If it were legal it would be safer.

If it were legal it would be safer.

FIRST

Would it be safer if it were legal?

I get it.

This would NEVER happen at Hofstra!:)

It would be nice to no longer have to travel to Kit Kat Lane in Moundhouse, NV anymore if the service was legal closer to home.

I'd approve of it only if it could be regulated some way to protect the women. This street corner stuff is not safe for them.

SEMINAL OH I GET IT HAHAHA

I'd approve if we could de-stigmatize male prostitution. Problem is, that will never happen. So I vote "no" for legalizing yet another sexist institution.

Shiiiiiiit. Ain't no gov'ment punk gonna be able to keep them ho's in line.

Lt. Gov. Paterson is a Hoftsra Law graduate. He also has over 20 years in the NY Senate -- more legislative experience than Obama or Clinton. The person kicking himself the most right now? Andrew Cuomo.

If it were legal the government would be more likely to collect tax on the earnings.

Guys in my high school used to prostitute themselves all the time, it was no big deal.

We have legalized prostitution, just ask Flavor Flav, Brett Michaels, or any of the Bachelors.

Running for public office: $10 million
Forcing Wall Street Banks into a settlement for tainted stock research: $1.4 billion
Being identified as Client-9 in a federal criminal complaint, a person inducing a prostitute to travel across state lines in violation of the Mann Act: Priceless

There are somethings clean money can't buy. For everything else there's mailing cash in an envelope with no return addres in the hopes it gets there before a scheduled tryst.

3:59 FTW

If it were legal would practitioners be required to have some sort of certification? Perhaps issued based on performance on an entrance exam?

So by dershowitz's logic, prostitution is only a crime when you pay less than market price? What?

4:05 - "entrance exam" heh heh

Apparently, it is difficult for 70% of the readers of ATL to get some without paying for it ....

4:06, are you trying out the straw man thing, or do you just have poor reading comprehension. Dershowitz is arguing that high class prostitution is a victimless crime. Although street tranny hookers might be victims of oppressive pimps or drug addiction, prostitutes making thousands of dollars an hour are just capitalists.

It was legalized here in Germany ages ago and now all the hookers have proper insurance, legal protection and politicians careers dont get ruined over ridiculous charges...

And of course, the only way to fight human trafficking, underage prostitution and forced prostitution is to offer some kind of legal alternative, which is regulated by the state...

Lt. Gov. Paterson is legally blind. Do you think he knows he's black?

Cue Dave Chapelle stage right.

I think that for the prostitutes, it should be decriminalized. (Maybe for the Johns, too. And Janes?)

It is disgusting that per the WSJ law blog piece, johns usually get a disorderly conduct infraction while (this part is not in the WSJ) hookers get charged with more serious offenses.

Apparently, 30% of the readers of ATL thought the question was whether prostitution should be illegal.

It should be legalized with limited regulation (Griswold extension, anyone?).

As for Spitzer, he should get no more than the conventional misdemeanor charge.

As for Spitzer's hypocrisy, well, that's for the voters to decide. At least his romp wasn't in an airport restroom, for no consideration, and with another male (not that there's anything wrong with that).

@4:13
"Apparently, it is difficult for 70% of the readers of ATL to get some without paying for it ...."

I would not conclude that from those stats. I would hazard a guess that 70% would prefer to simply get laid without sitting through a meal with the mere prospect thereof.

We could both be wrong.

Why shouldn't it be legal? That's the real question.

There is no good reason, whatsoever, for prostitution to be illegal. I'm sure that if the founding fathers didn't own slaves that they could bang for free, they'd have written it in as a fundamental right.

"I'm black?! Does Ma know?"
-----Richard Pryor, playing a blind man, in "Hear no Evil, See no Evil"

4:21, true, but I bet there is some correlation there. Do you know anyone who feels strongly about marijuana legalization who doesn't also toke up?

Legalize it.
Don't criticize it

The real victim (and dumbass) was Spitzer. Paying a hooker $5000 raises all sorts of legal questions, esp. when the going rate (via a cursory glance at Craigslist) is 200-300/hr in New York for a reasonably attractive prostitute.

My first shot would be unconscionability -- horny male, wife who doesn't put out, Mr. A.G. can't go around advertising said case of blue balls due to high-profile political seat so his choices of hookers are accordingly very limited, life as an attorney affords little opportunity for self-relief and thus there is an immediate need for satisfaction, the list goes on...he was bilked out of that 5K; the ho totally took advantage of him.

Lat, why are you ignoring the most damning angle on this? Spitzer put himself in a position where he could be blackmailed by prostitutes and whatever undesirable elements organize their business (typically the freaking mob).

Do I think prostitution should be legal? I don't know. It's kind of gross and I don't think the government should take any positive steps (like legalization) to encourage it.

Do I think Gov. Spitzer should resign or be impeached? You bet. He has exercised terrible judgment.

4:25,

Yes, me.

guys in my college would wear togas and frequent the emperor's club all the time, it was no big deal.

Prostitutes have higher levels of PTSD than even Vietnam vets. And the levels are the same for both brothel and street prostitutes.

That suggests there is something inherently damaging in prostitution. It could have something to do with the behavior of some, but not other, clients, but if that is so how would the new laws weed them out?

Also, although Lat doesn't seem to understand this, decriminalizing is not the same as legalizing. You could decriminalize, and still refuse to enforce contracts for meretricious services.

Yeah but the more money the cleaner the girl is. Any diseased infected person can scrounge up $500, up it to $5k and that means only rich successful people can afford it (and proper medical treatment to keep themselves healthy before and after, and they will be better educated so know to check for diseases)

4:29, the encouragement argument is just plain silly. If you don't want to f*ck a prostitute, then don't. Why, however, should people who want to be precluded from doing so? Because our moralistic, paternalistic society thinks it should dictate appropriate sexual behavior? Blah.

"the more money the SEXIER the girl is."

Lets get our hooker facts straight.

Once you are talking about big time prostitution ­ and this service went as high as $5500 an hour ­ you can bet organized crime is involved. In general with prostitution, there is no way to ensure that at least some of the women aren’t coerced at least some of the time. At the street level, the average pimp is violent and manipulative. On a broader scale, all of that trafficking of women and children on the rise worldwide is to stock brothels ­ many in countries where they are legal. The Dutch, recently have figured out that not all of the Eastern European girls in their famously picturesque Amsterdam windows came of their own volition. Why do they have to be kidnapped, tricked and often drugged and beaten and kept against their will? Because very few women and girls really want to be prostitutes ­ with the violence and violation of self that prostitution involves.

A second point against legalizing it, is that it is very hard to maintain society-wide moral opprobrium against anything that the state has legalized ­ especially when the state benefits from it. If you make prostitution legal, the state gets to tax it ­ so it has an interest in promulgating it. This is especially problematic in a welfare state. There were some interesting stories out of Germany a year or two ago, noting that, since brothels were legal, young women without skills whose welfare benefits had run out, were being encouraged by their social workers to take jobs as prostitutes. In fact, they were being coerced, with the threat of cutting off any state support. Refusing to be a whore was (is?) being treated no differently than refusing to be a janitor or a maid or any other unsavory but honest labor.

