Degradation is why prostitution illegal

Posted by windbourne on March 20, 2008 at 12:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Poppycock. The argument that this is degrading and must be stopped is pure poppycock. First, it is STILL going on, even though it it illegal. Worse, it is spreading diseases. As to the degrading part, please spend some time talking women who have done this for a LEGAL job. I have talked to 2, both were retired. One was married and told me that while she liked what she did, she was happy to be a housewife. The other said that she had an overall good time at it, and would do it if she was but 10 years younger. In every location where this is legal, regulated and watched, it leads to lower rape. In addition, no doubt it allows a small number of ppl (BTW, men do this as well for both men and women) to work. Finally, the illegal action on the street is fraught with large amounts of risk. In particular, it leads to sexual slavery.

As to my daughter doing this, You are right. I do not want her to do it. But then again, there are a large number of jobs in the world that I do not want her to do. The same is true of my son.

And please stop being so sexists. As I pointed out, MEN are doing this as well.

Posted by Ari on March 20, 2008 at 3:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Susan Williams should have read my March 15 <A HREF="http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news... ("Should prostitution be legal?") prior to criticizing it in her March 20 letter ("Degradation is why prostitution illegal"). Rather than consider my arguments and respond to them, Williams insulted both me and my wife by wondering "if... Ari Armstrong thinks he is purchasing his wife's favors when he pays for groceries or dinner out." Williams's insinuation about our marriage is vicious and dishonest.

In the Speakout, I argued that prostitution is a moral vice, along with infidelity and indiscriminate sex. Furthermore, I wrote, "[S]ex properly involves a connection of consciousness as well as bodies between two people who genuinely admire one another. Purely physical sex undermines the distinctly human dimension of it..." Williams ignored all of this.

Williams instead misrepresented my observation that paying indirectly for sex via expensive dinners or trips is legal, while paying directly for sex is a crime. I made this point in the context of discussing various other vices, such as infidelity, that are legal. My point was that, while we should condemn and discourage vices involving consensual behavior, we ought not criminalize them. For example, while Eliot Spitzer fully deserved the public censure he got, neither he nor the prostitutes he hired deserve to go to prison.

Williams writes, "The reason we don't legalize prostitution in the United States is that it is wrong and degrading to buy and sell women..." I quite agree that it is wrong and degrading to hire prostitutes, and I argued as much in my Speakout. However, prostitution is not akin to slavery, as Williams suggests. Prostitutes, along with those who hire them, agree to the arrangement. (I noted in the Speakout that "involuntary prostitution and sexual abuse of children must be outlawed.")

Williams asks how I would react if my (hypothetical) daughter decided to take up prostitution. I would react the same way I would if she decided to take up indiscriminate sex, infidelity, or any other serious vice. If she were a minor (for whom prostitution would properly remain illegal), I would prevent it. If she were an adult, I would passionately plead with her to make wiser choices.

I've answered Williams's question; now it is only fair that she answer mine. Does Williams think that people should be sent to prison for infidelity or indiscriminate sex? If not, doesn't she still grant that those things are "wrong and degrading?" How can she justify criminalizing some vices but not others? Finally, assuming that there are any vices that Williams thinks should remain legal, would she appreciate it if I insinuated that she therefore participates in those vices?

Ari Armstrong
<A HREF="http://www.freecolorado.com/">...

Posted by Earl on March 20, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

suzy would explain the difference between a politicians and a prostitutes? seems they are the same thing only politicians screw everyone eveyday.
Please dont look at prostitutes as being sold they are just rented and they do provide a service to their fellow man.

Posted by BrianSchwartz on March 20, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Susan Williams writes: "If Speakout writer Ari Armstrong thinks he is purchasing his wife's favors when he pays for groceries or dinner out, I'll bet my hat that is an opinion he has not yet shared with his wife"

Ms. Williams, is this a blatant personal attack on Mr. Armstrong's character, or is your reading comprehension not up to par?

If it's an attack (that you clearly think is justified), can you please quote (in a comment below) the part of the article where Mr. Armstrong wrote what you accuse him of? I would very much like to know if Mr. Armstrong expressed these views, and from my reading of the article, I could not find it. Perhaps you can interpret nuances of his writing that I cannot?

