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?

[Miztiki]

In all these replies, has anyone pointed out that if someone wants to have sex, they should have sex with their spouse?

Sex is not like air or food or water. It’s not like we’ll die if we don’t get laid as soon as the urge hits us.

(Although many act like they’ll die.)

[word_warrior_bob]

I think those opposed to prostitution would be shocked to know how much is going on right around them.

I live in the Bergen County suburbs of NJ, one of the richest counties in the country. I would venture to guess within a 10 mile radius of me are literally 50-100 massage parlors offereing various forms of “entertainment” from the “happy ending” to anything goes from all kinds of women, that doesn’t even include the escort agencies, craigslist, etc.

If they tried to crack down on prostitution they would need double the cops they have now and they would have no time to pursue any other type of “crime”.

As someone suggested, let them advertise as “gold-diggers”, “friends with benefits” of something, it’s silly that it’s illegal. It’s a biological need, almost the only way an unattractive male can have sex with a woman with movie star looks. A lonely widower not looking for a relationship but a once monthly “release”, etc.

How can you possibly regulate 2 consenting adults in the privacy of a bedroom?

[JamesP81]

Cigarettes are changing to illegal right now, as we speak and write.

Which is a bad thing. I don't see why people can't see the long term. The slippery slope is very real. The key to not falling down is to not take the first step.

The people who wish to *change things* are the ones who wish to *promote evil*.

I think it's unfair to characterize certain libertarians that are against drug laws or prostitution laws as wanting to 'promote evil'. Granted there will be some, but there are a great many of them that think that less evil will occur if certain things that are currently illegal were not illegal. It insults their integrity to claim they are promoting evil; very few of them really are. They're accepting a lesser evil now to avoid a greater one down the road.

So, what did you say you were going to do about the big tyranny right now — the Patriot Act

The Patriot Act probably isn't a good thing. I was OK with it at first, but I can now see that it's a step in the wrong direction (or at least parts of it are). Now that I know I should be working against that form of government overreach, I'll comment on others as well.

[Star Traveler]

You said — “The Patriot Act probably isn’t a good thing. I was OK with it at first, but I can now see that it’s a step in the wrong direction (or at least parts of it are). Now that I know I should be working against that form of government overreach, I’ll comment on others as well.”

—

No government overreach has come from the *continued* government laws against prostitution (which have been around for a long while). However, that’s probably not true with the Patriot Act, since you are concerned with government overreach...

[JTN]

Also, $5 says everyone supporting the original poster is a man.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but you will notice that the author of the article is a woman.

[Chunga]

Prostitution is nothing more than sex and commerce.

To those opposed to prostitution, which of those are you opposed to?

How sophomoric.

Have you ever lived in a neighborhood where crack whores lined the streets outside a drug dealer's house at night?

It'll ruin your neighborhood and put a real dent in the value of your property.

[JamesP81]

No government overreach has come from the *continued* government laws against prostitution

That, my friend, is debatable. However, there is on crime in the same class as prostitution where that's not true at all.

Drug laws.

Severe government overreach has grown from that. I could literally give you a laundry list. The worst overreaches of that debacle, however, are asseit forfeiture laws, no-knock military style tactics by police, and the general dishonesty of DAs and police officers when seeking convictions.

To that end, I'm automatically wary of laws that work on a similar principle as prostitution laws do. There is one big difference with prostitution laws, however; they are generally state laws. AFAIK, there are either no federal prostitution laws or they are fairly weak. The states are always better suited to things like this and, for now, if prostitution laws weren't changed, I think it'd be just fine. Nevertheless, when you talk about this type legislation (I usually call them 'vice' laws) you very frequently end up with massive government intrusion and our sham drug war exemplifies this.

[Star Traveler]

You said — “Severe government overreach has grown from that. I could literally give you a laundry list. The worst overreaches of that debacle, however, are asseit forfeiture laws, no-knock military style tactics by police, and the general dishonesty of DAs and police officers when seeking convictions.”