I don’t want my government profiting from prostituting women. I do not, for one moment, believe that making it legal will make it cleaner. It will be the same dehumanizing transaction for the women and children who stock the brothels. It will only make it harder to make a convincing moral argument against selling one’s body or giving it away too freely.

4:49 - Did you just lift a post from NRO? Weirdo.

It is perfectly legal to stab myself in the leg with a knife -- but that does not encourage me to do it ("cutters" do it).

"Why do they have to be kidnapped, tricked and often drugged and beaten and kept against their will?" I thought you were talking about law firm associates?!?!

4:25 - I think prostitution should be legal and have NEVER banged a hooker.

IF it were legal I could get my law-abiding, stripper girlfriend to make more money! (presumably she can make more offering upgraded services than as a mere "stripper")

Not everyone can pull the dime-piece strippers that I do for free, so if $5500 is what the market will bear, so be it.

Prostitution is totally legal -- check out "Erotic Services" on Craigslist. Until they make porn legal -- they won't make prostitution legal.

should not be legal.

@4:25: Do you know anyone who feels strongly about marijuana legalization who doesn't also toke up?

Yes - me. I don't smoke or do any other drugs, or use prostitutes, but I think both drugs and prostitution should be legalized.

Die Niederlände legalized prostitution and now all the hos have to get regular medical checkups or they lose their ho-licenses. Not sure what effect that had on spreading STDs, because the johns always had to use condoms anyway, but at you know the hos are healthy. Legalization also pretty much destroyed the underage/forced prostitution market(s) because the cost of a regulated/legal ho went down so much.

4:49 - so right - being a john should be considered a sex crime, and E.S. should have to register. Saying anything less would pobably make your wife angry with you.

5:00 PM: Die Niederland also brought us the African Slave trade (to Caribbean), legalized drug use and the Hague. Not a model of morality -- or of the positive benefits of lax morality.

4:49, The elimination of society-wide moral opprobrium against prostituion, if it even exists in the first place, is just another benefit of legalizing it.

Further, legalization allows for regulation, which can assuage your concerns about trafficking. And if voters want, they can rally to prohibit cutting off state support for the unemployed who refuse to work as a prostitute.

Lastly, while you seem adamant against the government "profiting from prostituting women," nowhere do you have concerns about prostituting men. Gay men frequent prostitutes as much as breeders do, but you conveniently leave them out of your argument. Do you believe only women prostitutes are victims? Perhaps your moral opprobrium against prostitution is just sexism in disguize.

Define Prostitution -- because if you mean child-sex-slaves drugged, raped, and beaten into brothels... then yes, I am for legalized prostitution.

If a woman has a female pimp -- then it should be all good!

There are gay prostitutes?!?! Where do I sign up!??!?

4:49 is dead on

Are the only posters on this board rut-wing-christian nutjobs?!?! Can we get some sanity?!

Edit: "straight" men frequent male prostitutes, too, perhaps moreso than the gays.

I was beaten, drugged and tricked into making $160,000 per year... am I am lawyer or hooker?

How can TWO-THIRDS of voters be for LEGALIZATION of hookers -- but it remains illegal. This "democracy" thing is a crock of sheet.

5:05 - Their slave trade ended 200 years ago. By your logic, we're not a model of morality for the exact same reason. Our internal slave trade only ended 150 years ago. Ancient history the way I see it.

As to your other points (legalizing drugs, something about den Haag), good for them.

cant we all agree that male prostitution is worse because they don't get beat up and enslaved nearly as often?

5:13, that's because (1) the readers of ATL are more highly educated than the majority of voters, (2) the readers of ATL are less likely to be fanatical religious nuts than the majority of voters.

Hmm, I wonder if the two are correlated...

5:15, the male prostitutes that get beaten up and enslaved cost WAY above market.

5:06 - the real question is if society's moral opposition to prostitution causes the PTSD and other mental trauma to prostitutes, or if it is an inherent result of prosituting oneself. If it is just a side effect of society telling the prostitute that what they are doing is wrong, then the other arguements hold and prostitution should be legalized. If it is inherently traumatizing and debasing to prostitute oneself, then society's moral outrage towards prostitution is pefectly justified, and it should remain illegal.

Has anyone done studies in Amsterdam, etc. to find if the emotional effects of prostitution changed after it was legalized? Have those societies accepted it as a valid and moral occupation?

4:15: More government regulation is NEVER a way to make something better. Take your European socialism elsewhere and long-live the free market.

Also, there are other ways to stop the poor treatment of prostitutes than to legalize it. That argument just doesn't make any sense. The way to stop it is for people to learn the difference between right and wrong. Until that happens, wrongs (especially those committed against prostitution) should continue to be illegal. This is not a victimless crime.

4:15: More government regulation is NEVER a way to make something better. Take your European socialism elsewhere and long-live the free market.

Also, there are other ways to stop the poor treatment of prostitutes than to legalize it. That argument just doesn't make any sense. The way to stop it is for people to learn the difference between right and wrong. Until that happens, wrongs (especially those committed against other people) should continue to be illegal. This is not a victimless crime.

well said 4:45

Hey! Why don't we make terrorism legal? That way, we can control it and lower the incidents of terror. We can also make it much safer that way. Terrorists can get licenses, and we can all benefit from the revenue!

Why have any criminal law at all? If we legalize something, it just all goes away. Everybody will be automatically nice and clean. Government is the reason people are bad, right?

And - we don't have to stop there: we can legalize gay terrorism (along with gay [whatever]) to avoid any charges of sexism.

5:20 - not when you push them into your tinted window van fresh off christopher street they don't...

Whether it is damaging is irrelevant. A woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her body. It's in the Constitution, somewhere.

5:28 your argument would only make sense if people were being voluntarily terrorized for money. In other words, your argument doesn't make any sense.

maybe we could track $100 bill that somehow made it from a john to a terrorist, and the the Bush administration could run fear mongering articles that show that supporting your local hooker supports osama. Then we could declare all womens privtaes outside of wedlock off limits by reason of national security and waste millions of taxpayers dollars putting dumb ads that no one watches on TV.

5:31: The woman, maybe. But that mean that it shouldn't be a crime for the john?

amen !

Oh! So you're saying making something legal doesn't automatically lower its frequency, cost, and harms?

5:34 - terrorism might be the new BDSM for when BDSM gets passe. Sounds kinda hot.

What constitutes a prostitute is the pursuit of profit.

We're all hookers, and a price can be placed on dignity (apparently).