Mr. Armstrong referred to dining out here:

"Which is worse — that New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer hired a prostitute or that he cheated on his wife? I regard Spitzer’s infidelity as the far worse moral sin, yet that’s not what triggered a criminal investigation, wiretaps and possible criminal charges.

"You may legally buy an adult a $300 dinner and then take the person home for sex. Or you may legally take the person on a $4,300 weekend getaway for sex. But it’s a crime for Spitzer to pay $4,300 directly for sex."

But I still do not see where Mr. Armstrong claims what you accuse him of. I know letters in the Rocky Mountain News must be short, so I expect, that if you had more room to make your case, you would have explained your accusation at length so less astute readers could understand.

Thank you. I look forward to your explanation.

Posted by Charles_B on March 20, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Susan Williams:

"The reason we don't legalize prostitution in the United States is that it is wrong and degrading to buy and sell women."

But why is it wrong if they choose to market themselves? Isn't it "free enterprise"? As long as they aren't being enslaved or coerced, who is the victim?

Posted by Lin on March 20, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Susan Williams completely missed the point of Ari Armstrong's Speakout. He stated that prostitution is a vice, is degrading and should be morally condemned. On this they agree.

Instead of responding to his reasons for advocating that prostitution should be illegal, she viciously attacked him, making an ad hominen argument, and claimed that no one wants their daughters to be prostitutes. No similar statement about the sons.

The question remains: Why should a moral vice like prostitution be illegal when infidelity, indiscriminate sex, lying to achieve a personal advantage, and other vices are not illegal? To this question Ms. Williams has no answer except she doesn't like it. That's no answer.

She should re-read the Speakout, apologize to Mr. Armstrong for her attack, and give reasons if she has them. If not, she should keep quiet.

Posted by nprovenzo on March 20, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Susan Williams' letter is grossly unfair and personally insulting to Ari Armstrong. Armstrong clearly articulated the reasons why prostitution is vice but ought to be legal; in reply, Williams' shows she didn't even consider Armstrong's argument and instead chose to lob an inappropriate personal attack and straw man his position.

Should everything that is a vice but does not violate the rights of others be made illegal? Too much fast food? Smoking? Excessive alcohol consumption? Responding to an op-ed you haven't read?

In Williams' universe, I wager the answer is "yes" when it suits her and "no" when it doesn't. Unfortunately, such is the way of many of our laws these days.

Posted by Eli on March 20, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Charles hit the nail on the head with this one. The letter writer is absolutely right, it is wrong and degrading to buy and sell women. This would be slavery.
There is a distinction to be made though with women who choose to sell their own bodies. We need to be very wary of people like Susan Williams who sit on their moral high horse and dictate what other consenting adults can or can't do with their own bodies.
Here's a hint for you Susan: by supporting the restriction of a woman's free choice to sell her own body, YOU are the one degrading women.

Posted by paulhsiehmd on March 20, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ari Armstrong is quite right and Ms. Williams is quite wrong here. Numerous activities can be degrading to women (and to men), but should not be illegal. For instance, an adult woman posing naked for a magazine like "Hustler" is very degrading, and I would strongly disapprove of it at the moral level. But neither she nor the magazine publisher should go to jail for it.

In fact, one of the best virtues of America is the fact that we are able to distinguish between immoral acts that should *not* be illegal (such as prostitution) and immoral acts that *should* be illegal (such as rape or theft). The first does not involve any initiation of force or fraud, whereas the second does. And that makes all the difference.

To blur the distinction between the two categories would subject us to Taliban-like system where all vices (even consensual ones that involved no coercion or initiation of force) were also subject to the authority of the police. I don't want to live in such a system.

Posted by Acemon on March 20, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So prostitution is degrading, therefore it should remain illegal? There are many jobs here in America which are far more degrading than sex between consenting adults. I couldn't imagine sorting garbage for recycling, but people do it anyway. I couldn't imagine working in a sewage treatment plant, but those jobs are out there. I once worked at McDonalds and came home nightly smelling like burgers and fries, but I wouldn't do it again. Coal miners risk their lives and health, but nobody protests their employment.

