyway (neither should the ones providing them).  We don't need a nanny state holding our hand and forcing us to do what it thinks is good for us.  Why would you want that?  Choose liberty, and personal responsibility

Why do you distinguish between a strip club and prostitution? Every argument you make against prostitution applies to a strip club as well.

Also, I noticed you threw the word "sinful" in there... "Sin" has no place in a government that distinguishes between church and state.

DMT, you appear confused over the normal penchant of good government to protect and serve. This is why the laws exist in the first place. This is why Daniel is so deaf and dumb concerning the theory that there is just no good reason to have these laws, ignoring the fact that these laws have been established since the beginning of our nation and insisted upon in almost every town and city continuously. It is not for you to merely disagree--it is up to you to be sensitive to the fact that this is what the people wanted, have wanted and continue to want in order to have a better community. These laws therefore have a commonality with so many other laws that affect community standards. Ordinances against smoking, ordinances against the showing of obscene movies or magazines, ordinances against gambling, ordinances enforcing dress codes so women can't go topless --all of these are common and ordinary and understandable even if you disagree with them. They protect women and children, they elevate and enhance. It is curious that when some knucklehead crosses a beautiful median on a roadway and foolishly causes an accident, the impulse of modern government is to build some ugly barrier so that won't happen again. This is a bad law and a bad reflex since it is, as you say, a matter of personal responsibility. See the difference?

Next, you cannot merely disagree with the statement that says if prostitution is legalized, there will be more prostitutes and more people employing their services. This is how markets work. Prostitution has much more potential if it was legalized. A thousand dollars for an hours "labor" is a big temptation for many young women currently PREVENTED from such an endeavor. When I was young, a friend offer me about $500 to drive my van of cigarettes to NYC--I did not do it since it was illegal, as I discovered. If it was legal, many people can be easily influenced to pick up some quick cash on the side--this is a principle and veritable guarantee. Legal prostitution would change our society so much and parents of daughters would all have to fear that their daughters could more easily be talked into prostitution, if there was