Saw Dershowitz defending Spitzer on CNN last night -- what a hack. Lost some respect for him.

to 5:21, Because of the nature of PTSD, I think it is highly unlikely that social disapprobation causes it. PTSD occurs when a event is so traumatic that a person keeps reliving it, often if they are exposed to "triggers"--sights, sounds, smells, experiences that remind them of the trauma.

to 5:31, should we be allowed to sell ourselves into slavery? Or sell our organs? If selling sex is totally acceptable, since parents in most states can require their children to work and are entitled to the money they make, is it okay for parents to sell their children as prostitutes?

Good point: we must repeal the 13th amendment, which unfairly outlaws consensual activity.

If it were legal there'd be more girls willing to sell their services and the business would be more transparent which would foster more competition and so reduce prices. That way us long-suffering docu-monkeys could be hittin' Kristen for $430 (instead of the currently unaffordable rate of $4300) and livin' large like Mister Face Spritzer.

How can Elliot Spitzer not get Lawyer of the Day on this blog? I can think of no one more deserving.

5:22/5:23, you make no sense at all. First, criminalizing prostitution IS ITSELF a government regulation! So by your logic, prostituion should be legalized. Second, you blather on about how prostitution is somehow inherently "wrong" without any logic or reasoning to back it up. Are you even a lawyer? You suck at thinking.

6:00 - wouldn't there also be more demand to soak up the surplus in girls? I'm not sure if such a huge cut in price is likely. If there is licensing, taxes, exams, and regulation, that would also boost the price.

People have talked about the safety aspect, which an important reason to legalize it. Legal prostitution means it can be regulated to benefit everyone involved.

I haven't read all the comments, so I don't know if this was mentioned, but another benefit of legalization is unionization and other employee protections. As it stands, prostitutes have little voice and are often forced to fork over too much of their pay.

6:03 - big difference here. Making something illegal does require government intervention: the police, courts, prisons.

Legalizing and regulating something is far more burdensome: "Bureau of Prostitutes," (including full time bureaucracy - maybe in every state) inspectors, notice/comment rule making, AND policy/prisons/courts.

Support legal, independent prostitutes = Craigslist!!

It is legal in Nevada, except in two counties. HBO has a show featuring one (The Bunny Ranch) near Carson City, the state capitol. Much safer, legally, than using craiglist or other on-lines services. Yes, the brothels accept plastic, and I love writing off the expenses.

6:20 - isn't the senior US Senator from Nevada a . . . Mormon?

6:23: aka Senate Majority Leader, Mormon.

Prostitution is all-but-legal in vegas with clubs for it...

5:55 " If selling sex is totally acceptable, since parents in most states can require their children to work and are entitled to the money they make, is it okay for parents to sell their children as prostitutes?"
Apparently only if they are sold to Cravath partners.

Legalizing prostitution is simply not the solution to making it safer or less stigmatizing for the women or men selling themselves. Human dignity is not a commoditity that should be bought, sold, and taxed/regulated by government agencies. And, no, it does not work in Amsterdam, as many of the women there are being sold unwillingly, are drugged, and are abused. Even in Nevada, where prostition in brothels is legal, the illegal street trade remains, as dangerous and violent as ever! I agree with 4:49!!

5:55, you are an idiot with your illogical parade of horrors (whores!). Of couse parents couldn't force their children into prostitution. That's called statutory rape. Of course people couldn't sell themselves into slavery; the 13th Amendment prohibits that. Most of theis country's problems are caused by the fact that people as stupid as you are allowed to vote.

As far as letting people sell their organs goes, perhaps we should have that right, too.

According to 6:30, the best solution is to have him decide who votes and who does not. My guess is that everybody who agrees with him gets to vote. Otherwise, you just do what he says, with or without reason.

You pay for it one way or the other anyway

I'll never understand how some people come to the conclusion that a feeling of moral superiority somehows translate into moral authority to regulate people who may feel differently.

People are perfectly welcome to self regulate, but please refrain from believing your personal choices are the optimal decisions for each of your neighbors.

While selling children into prostitution would be statutory rape until the age of consent, what about when the age of consent is 16, or 14, as it is in some states-could the parent then sell the child?
Given that it is being done already, if prostitution were legalized I do believe this would become an issue.
Remember the Cravath partner buying sex with children in 2006?
http://www.nysun.com/article/28483

5:39 - Good point. The Constitution is strangely silent about what a man can do with HIS body.

People "sell themselves" into slavery every day. It's called "going to work."

6:26, there's nothing inherently undignified about having sex for money. In the 18th century, the artistic and scientific enlightment was facilitated by courtesans, prostitutes who ran the social scene. They held salons where artists and scholars would meet, socialize, and share ideas. To be a courtesan was to be among the most dignified. And what about the Geisha?

The only argument against legalizing prostitution is a Christian one, and that kind of argument shouldn't dictate public policy.

While selling children into prostitution would be statutory rape until the age of consent, what about when the age of consent is 16, or 14, as it is in some states-could the parent then sell the child?
Given that it is being done already, if prostitution were legalized I do believe this would become an issue.
Remember the Cravath partner buying sex with children in 2006?
http://www.nysun.com/article/28483

6:36: what about the Muslim argument? I think you lose your head for committing adultery/prostitution.

Once you go to heaven, then the virgins get prostituted all day/night long but not until then!

6:36, you seem to be forgetting that in the 18th century, when your courtesans were so dignified and living such wonderful lives, women were otherwise property of their fathers or husbands. Your argument is absurd. And, one need not be a christian to believe that selling oneself is an affront to human dignity.

6:38, I think you're being tongue-in-cheek. If not, you're right, replace "Christian" with "religious."

Isn't there a Jewish argument against prostitutes, too?

Whatever happened to that Florida professor who picked up a ho in his mercedes. Their was all kinds of tierist/racist talk. Now we want to legalize prostitution when someone the likes of the hypocrite Spitzer gets caught up.

I am less concerned about his frailities where hos are concerned. I am however, disappointed that he was not a more skillful politician, since he's ruined the lives of so many wonderful capitalists. Payback's a bitch!

The Jews would be more open minded.

To 6:30,

Before you go calling people idiots, perhaps you should do some legal research. The age of consent in many states is below the age of majority, so children having sex would not be statutory rape.

Also, the point with slavery is that by your logic, the 13th amend. should be repealed. And also, laws banning statutory rape. Because if there is valid consent, you say yay! Free markets.

to 6:36,
the geisha, hetairae, and courtesans are all very interesting people, but many of them died in ignominy and poverty, could never marry and have children, and for every one of them there were hundreds or thousands of street prostitutes. My argument isn't a Christian one, it is a human dignity one. And if you think Christianity is the only religion that opposes prostitution, I don't know where you've been.

Yeah! Once we put a label on the other side's argument, we win!

What is it with powerful men? Seems they get a bit of power, and then think with the "wrong" head, and, inevitably, get caught.
Legalizing prostitution is not the answer, getting men out of power altogether might be a good start, though...