For the men in this world who lack social skills, are grossly overweight, or suffer (through no fault of their own) from less-than-perfect appearances, prostitution may be their only chance for sexual contact. Who is Susan Williams to deny them this simple biological pleasure?

And what about the prostitutes themselves? Some lack job skills, while others lack the mental ability to learn such skills. Do we simply pay them to stay home and do nothing? Some women seem to find prostitution enjoyable and exciting and better paying than many other jobs.

If I had daughters, I would not want them to work as hookers, but neither would I want them to work in politics or garbage collection or insurance sales. What sort of invigorating and highly-ethical work does Ms. Williams perform herself?

Posted by dianahsieh on March 20, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Williams' letter exemplifies so much of what is wrong with political discourse in America today. It's bad enough that she grossly misrepresents Ari Armstrong's views by claiming that he endorses prostitution, but the personal attack on him (and his wife) should have qualified this letter for the circular file.

Posted by Charles_B on March 20, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eli:

I'm confounded by the fact that people can be paid large sums of money to have sex with each other *on camera* and then sell the result for a profit *legally* yet if someone is paid for sex off-camera *that* is a crime.

The question should always be asked in determining whether an act should be illegal:

Who is the victim?

Posted by Eli on March 20, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Charles,
I think you might be on to something with the porn thing. I think we should start a "film studio".
Here's how it works: clientele come into the studio and pay a woman for sex. They're not actually paying her just for sex though. Each room in the "studio" has cameras set up, for clients to make their own pornographic movie, starring themselves and the woman or women of their choice out of the "studio staff". So, you're not actually buying a prostitute, you're just paying for pornography that you happened to make yourself.
Would this be legal?

Posted by TroyJGrice on March 20, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The only thing 'degrading' is a paternalistic system that refuses to permit adult women to peacefully engage in the profession of their choice.

Undoubtedly, some Nannyist will retort, "but we don't permit people to legally enter the bank-robber profession".

To which those who believe in freedom would respond, "the profession of bank-robber involves coercion, prostitution does not."

The Nannyist would then retort, "But these girls are forced into the sex trade by exploiting pimps!"

To which those who believe in freedom would respond, "then those pimps who force women to be prostitutes should be prosecuted for kidnapping."

The Nannyist would then retort, "But then what about the public good?"

To which those who believe in freedom would respond, "Individuals are not a means to a public end. Their rights are inalienable."

It's the same argument over and over between statists and those who believe in freedom.

You have to decide if you believe in individual freedom or collective control. Do you want to live in a free country or not?

Posted by jay on March 20, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Shouldn't it be the woman's decision? Why does the religious right have such a problem with that concept?

Posted by Eli on March 20, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jay,
I completely agree that it should be the decision of the woman (or man in some cases, I guess), but not a single person on this thread has brought up religion. Not one.
I think you have some kind of complex regarding people of faith.

Posted by IronmanCarmichael on March 20, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ever heard of "Midnight Cowboy"?

Posted by me2 on March 20, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I`m interested in being a dominatrix. I can`t think of a better job. A chance to dress up in leather and 5 inch heels while beating men with boards and whips. And for this I can get paid? And the men never get to touch me!

Posted by Eli on March 20, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Funny how it is perfectly legal to pay a woman to beat the hell out of you but not to sleep with you.

Posted by jay on March 20, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yeah eli...the religious right is all about letting the woman choose...you betcha...

Posted by Jimminy on March 20, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People sell what they have for sale,and most interactions across gender lines involve the exchange of goods,or money,or labor,or any number of less tangible emoluments for sex.Be nice if we were above that,and I'm sure that society is uncomfortable that we aren't,but we are what we are.

Posted by Jimminy on March 20, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And since a woman's body(some women's bodies anyway)has substantial commercial value,we can expect that one who possesses an item of such value will sell it for the highest possible price.Potential buyers will,of course,attempt to get it for the lowest possible price,and there is always the potential to get it free,with a little judicious persuasion-or perhaps force.

Posted by mytwosense on March 20, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's the hit dog that howls. What part of "You may legally buy an adult a $300 dinner and then take the person home for sex. Or you may legally take the person on a $4,300 weekend getaway for sex" does not translate as a view that dinners out and vacations are considered negotiation for sex?

