Prostitutes and Politics Why is it still illegal to pay for sex?

Reason Online ^ | May 7, 2007 | Cathy Young

[Lusis]

The resignation of Randall Tobias, the chief of the Bush administration's foreign aid programs, for "personal reasons" following the revelation that he had engaged the services of two escort-service workers has provided rich grist for amusement on the punditry circuit. There was indeed plenty of material for humor in the situation, from Tobias's strong stand in favor of abstinence teaching in AIDS prevention programs to his "I didn't inhale"-style assertion that he never had sex with the women. But the predictable laughs have obscured a much larger issue than hypocrisy in the ranks of social conservatives. The reason Tobias's call-girl adventures became public is that the owner of the Washington, DC-based service, Pamela Martin, is facing prosecution and has turned her records over to news organizations to help pay for her legal defense.

Even those who feel a certain schadenfreude at Tobias's downfall should be asking the question: should there have been a criminal case in the first place?

[JamesP81]

But the libertarians are wrong when they suggest that there wouldn't be an increase in crimes committed by drug-intoxicated and/or hallucinating individuals.

That remains to be seen. I tend to agree with you in that I *think* there would be, at least initially, but I have no way to prove that.

The balance govt should strike when weighing whether a law is outside the govt's purview (which is securing individual rights) and establishing principle in law is a very hard one to achieve.

[trisham]

The liberal agenda is alive and well. Prostitution is morally wrong and should be illegal.

[Niteranger68]

Besides, I DO believe in legislating morality. You know, little things like murder, rape, theft, pedophilia, bestiality, etc

Except maybe for the bestiality part, all of these crimes are far less morality based and far more victim based. One person suffering harm by the direct and unapproved actions of another person.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Top issues for Libertarians:

1) Surrendering to al-Quaeda

Fighting a real war on terrorism instead of nation-building

2) Opening our national borders to everyone.

Borders are already open under Bush and the GOP

3) Legalizing drugs

Drugs are still illegal & people are abusing them

4) Legalizing prostitution

None of your business what private citizens do with their lives

[JamesP81]

One has to view the government as an institution that secures certain rights at the expense of other rights. In an anarchy, you can go around, killing/stealing/raping/burning, etc. You have infinite "rights:" the right to life, the right to kill, the right to your possessions, the right to steal, etc. Many of these "rights" are incompatible with each other, and hence they are tenuous; my right to life would be in conflict with someone else's right to kill. A government is there to secures everyone's right to life at the expense of everyone's "right" to kill, in order to maintain stability.

I have to somewhat disagree with this, as the Founders never insinuated there was ever a 'right to kill' like they did a person's 'right to live'. Our rights are not granted by the Constitution; they exist independent of any human institution, the Constitution merely lists *some* of them. I would suggest that a 'right to kill' doesn't exist, where we define kill as murder. Obviously, a person also has the right to use deadly force to defend themselves, but that's a different matter. In this framework, Anarchy exists when there is no coherent force tasked with preventing the infringement of individual rights; it does not constitute a state in which there is suddenly this 'right to kill, rape, pillage, and burn'. You are, however, absolutely correct in that those things would happen in a state of Anarchy. This is why the Declaration of Independence states that to secure our rights, governments are instituted among men by consent of the governed. This is why government exists, period: to secure individual rights from infringement.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

The men who wrote that Constitution would never allow legalized prostitution, but the Libertarians don’t care about that truth or the outcome of such an action, preferring the purity of their philosophy over the death and destruction it surely brings.

Typical wide stroke of the brush. Libertarians are no more in favor of legalizing prostitution than Christian conservatives are.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

I see you use the big L when not taking Libertarians seriously. Most who consider themselves libertarians dont necessarily follow that party’s line.

They do that all the time. Notice that Libertarians weren't even the topic of the article. The hyper-moralists just have to get their cheap shots in.

[retMD]

t is illegal to pay for sex because our very existence as a nation relies on the Judeo-Christian values that formed us. Using the letter of the Constitution to legalize destructive, immoral activities is suicide and worthy of the Clintons, Reids and Pelosis of this world. The men who wrote that Constitution would never allow legalized prostitution,

Care to comment on the state of Nevada?

[The Louiswu]

"Only someone ignorant of history could go down this road this way."

I don't believe the founding fathers addressed slavery in the Constitution (it was not abolished by the Constitution) and I do believe that a few of them were slave owners themselves.

No sir I am not ignorant of history.

[MortMan]

Oh, and how do you explain Billy Priapus Clinton?

The bill (no pun intended) just hasn't come due, in full. Partial payment credit must, in fairness, be given for marriage to her thighness...