@ 6:43

I'm amazed that you think something as powerful as human dignity could be erased by selling sex for money.

Question: Is human dignity erased by the selling of one's labor in other regards? Or just sex?

I suppose my issue is this: Why should sex in particular be tied to human dignity? It seems like a tidy social convention that most of us ascribe to, but not particularly meaningful beyond that.

We all sell ourselves every day. People only get worked up about prostitution because sex is involved.

Lawyers sell themselves even more than the average person. We are basically intellectual whores, selling our intellect to advance someone else's cause. Being a lawyer should be illegal.

6:43 "It seems like a tidy social convention that most of us ascribe to, but not particularly meaningful beyond that."

Considering that it is a social convention that most of us ascribe to, and one that humans have ascribed to throughout history in various cultures, saying it is "not particularly meaninful beyond that" is just ridiculous. One could argue that all morality is simply a "tidy social convention that most of us ascribe to" but, I doubt you'd be willing to argue that morality is simply meaningless. Or, maybe you would?

6:43, you raise a good points. The age of consent issue is one that would have to be worked out. Perhaps instead of statutory rape, it would just be rape since the child is being forced into prostitution.

But slavery is counter to my libertarian perspective, even without the 13th A. Prostitutes willingly have sex for money. Slaves aren't willing, and even if one were to willingly sell oneself into slavery, the institution of slavery doesn't provide an "out" should the once-willing slave change his or her mind. Also, I agree that there is an age below which one can't give meaningful consent. My positions on slavery and statutory rape, therefore, are not inconsistent.

The courtesan/geisha argument was to counter the idea that sex-for-cash is inherently undignified, not to argue that their position was somehow enviable. Those that didn't die in ignominy or povery were well respected and probably happy.

I also happen to have two acquaintances who are prostitutes. Admitidly, in the case of one, his career choice is likely the result of a psychological issue (total nympho), but it's definitely not the cause. He's a university student getting well paid for something he'd do anyway. Both, however, are happy, functioning people.

You're taking my "Christian" argument too literally. Religious arguments from any source have no place in public policy.

Finally, many of the people opposed to legalizing prostitution forget that prostitutes can still say no.

Actually, 6:56, if you look at the results from the poll, "most of us" don't ascribe to your social convention.

Since concepts of morality change over time there is a strong argument that morality is meaningless. Or, not meaningless, but subjective and variable and something that should be up to the individual and not imposed by law. You are basically just trying to impose your subjective, current-day morality on everyone. That's exactly what people tried to do when they banned interracial relationships, homosexual acts, etc. They were simply protecting human dignity and morality, at least the way they saw it.

prostitution is filthy. it is morally wrong.

to 6:51, human dignity is not "erased" but rather harmed by selling sex because the person is treated as a means to an end (sexual pleasure) instead of as an end in themself. Could you say the same thing about labor? Perhaps. But people usually don't develop PTSD from office work. The harms are very real--what about STDs? And no, condoms are not 100% effective against any STD.

Let's say people somehow get PTSD because of "disapproval" (which isn't possible, but nevermind.) In order for it to be ethical to legalize (not decriminalize, mind you) the practice, I think you would first have to solve the social disapproval problem, so you aren't consigning a large number of prostitutes to PTSD.

You don't see how it would be demeaning to be ordered to perform sex in a certain way? For reals? If you were the one taking the orders? By someone you found unattractive?

And I do think that human dignity can be disrespected in other workplaces as well. The abusive screaming boss. The one who hits you or threatens you. Those are also working conditions that are demeaning.

Making consensual activity illegal because some people don't like it is the antithesis of freedom.

7:01, the poll is far from accurate, or representative of any broad segment of society. Maybe most of the ATL readers support legalization, but, that is not saying much.

6:56 - slavery was once a social convention that most Americans ascribed to, and one "that humans have ascribed to throughout history in various cultures." By your logic, then, arguing that slavery is immoral is "just rediculous."

6:58

Abortion does not have an "out" either.

Kicking religion out of public policy would kick out 99% of political philosophers from history, especially the US founders. It's much easier to win an argument when you disqualify almost the whole field of debate, isn't it?

First of all, the government "protects us from ourselves" in a myriad of ways, some arguably good, some not so. 7:03 has it right, prostitution allows the use of a person as a means to another's sexual pleasure for an exchange of money...it is in this use as a means that dignity is affronted. It is an affront to dignity because of, among other things, the intimacy of the act itself (not to mention the real fact that it could result in the conception of a child) and current societal conventions regarding the body/sex. Maybe if society completely changed it's attitude about sex and women, then the argument would change in that other, different, world. For now, we live in this reality, where legalizing prostitution is a terrible idea as prostitution is an affront to human dignity.

Most prostitutes make thousands of dollars an hour.

7:03 - the prostitute doesn't have to take orders or sleep with someone he or she finds unattractive.

Further, your PTSD argument isn't convincing. First, I haven't seen evidence that prostitutes have a higher incidence of PTSD. Second, even if I did, that doesn't mean selling sex for money CAUSED the PTSD. Because prostitution is illegal, the type of person that might become a prostitute might already have psychological or drug problems increasing the likelihood of developing PTSD. Finally, even if prostitution as it exists today IS a cause of PTSD, we don't know what aspect of the job causes the disorder. Assuming that the majority of prostitutes are working in oppressed conditions, it's likely those conditions that cause PTSD, not the act of having sex for money. Legalizing prostitution would therefore remove the very conditions that cause the PTSD.

You and others who base their position on morality or the "ick" factor will not likely be persuaded by logical arguments supporting the legalization of prostitution. My hope is only that rational others are exposed to these arguments as a result of the current "scandal."

First of all, the government "protects us from ourselves" in a myriad of ways, some arguably good, some not so much. 7:03 has it right, prostitution allows the use of a person as a means to another's sexual pleasure for an exchange of money...it is in this use as a means that dignity is affronted. It is an affront to dignity because of, among other things, the intimacy of the act itself (not to mention the real fact that it could result in the conception of a child) and current societal conventions regarding the body/sex. Maybe if society completely changed its attitude about sex and women, then the argument would change in that other, different, world. For now, we live in this reality, where legalizing prostitution is a terrible idea as prostitution is an affront to human dignity.

Most prostitutes make thousands of dollars an hour? I don't think so.

7:10, the founding fathers knew when to seperate religion from politics.

Further, this has nothing to do with abortion, and don't try to guess my views on that subject based on my views of prostitution.

7:17,

You stole my post from me. I'd love to see the PTSD study, my suspicion is that it's results really aren't meaningful as a talking point to what we're discussing here.

Please legalize prostitution. That way mi madre wouldn't be a criminal anymore. At least not for spreading sus piernas.