I really don't have an opinion on the legalization of prostitution, but think it's funny so many men (including our good doctor Hsieh) took offense at Ms. Williams' observation that many of you feel you're owed a toss in the hay if you spend money on a date.

Touched a nerve, eh?

Posted by Eli on March 20, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Relax Jay, the Christians aren't coming to get you. The discussion at hand is about whether or not prostitution should be legal. Again, nobody has brought up religion here except for yourself.

Posted by wow on March 20, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm a woman, a wife and mother, too, and I'm very in favor of legalizing prostitution.
It makes sense for all of the reasons posted above, and a few more that have been less mentioned.
Legalization will cause the criminal element to leave the industry; no more woman beating pimps, corrupt cops and officials, no more mob interest.
Working for a legal employer who provides insurance will mean healthier women, and bring an end to the "junkie hooker" culture with mandatory drug testing.
And the tax revenue alone would be worth the effort.
Imagine the fiscal benefits of ceasing to prosecute our consenting adult populace for sex, and raking in income and sales tax instead.
It is not a moral choice for a woman to make, but I for one am sick of those who would paint these grown, consenting women as victims of evil men and thier exploitative lusts. Give me a break, please.

Posted by wow on March 20, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eli,
I saw on HBO, a guy that films, produces and stars in his own porn, and as a retiree from a normal job in his late 60's, makes more than he ever did at his job. There must be a good market for that kind of thing.
But, yes, it is legal if you have an adult entertainment license to have sex with an "actress" on camera, and pay her for her "acting", then turn around and market your video, and make upwards of six figures per year, in your retiement, no less.
What a country.

Posted by jay on March 20, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

we were talking about a woman's right to choose...which of course follows closely by the religous right's refusal to allow that to happen, eli.

is that too much of a stretch for you or were you just ignorant that this is a common occurence?

Posted by Eli on March 20, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes Jay, I'm aware that there are plenty of people out there who would oppose legalization of prostitution based on religious grounds, just as I'm sure there are plenty of other religious people who would not be opposed to legalization or wouldn't care one way or the other.
The fact remains that not a single person here has made any argument that involves religion in any way. You're still the only person here bringing up religion, which is what leads me to believe that you have some sort of paranoia complex with people of faith.

Posted by OhBrother on March 20, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The funny thing to me is with all this talk of the "ho" what about the "trick"? I am not ashamed to say I have never paid someone directly to peform a sexual act short of dancing and NO dancing is not sexual intercourse.

I say this to point out the fact that were there is a demand there will be a supply, legal or illegal. I'm surely not stating I'm better then someone who would purchase sex, not at all and you can equate me buying dinner or nice things to me buying it if you would like, but in the end I do not expect sex, i do it for the enjoyment of giving. I know, it sounds crazy. It's not that I think it's the worst thing to do, or degardes women (or men) but it just wouldn't float my boat. but to each there own, I think mutal consent is the main point in why it should be leaglized

Posted by jay on March 20, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

eli...hey, if you can't make the connection...by all means good luck with that...but don't personally attack me because of your ignorance.

leave it up to the woman...again...why is that so hard for folks to do just that...especially...on this issue and many others...those on the far religious right

Posted by Eli on March 20, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jay,
Pointing out the fact that nobody here has made any argument of any kind concerning religion except yourself isn't a personal attack. There's that paranoia again. Relax, dude.

Posted by jay on March 20, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hey, whatever it takes for you to be an apologist for the far religious right yet again, eli...knock yourself out

Posted by wow on March 20, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jay, has all this been a "preemptive strike" on the religious right?
LOL, sorry, couldn't resist. I've seen you go at it with eli and others before over religion related matters.
I can't speak for eli or anyone on that side of the fence, but I don't think that the legalization of prostitution is as much of a threat to them as some other contentious topics involving women's choices. It is understandable why they might not make the connection.

Posted by Jimminy on March 20, 2008 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmmm....we're getting into uncharted waters with the idea of legalizing prostitution(except of course where brothels are legal).Okay,suppose prostitution were legal everywhere.Given that circumstance,would a married person buying sex be committing adultery?A married person selling sex?