[NoBullZone]

The author states: “It’s hard to see who benefited from the fact that the authorities in Maryland spent a lot of taxpayer money to investigate and prosecute a woman for discreet and private sexual encounters with men”

No it isn’t if the author had done some research. Since I live in MD, I heard a lot about this case. The people who benefitted were her neighbors, whose complaints sparked the investigation. She was operating in a family-oriented community with men coming and going at all hours. I have no particular complaint about legalizing prostitution, but it should be regulated in such a way that it doesn’t create a public nuisance; call it a zoning matter if you like, but I dont think families trying to raise children should have to be exposed to it.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

It is illegal to pay for sex because our very existence as a nation relies on the Judeo-Christian values that formed us. Using the letter of the Constitution to legalize destructive, immoral activities is suicide and worthy of the Clintons, Reids and Pelosis of this world. The men who wrote that Constitution would never allow legalized prostitution, but the Libertarians don’t care about that truth or the outcome of such an action, preferring the purity of their philosophy over the death and destruction it surely brings.

Compared to the sleaze going on between politicians, lobbyists, fundraisers, staffers, professional bureaucrats, etc., in Washington, DC., regular ol' garden-variety prostitution is as pure as the driven snow.

[FormerLib]

And that is the main reason why prostitution was made illegal in the country during the late 19th Century, women were being forced into prostitution against their will. Most of the place in Europe that permit prostitution have numerous laws in place to ensure that this doesn’t happen, yet the reports of women being trafficked as sex slaves in those same countries are commonly reported here on Free Republic.

There just never are easy answers to questions such as this.

[psychoknk]

The extremely HIGH rate of HIV/AIDS in Africa is largely due to prostitutes... Same is true in SE Asia.

And guess what, prostitution is illegal there too (you haven't specified any countries, but so far, I'! Wow, those laws sure work well, don't they?

Besides, I'm not sure where you are getting your HIV/AIDS data from. I have heard of three things causing the massive spread of HIV in Africa:

• Rape. Gang rapes are a huge problem. Remember that lady that made the anti-rape condom thing?
• Wife inheritance. If a man dies, his brother "inherits" the wife in many place. If the man died of AIDS, the wife probably has HIV. After repeated sexual encounters, the brother will also get HIV.
• Odd HIV cures. They believe that if you get HIV, you should have sex with a virgin, as that will cure it. Also, there is poor education about HIV. Many African governments officially denied the existence of HIV, and some still do not recognize that it is sexually transmitted. One official even thought that showering after having sex would protect him from HIV.

Besides, I DO believe in legislating morality. You know, little things like murder, rape, theft, pedophilia, bestiality, etc... ALL laws legislate morality to some degree.

I've already replied to this argument.

[srweaver]

I agree that government is a “necessary evil”. It is required to restrain the impulses of a fallen/sinful humanity. Government is an institution of God, given out of his kindness to man, and to preserve something of his crowning achievement in creation:

Genesis 9:6  Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

There is no “right to kill”, it is wrong to kill. This has always been. It is just to punish the guilty. That is why capital punishment is just...and abortion is murder.

Our founders appealed to “self evident truth”. Man inherently knows the difference between right and wrong (in an imperfect, fallible way, but he does have a conscience).

You wrote: “one must pick whose morality to legislate”.

The founders did just that. They chose Moses, and the Bible.

The moral code (law) given in the Ten Commandments were written by the finger of God. The Old Testament laws are largely the basis of our criminal and civil codes to this day.

If one follows the New Testament standard 1) to love God, and 2) to love their neighbor as theirself, then the Ten Commandments are no longer needed as they are contained in the two.

The reason we have a government with the power of justice and defense is to protect us from fallen/sinful humanity within our borders, or without (all enemies foreign and domestic).

And of course, if the Muslims take over, Christian morality won’t be legislated, as Islam has always been a religion of the sword, its devoted followers forcefully subjugating all who oppose it.

But that is no reason to abandon our system of self-government. Rather we must realize the Judeo-Christian foundation of our system and repair it. History and the present governments around the world are graphic examples of the alternative(s).

[Little Ray]

If you don’t think someone suffers harm in “victimless” crimes, you’re either deluded or sociopathic. I’ve seen it.

And, as others pointed out, the disease vector issue isn’t just about HIV/AIDS.

[psychoknk]

You are just arguing semantics. How would you define a right? Is there some clear test that I can apply that would say if something is or isn’t a right?

[twonie]

Why should it be a criminal case? Because this behavior - by both parties concerned here - rends the fabric of society. Commandments dealing with this are not in the Bible on a whim of God or by chance.

[Centurion2000]

Man has always paid for sex. One way or another.

Why do so many people forget this?

Marriage, girlfriends or prostitution .... one way or the other, you're gonna pay.

[jiggyboy]

It isn’t “victimless”, there is trafficking in sex slaves.

In all seriousness, many illegals come here via coyotes who will ruin the illegal's family if the illegal doesn't pay down the coyote's fee quickly. This applies to busboys and dishwashers as well.