7:17

but if prostitution is legalized, aren't the only people that are going to do it, people who see the act as just a meaningless thing that feels good? Say what you will about how I am missing out on the better sex (sex when you know who the other person is), but shouldn't it at least be an option for those that want it. It sounds like the sort of sex Spitzer wants he cannot get anywhere else. There are things that you could do that afterwards you don't want that women tucking your kids into bed and kissing them. Judge those people all you want, but giving everyone an option doesn't harm the people who abstain

PTSD Study:

Prostitution, Violence Against Women,
and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
by Melissa Farley, PhD and Howard Barkan, DrPH (*)
Women & Health, 27 (3): 37-49. © 1998 by The Haworth Press, Inc

7:17, limiting personal freedoms in order to protect people from themselves is a greater affront to human dignity than prostitution could ever be.

Do you guys get what PTSD is? I explained it upthread. It is flashbacks of traumatic events. IT CANNOT BE CAUSED BY SOCIAL DISAPPROBATION! Rape victims get PTSD as well, it used to be called "Rape Trauma Syndrome."

To 7:17, not all prostitutes can pick and choose among clients. In fact, most can't. As another secondary effect, the $5-$25 street hooker will always be cheaper, so there is no reason why "illegal" prostitution won't continue to flourish. Hell, it is illegal now, and streetwalkers still exist. Amazing.

And for those of you too lazy to google, here is the third hit (cached) taken from the psychiatric times:

"Exposure to paid or unpaid sexual violence may result in symptoms of PTSD. Most prostitution includes the traumatic stressors that are categorized as DSM-IV criterion A1 of the diagnosis of PTSD (American Psychiatric Association, 1994):

Direct personal experience of an event that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury, or other threat to one's personal integrity; or witnessing an event that involves death, injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of another person.

In response to these events, the person with PTSD experiences fear and powerlessness, oscillating between emotional numbing and emotional/physiologic hyperarousal. Posttraumatic stress disorder is known to be especially severe when the stressor is planned and implemented (as in war, rape, incest, battering, torture or prostitution).

In nine countries, across widely varying cultures, we found that two-thirds of 854 women in prostitution had symptoms of PTSD (Farley et al., 2003) at a severity that was comparable to treatment-seeking combat veterans (Weathers et al., 1993), battered women seeking shelter (Houskamp and Foy, 1991; Kemp et al., 1991), rape survivors (Bownes et al., 1991) and refugees from state-organized torture (Ramsay et al., 1993).

The women were interviewed in a range of contexts (Farley et al., 2003). Interviewers from supportive local agencies accompanied the researchers, and agency referrals were given in writing. In some countries, women and girls were interviewed at agencies that offered services specifically to women and girls in prostitution (Colombia, Thailand, Zambia). Elsewhere, women were interviewed in an STD clinic (Germany, Turkey), in the street (Canada, United States), or in brothels, strip clubs and massage parlors, as well as in the street (Mexico, South Africa). Women often reported that they prostituted in both indoor and outdoor locations.

The intensity of trauma-related symptoms was related to the intensity of involvement in prostitution. Women who serviced more customers in prostitution reported more severe physical symptoms (Vanwesenbeeck, 1994). The longer women were in prostitution, the more STDs they were likely to have experienced (Parriott, 1994).

It is a cruel lie to suggest that decriminalization or legalization will protect anyone in prostitution. It is not possible to protect someone whose source of income exposes them to the likelihood of being raped on average once a week (Hunter, 1994). One woman explained that prostitution is 'like domestic violence taken to the extreme' (Leone, 2001). Another woman said, 'What is rape for others, is normal for us' (Farley et al., in press)."

This isn't the only study. God you people are sick if you think this is normal or okay. I don't doubt that some prostitutes, male and female, can have completely pleasant, non-traumatic experiences. But both of my friends who engaged in sex work quit because the work upset them.

Thank you, 7:33, I will happily peruse this study. I expect to find severe flaws in logic and methodology.

Farley's Fact Sheet:

78 percent of 55 women who sought help from the Council for Prostitution Alternatives in 1991 reported being raped an average of 16 times a year by pimps, and were raped 33 times a year by johns.

62 percent reported having been raped in prostitution.

73 percent reported having experienced physical assault in prostitution.

72 percent were currently or formerly homeless.

92 percent stated that they wanted to escape prostitution immediately.

83 percent of prostitutes are victims of assault with a weapon.

75 percent of women in escort prostitution had attempted suicide.

67 percent meet diagnostic criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

In short, the victims of prostitution are mostly the prostitutes themselves. It just may be that they no longer have the ability left to "consent" to be a willing participant in their so-called victimless crime.

7:33

Being a soldier and going to war causes PTSD, so should we make it illegal for people to enlist? Or better not let people drive either because if they get in a accident they might develop PTSD.

Even if it is causes PTSD, that's nothing a little therapy cannot fix

7:39

but 8% (likely the women pulling in 5K per hour) want to stay in prostitution. So all we should do is legalize it and regulate it (like say prostitutes cannot charge under $500/hour (as the high-end escorts live a good life and people with that kind of money to burn are not likely to rape etc))

PTSD, while concerning, is really not the only issue. Possibly the better point is raised by 7:39, if the women going into this work have been raped or abused as children, as is shown by the studies, can they truly "consent"?

"78 percent of 55 women who sought help from the Council for Prostitution Alternatives in 1991 "

Selection bias.

How have they not consented? Regardless of what happened to them, they are adults.

7:43 "and people with that kind of money to burn are not likely to rape etc"

This is simply an ignorant statement. I remind you of the Cravath partner who was paying a mother to have sex with her 13 and 15 year old daughters, depravity is in no way absent simply because one is wealthy, human depravity knows no class, and arguably may be more prevalent amongst those with more money and power as they feel they are above the law.

@ 7:40

Unfortunately, since the industry is unregulated and they receive no health care benefits they can't receive therapy.

Better to just raise the punishment for engaging in the behavior, because only then can we eliminate this profession...once and for all!

7:35, your study is about paid sexual violence. Rape-for-pay. Of course I'm opposed to that. That subcategory of prostitution does not describe someone who decides, on his or her own free will, that having sex with a particular person would be worth it if the price were right, and then makes a career of it. That subcategory of prostituion does not describe Spitzer's prostitute. It doesn't even include male prostitutes!!! It's morally and intellectually arrogant of you (and just plan wrong), to assume that a person can't decide to have sex for money without it being constructive rape.

None of my arguments (at 7:17) assumed that PTSD was a result of "SOCIAL DISAPPROBATION!" In fact, I agree that social disapprobation probably can't cause PTSD.

Good point, 7:45. Abuse victims tend to go into prostitution. The suggested theories for why that is true include that because they were sexually abused, they see their only worth as being a sexual object. Or they think of their sexuality as not belonging to them.

How could a person, ethically, go to a prostitute when they know that like as not, they are damaging this person, who was already damaged by child abuse and sexual abuse?