Posted by jay on March 20, 2008 at 10:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

again we come back to the real problem here, cricket...why do you care? what business of yours is it?

Posted by Eli on March 20, 2008 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

wow,
I am not in the least bit religious, so I am not "on that side of the fence". I just don't have any problem with people who are religious, that's all.

Posted by JohnSWren on March 21, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm going to suggest this as a topic at the Denver Socrates Cafe next week. More info and optional RSVP at http://socratescafe.meetup.com/82

Posted by wow on March 21, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, I misunderstood about that eli, probably was thinking about someone else. Sorry.
Did you read my post about the HBO guy?

Posted by Eli on March 21, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wow,
Yes I did, and I'm going to start my "porn studio" and be RICH!!! Jay, you get a 10% discount for being my favorite lefty.

Posted by TroyJGrice on March 21, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jimminy

One must not confuse "legality" with "morality". Adultery is not illegal. Slavery was "legal" at one time but never "moral". Politicians don't pass laws based on morality, they pass laws based on hopes for re-election. If we need a Nannyslature to define morality then we are in a really sad state of affairs.

Posted by Heidi on March 21, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wow, I saw that HBO program about that 60 year old guy! I think he was a retired Army Officer. He is making quite an income in his retirement. He was pretty disgusting, though.
It's funny how it is illegal to pay for sex or to film someone unknowingly and market the film, but it is okay to pay them to have sex for the camera!

Posted by wow on March 21, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Heidi,
You can pick your friends.
You can pick your nose.
But you can't pick your friend's nose.
LOL, go figure, huh?

Posted by Heidi on March 21, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wow, that is exactly what I meant! We learn those lessons when we are young.

Posted by drew on March 21, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In a bygone era in this country when prostitution was legal, the "working women" were well treated, well cared for and protected.

Then of course the Mother Grundies from the church got involved and drove these women underground. As a result they face violence, disease and horrible working conditions.

Women always have and always will offer their bodies for sale - don't you think they deserve to have decent working conditions? People's personal lives - and what they choose to do with them - should be off limits to the church, the government & others who have too much time and self-righteous energy on their hands (assuming that it's all consensual & no minors are involved).

Posted by mrfxx on March 21, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The concept of prostitution saddens me, since I agree with the posting that notes that (at least for most of us) we talk about "making love" not "having sex" and believe there is more than just the physical involved. It saddens me that some sellers seem to believe that is the only marketable skill they have while buyers believe this is the only way to have that physical and emotional (if only in fantasy) connection. I don't believe that anyone would recommend this a career choice - but that doesn't mean it isn't already a choice many make.

That said, I agree with the folks who have said prostitution should be legalized as it is in Nevada and in most of Europe. Of course, this won't happen - not because it is degrading (I contend that starving to death slowly is equally degrading, and many of the people who are prostitutes are working not just to pay for drug habits, but to pay rent, buy food & even support children) but because this country has a "love/hate" reaction to anything having to do with sex. On the one hand, we have ads which would have one believe that men MUST have sex (Viagra, Cialis or any other ED solutions - although I have never heard of a man dying because he couldn't "get it up"), implications that the right soap, toothpaste, car, etc will get one a mate (or at least a sex partner), to ads which are not quite open invitations to phone sex; on the other hand we have outrage about out of wedlock births both to teens (higher than many so-called 3rd world countries - and higher than all of Europe) and to adult women (adults who know & choose single parenting rather than a bad marriage), to the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal to the recent oustings of governors for their sexual proclivities (interviews with Europeans indicate they don't understand the last 2 - they actually consider such decisions a matter to be private and not newsworthy - unless of course they lead to blackmailing of the famous party).

If prostitution were legal, the benefits would include:
Protection of workers in the "sex industry" - no more subjugation by pimps or rapes/beatings by clients
Protection of the clients - where prostitution is legal, prostitutes are screened for STDs, so we wouldn't have sex workers passing on everything from HIV to chlamydia to herpes; and no more "rolling" of clients for their money
Taxes collected "for the sale", plus income taxes collected from the workers

It could be a win-win - but the nannies won't let it!

Posted by roni248 on March 21, 2008 at 11:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You mean Ari, the penny pincher, throwing his two cents about prostitution ? LOL!!!!