—

Talking about the drug laws and asset forfeiture, that is government overreach and it is also *corrupting* on the government’s side. That’s for sure. I don’t think the laws about drugs being illegal should be repealed, but only the methods for fighting the illegal drugs be revamped. They should still be illegal.

[unspun]

When you want to discuss rationally, let me know.

[JTN]

Try the following quote:

Try this one:

I quite agree with the Archbishop that no sin, simply as such, should be made a crime. Who the deuce are our rulers to enforce their opinions about sin on us? --- a lot of professional politicians, often venal time-servers, whose opinion on a moral problem in one's own life we should attach very little value to.

Letters of C.S. Lewis

[LightBeam]

. . . as long as it wasn't a Catholic one. Or in New England, an Anglican one. Or in Virginia, a Puritan one. The "simple fact of the matter" is that you can't overlook that when you make your grand, sweeping generalization about this subject. Which Christian religious influence was, or is, the correct one? Do the Mormons have it right? The Presbyterians? The Unitarians? The Methodists? The Baptists? The Seventh-Day Adventists? The Congregationalists? Or are we supposed to believe that some amalgamation, or overlapping, of all of these Protestant sects have it right? And if so, what's the proper equation for blending it all together?

America should be governed under Christian morality. Most of the denominations you mention there aren't even Christian. With the exception of some Baptists.

In sum, while a certain morality should be the underpinning of criminal law, morality in and of itself should not dictate criminal law. Where morality and law overlap and intersect is generally a happy place, and a good one, but just as you cannot get grain from whiskey even though you can get whiskey from grain, you cannot get morality from law, even though you can extract law from morality.

The morality that we extract law from should be Christian morality. That means no murder, theft, obscenity, contraception, prostitution, sodomy, murder, etc.

[JTN]

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

Because some people still believe the Bible is the Word of God.

Since the United States is not a theocracy, this shouldn't have anything to do with it.

[Diggity]

Too many people from ABC news on it. That is why ABC news went after it.

John

[Diggity]

Hell yeah it’s call marriage.

John

[Diggity]

Pay me now or pay me later.

John

[JTN]

Libertarians might be right on the function of government, but they don't help their own cause, especially on the abortion issue. It's hard to take seriously someone who talks about liberty and securing rights when they'll allow someone to deprive a totally innocent person of his life through the barbaric act of abortion.

I just want to point out that libertarians are hardly monolithic on abortion. I don't doubt that most are pro-choice, but it's a somewhat controversial issue in libertarian circles. For example.

[LightBeam]

Since the United States is not a theocracy, this shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Tell that to the founding fathers, who believed that our laws and governance should be based on Christianity.

[psychoknk]

Is adultery illegal? Is divorce illegal? It is not prostitution that is the problem in the situation you describe; it is husband who abandon his family.

[psychoknk]

Read my other posts, and you’ll see why I put “right” in quotes in the post you are referring to. There is no word in the English language that has the connotation that I was trying to get across in that post. How would you describe free speech in China? Is the freedom of speech a right that has been denied or a right that is nonexistant in China? If we say that it is a right that is nonexistant, one could then argue that in an anarchy, anything you do is now a right. If you approach the situation from the other side; that there is a predefined set of rights that is either secured by the government or denied, then your reasoning stands. My goal would be for the two definitions to ultimately be the same - there is no law forbidding any action that does not infringe upon the rights of others. It would be the responsibility of the individual to be a moral citizen, not the burden of the government to force everyone into the mold.

[Zack Nguyen]

If the moral busybodies were principled, they'd outlaw that particular financial transaction, too. There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

I think the "moral busybodies" as you put it, would outlaw pornography if they could. But for now it is protected "speech" under the first amendment. I happen to think that selling your body for sex is more damaging to society than pictures of sex (for the most part) but others may disagree.