And to 7:40, if you think prostitution is as valuable as military service, you have a screw loose.

to 7:43, let's say 8% do want to stay in prostitution. Since the other 92% currently are staying in prostitution, do you really think it is a free choice?

7:39

So if I met a prostitute (not knowing she was a prostitute) on her night off and we hit it off and go back to my place, have sex, and NO MONEY IS EXCHANGED. You would say I raped her as her traumatic childhood or whatever made it impossible for her to consent to the sex regardless of what she said before hand?

to 7:50: I wasn't just responding to you, re: social disapprobation.

You: 7:35, your study is about paid sexual violence. Rape-for-pay. Of course I'm opposed to that. That subcategory of prostitution does not describe someone who decides, on his or her own free will, that having sex with a particular person would be worth it if the price were right, and then makes a career of it. That subcategory of prostituion does not describe Spitzer's prostitute.

Me: That is how the women describe it. Rape for pay. Get it? This isn't about some subset of prostitution. It is about prostitution.

You: It doesn't even include male prostitutes!!! It's morally and intellectually arrogant of you (and just plan wrong), to assume that a person can't decide to have sex for money without it being constructive rape.

Me: You missed my caveat. I said that I agreed that it was possible for a small minority to be happy prostitutes. But 67% PTSD, worldwide, including in vaunted, legal Germany, is a pretty damn significant problem. RE: Male prostitutes, they would be more difficult to study, because there are fewer. We also don't have very good studies of female rapists and male rape victims.

You could always look for a study re: male prostitutes, if you are interested.

7:52, the argument that she could not consent to sex, not for money, is a bit different.

Consent when no inducement is offered is really not the same as consent after inducement, or a cash for services transaction.

7:50

Why outlaw the high end prostitutes that keep getting politicians in trouble. Regardless of how bad the 92% of prostitutes that charge $5 per act have it, I doubt we would hear a 3-5K prostitute complaining. So we can legalize all prostitution that charges more than some high amount per hour and capture bring these 8% of women who enjoy their job and money out of the shadows

I'm not 7:39, but here is my answer. If you had any reason to believe that she was a victim of child sexual abuse, or had boundary issues, would you consider having sex with her to be an ethical act?

Let's set the bar a little higher than "is she legally capable of consent under the current statutory scheme" people.

Anonymouse, our ideologies overlap. The type of abuse you describe in these studies needs to be prevented. But these results come from a sampling of (1) women prostitutes who (2) sought help from the Council for Prostitution Alternatives. The methodology is fundamentally flawed, and we can't assume that it represents the universe of prostitutes.

Here's why it should be legalized: because a frighteningly high percentage of prostitutes are walking around with HIV. The rate is much, much lower in Nevada.

to 7:58,

So wait, it is illegal to sell sex for less than $3-5k?

Plus, I've repeatedly said (my screen name is "Anonymouse") that I believe in decriminalization, at least as to prostitutes, and am willing to listen to arguments re: decriminalizing it for "Johns" and "Janes."

to 7:59,

That is only some of the women studied. They also approached women on the street and questioned them.

Did you miss this paragraph, or is it the (earlier) study referred to by 7:33 that you are citing?

"The women were interviewed in a range of contexts (Farley et al., 2003). Interviewers from supportive local agencies accompanied the researchers, and agency referrals were given in writing. In some countries, women and girls were interviewed at agencies that offered services specifically to women and girls in prostitution (Colombia, Thailand, Zambia). Elsewhere, women were interviewed in an STD clinic (Germany, Turkey), in the street (Canada, United States), or in brothels, strip clubs and massage parlors, as well as in the street (Mexico, South Africa). Women often reported that they prostituted in both indoor and outdoor locations."

The question is not whether she can consent to sex with a man who she is attracted to, the question is whether she can truly consent to selling her body after experiencing that type of trauma and degradation as a child.

@ 7:59

And even if it did represent the universe of prostitutes, if that is the status of prostitution while illegal, exactly how will it get worse with legality + regulation.

Further, to the extent that this occurs in countries that have legalized prostitution, this is an issue of poor regulation as opposed to a problem endemic to the industry I would suspect.

Or perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think they've run a study segmenting the ladies of the night population according to predisposition/history.

8:00

What's wrong with saying it is illegal to sell sex less than $3-5K?

Almost all of the concerns of prostitution would go away as the high end people are not the homeless disease infested people that we are concerned about when speaking of the evils of prostitution. At those rates the sex will not be in some back alley where the john can rape and run, but would be more formalized.

To the extent that cheaper prostitution would still occur illegally, so what it will happen if we do nothing might as well let some of the prostitutes enjoy their lives, i.e., don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

to 8:03. It won't get worse. But we shouldn't legalize things that are inherently degrading, harmful, and yes, they have of course considered their histories of abuse.

It could be based (in part) on poor regulation. But since the largest predictor is how many customers they service, I'm thinking no. Also, the numbers are shockingly consistent, across "indoor" and "outdoor" prostitutes (brothels are considered safer), legal and illegal, religious and secular nations.

I can understand why people are deeply uncomfortable at realizing how dirty this business is, but that is not an excuse for ignoring facts that are staring you straight in the face.

to 8:05

I'm fine with decriminalizing. I won't say it again. And you are wrong if you think the "higher class" hookers are happy. They have the same childhood abuse stories that the poor ones did. And 75% have attempted suicide.

And I think the way you describe prostitutes who don't command high prices is dehumanizing, disrespectful, and sick.

Finally, if you think higher-paid hookers who engage in the same acts are safer, you live in a dream world. It is frequency, and safety in the context of sex work and the prostitutes other sex life that determines whether or not she is infected. And just plain luck. Did she sleep with someone infected with something particularly bad.

@8:07

Alcohol.

Banned for same reasons?

Dworkin sums it up:

It is always extraordinary, when looking at this money exchange, to understand that in most people's minds the money is worth more than the woman is. The ten dollars, the thirty dollars, the fifty dollars, is worth much more than her whole life. The money is real, more real than she is. With the money he can buy a human life and erase its importance from every aspect of civil and social consciousness and conscience and society, from the protections of law, from any right of citizenship, from any concept of human dignity and human sovereignty. For fifty fucking dollars any man can do that. If you were going to think of a way to punish women for being women, poverty would be enough. Poverty is hard. It hurts. The bitches would be sorry they're women. It's hard to be hungry. It's hard not to have a nice place to live in. You feel real desperate. Poverty is very punishing. But poverty isn't enough, because poverty alone does not provide a pool of women for men to fuck on demand. Poverty is insufficient to create that pool of women, no matter how hungry women get. So, in different cultures, societies are organized differently to get the same result: not only are women poor, but the only thing of value a woman has is her so-called sexuality, which, along with her body, has been turned into a sellable commodity. Her so-called sexuality becomes the only thing that matters; her body becomes the only thing that anyone wants to buy. An assumption then can be made: if she is poor and needs money, she will be selling sex. The assumption may be wrong. The assumption does not create the pool of women who are prostituted. It takes more than that. In our society, for instance, in the population of women who are prostituted now, we have women who are poor, who have come from poor families; they are also victims of child sexual abuse, especially incest; and they have become homeless.

Incest is boot camp. Incest is where you send the girl to learn how to do it. So you don't, obviously, have to send her anywhere, she's already there and she's got nowhere else to go. She's trained. And the training is specific and it is important: not to have any real boundaries to her own body; to know that she's valued only for sex; to learn about men what the offender, the sex offender, is teaching her. But even that is not enough, because then she runs away and she is out on the streets and homeless. For most women, some version of all these kinds of destitution needs to occur.

to 8:11. I'll bite. It has positive health affects, it does not cause PTSD, the majority of users do not harm themselves or others as a result of its use, it does not require another person to be degraded, people who are under the influence of alcohol are aware that they are impaired (regardless of what they say in court later) so they know they are not safe to drive, etc., it does not exacerbate childhood mental health problems, and it tastes damn good.

Yes, I do know this is a line-drawing exercise. But the people on this board shouldn't be so jolly about legalizing prostitution/thinking it is all fine and dandy when it ain't.

and, more Dworkin

I want to bring us back to basics. Prostitution: what is it? It is the use of a woman's body for sex by a man, he pays money, he does what he wants. The minute you move away from what it really is, you move away from prostitution into the world of ideas. You will feel better; you will have a better time; it is more fun; there is plenty to discuss, but you will be discussing ideas, not prostitution. Prostitution is not an idea. It is the mouth, the vagina, the rectum, penetrated usually by a penis, sometimes hands, sometimes objects, by one man and then another and then another and then another and then another. That's what it is.

I ask you to think about your own bodies--if you can do so outside the world that the pornographers have created in your minds, the flat, dead, floating mouths and vaginas and anuses of women. I ask you to think concretely about your own bodies used that way. How sexy is it? Is it fun? The people who defend prostitution and pornography want you to feel a kinky little thrill every time you think of something being stuck in a woman. I want you to feel the delicate tissues in her body that are being misused. I want you to feel what it feels like when it happens over and over and over and over and over and over and over again: because that is what prostitution is.

Which is why--from the perspective of a woman in prostitution or a woman who has been in prostitution--the distinctions other people make between whether the event took place in the Plaza Hotel or somewhere more inelegant are not the distinctions that matter. These are irreconcilable perceptions, with irreconcilable premises. Of course the circumstances must matter, you say. No, they do not, because we are talking about the use of the mouth, the vagina, and the rectum. The circumstances don't mitigate or modify what prostitution is.

Anyway, if a coal miner can legally run a 1 in 20 risk of being killed on the job and a nearly 100% risk of being traumatized by experiencing the death of friends on the job, why can't a pretty girl with loose morals exploit her hotness and those men with too much cash and too little respect for their wives? Far less risk. Far greater pay.

@8:15

I'll admit this is a bit of a trap since I can attest to the wide ranging damages alcohol causes. It is almost certainly a net loss on society, regardless of social lubrication benefits. The marginal gains in health effects are radically overweighed by the potential for disaster.

Despite losing two alcohol related deaths in my immediate family, I still don't think it should be banned. But in my particular case, I can say that each of these effects, with the notable exception of PTSD, are present in the remains of my family.

Now, that's sort of an unfair sandbagging, so I'll get to my real point:
this job isn't going anywhere. Legalizing it would create a number of potential benefits (health care, required therapy, wage gaurantees, limitations on number of clients per diem), even if it doesn't eliminate the underlying harms.

I fail to see how keeping it illegal has any solid benefit other than keeping our consciences intact (though I might give you some leeway on the argument that it could increase use of service).

to 8:19,

Sorry, was that supposed to resemble a logical argument? Just because we should make coal-mining safer doesn't mean prostitution is hunky-dory.

Something in the world is more dangerous than prostitution! Therefore, it should be legal!

8:11

Higher class hookers are safer. At higher prices: 1) they are "used" less; 2) their johns are wealthier, as wealthier people due to education on the risks and access to medical treatment have lower rate of diseases, she would need to turn more tricks to have an equal likelihood of contracting something.

Really the largest danger is what she does in her personal time, but that is the same with any women you pick up at a bar.

On Dworkin:

I'm sorry, but I see no reason why intent should change characterization. If a woman elects to lead a polyanderous existence, would he feel the same way? If so, then we come back to the same moral superiority argument.

As to his earlier point, regarding money > women, I fail to see how that extends from the act. The person isn't paying for her life, he is paying for a service that Dworkin attaches great significance to. This subjective significance may not be shared by everyone, and imputing it to them is a necessary element to his argument, which, in my opinion, defeats it.

to 8:22. Why not just decriminalize it? Like I have been arguing all along?

I really think your benefits scheme is wholly unrealistic except: (1) for high price hookers (but most want to be off the books because who the fuck wants that on their publicly discoverable tax returns); (2) if the government provides the benefits. It completely cuts out most of the low-paid prostitutes.

I disagree with you about alcohol, mainly because alcohol is something we do to ourselves. If you want to talk about doing a better job of preventing drunk driving, I'm all ears.

8:23, you are talking about human beings here, and if you believe what you are writing you are a sick individual.

...from the perspective of a woman in prostitution or a woman who has been in prostitution--the distinctions other people make between whether the event took place in the Plaza Hotel or somewhere more inelegant are not the distinctions that matter. These are irreconcilable perceptions, with irreconcilable premises. Of course the circumstances must matter, you say. No, they do not, because we are talking about the use of the mouth, the vagina, and the rectum. The circumstances don't mitigate or modify what prostitution is.

@ 8:26.

My brother works full time at Burger King. He has health care, a 401k, and paid vacation.

I would imagine the profits on prostitution are substantially higher due to the significantly lower capital requirements. Providing benefits would not be an issue. Srsly.

to 8:23. I could give a damn about the relative safety of the clients. The focus of my comment was only child abuse and suicide. The harm to the hookers.

A person with more sexual partners is more likely to pass on an STD than one with fewer. Repeated trauma to the vagina makes it easier to catch them.

Oh, and the Dworkin anon is quoting is a woman, and an ex-prostitute. The subjective significance of the act clearly mattered to Dworkin, the prostitute. Perhaps you should go interview a lot of sex workers before you apply your naive, detached assumptions to them. The woman spelled it out. And you just want to close your ears. Why is that?

So everyone here who has no problem with making prostitution legal, I take it that your rationale is free choice, right? I'm all for free choice -- I think it's the greatest thing on earth, better even than money, and boy do I love money.

So as long as someone is consenting to something, it's okay, right?

So the next step is to set up violence brothels. Sometimes you get so worked up and angry that, gosh, you just gotta beat someone up! And there's a subset of people who are more than happy to be beaten up, for the right price. So, hey, everyone consents, client gets what s/he wants, violence recipient gets paid, everyone wins.

Then we'll need to set up amputation brothels, for those days when you really, really, REALLY gotta hurt something or someone, like DESTROY something. I bet that, if you pay enough, there are people out there willing to lose limbs for money (and, hey, if you cut it off the right way, there's a small chance it could be reattached anyway -- bonus!). So I expect that, as long as people do this stuff of their own free will, there should be no laws against this either.

Am I right or am I right? Self-important moralists feel free to move along, I need not your sneering superiority to mock the almighty trump card of Choice.

Paying for the use of a woman's body for your pleasure should indeed be, and stay, illegal. How can anyone possibly argue that this is not an affront to human dignity, you are paying someone to USE their BODY for your own ends. Should you also be able to pay a woman and beat her if she agrees to it, how about torturing her, is that acceptable at the right price?

to 8:31: Way to miss the point. You can only pay benefits if people are willing to go on the books. A lot of women are not. Also, why would they pay benefits? Read about the bunny ranch sometime. Those women are not treated well, and sure, they get doctors and such, but it is so the brothel can put a check in a box. They sure aren't getting psych. services.

Finally, this does nothing to answer the point that most women, who sell themselves for very little, will remain part of the black market.

i know of at least three women associates at my v-50 lawfirm who have put out for senior partners just so they could get the best assignments. if this is legal, then prostitution should be too.

@8:34

BDSM dungeons already enjoy a degree of popularity I think you would find disturbing.

I suspect the difference is that there is no reason to attach any special significance to USEing someone's BODY for your personal ends. I happen to attach personal significance to it, but I find it non-objectionable that others may not. I adamantly refuse to export my personal preferences on this matter to everyone else.

I realize sex and it's trappings may be extremely important to you. They are to me too. But our subjective feelings are not a moral imperative for the world, regardless of how much we wish otherwise. I think there are universal goods that just about everyone agrees on (murder, slavery, etc.), but, outside that narrow category, I think people should keep to themselves.

8:39
FYI- that would be called sexual harassment, and it IS illegal.

8:34

we have violence brothels, it's called boxing. Furthermore, most fighter's careers end because of brain trauma from getting hit so many time... and yet not only is it a billion dollar a year industry it is expanding from boxing to MMA to no holds bar stuff.

@8:26(1) -- I can't believe you've never heard of Andrea Dworkin. She's a woman. A very famous, very hated woman.

I have hired call girls and junior associates to pull tricks for me at the Mayflower Hotel. I pay $4,100/hour.

I saw expand the illegality of prostitution to anyone who sleeps with a guy after he takes her to per se, or how bout those gold-diggers who marry the guy for his money. Once he kicks the bucket, throw her in jail and give the family fortune to the kids

The reason that I stopped posting on ATL is that I was making steady income working for 8:42 PM(3).

I've lost my job.

Unemployed and hungry,
Loyola 2L

"I realize sex and it's trappings may be extremely important to you. They are to me too. But our subjective feelings are not a moral imperative for the world, regardless of how much we wish otherwise."

What's the difference between subjective feelings and morality? *Where* exactly should we draw the line? If a five-year-old girl says she wants to have sex with her 43-year-old uncle, who are we to tell her she can't, just because subjectively we think it's icky? At some point you have to acknowledge that "feelings," "morals," whatever, SOMETHING gets to trump what others want to do.

8:26, how did you get through college and law school without exposure to dworkin. That is astounding.

If prostitution were legal, then I wouldn't be commiting a time each time I cheat on my wife.

@8:48

This is just an excellent question that I really don't have a bright line for. We could go through any number of examples and I could discuss my personal philosophy on each, but it really wouldn't do anything to solve the divide between you and I. Your category of universal moral goods that should translate into moral imperatives is obviously larger than mine.

For me, there needs to be near unanimous consent + my own personal agreement before I'd put it in the category. You don't require these criteria. That's fine, everyone believing in my personal philosophy isn't a moral imperative of mine, so I won't try to dissuade you from your viewpoint any further.

@ 8:51

Now that I think about it, I happen to recall running across her, though I'm horrible with names and generally not very interested in modern philosophers/political thinkers.

I'll admit to my own personal ignorance on her particular thoughts and take the hit on pride. Though her gender doesn't change my opinions of her quoted pieces.

8:42, boxing is not the equivalent of a violence brothel, both fighters train for the sport and engage in a competition. Here, we are talking about someone beating on another after paying a fee to that person to do so--a USE of that other person for a monetary fee. Boxing is not one fighter paying another to beat upon them, it is a competitive sport.

I don't see sex as anything more than a physical act and don't see the hooker as anything more than a vehicle...so what's wrong with that?

U:But you are using her for your own pleasure!
Me: How is that any different than someone watching a ballet?

U: It's SEX! the most intimate act between to people there is
M: See above it just feels good, like a message only better

U: Bow down to my Christian view of the value acts are supposed to have

Legislating morality has NEVER worked.

Not even in those case where it appears to have worked.

PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE LEGAL, HERE'S WHY...

lots of women already accept gifts of trips, jewelery, and meals from hard-working men. all these women have sex with the men to keep the gifts coming. these women are prostitutes too (they put out for tangible gifts, not cash), and their actions are not illegal. why then should women be prevented from getting paid for their sexual svcs. i'm serious about this and welcome serious responses.

8:41- "I think there are universal goods that just about everyone agrees on (murder, slavery, etc.), but, outside that narrow category, I think people should keep to themselves."

The difference we have here is that this is in my category of universal goods, but not in yours.

And why should the men have to put so much more effort into legally wining and dining a women when all we want is the sex and would gladly just pay the cash equivalent to that night out

8:58 pm (2)--

Did your mother accept a diamond engagement ring from your father? If so, is your mother a slut?

This investigation was begun after the IRS received a phone call from HSBC bank alterting it to possible evidence of "smurfing" - i.e. suspicious transfers of money performed to disguise the payment or reciept of money. After the IRS investigated, they discovered some of the money was going to a bank account connected with Eliot Spitzer. At that point, the investigation became a public corruption case and the FBI took over the investigation and discovered QAT Consulting and ultimately the prostition ring. Eliot nailed hundreds of people under the money laundering statutes. He should do hard time for the crime of money laundering, just like the people he sent away are doing.

@9:00

Agree. May the best man win. It would appear you already have.

Law Firm, Sex, and SCOTUS:
******************************************************************************************************
ANY WOMAN THAT HAS MADE PARTNER AT A FIRM HAS DEFINITELY CLIMBED MANY A LAW FIRM "LADDER." SIMPLY, WOMEN USE SEX TO ADVANCE IN THE LAW FIRM AND ELSEWHERE. ALWAYS HAVE... ALWAYS WILL.

CNN reported that Harriet Meyers slept with a Tx. Supreme Ct. justice just so that she could advance in the Bush administration.

I am a female associate who tends to agree with 9:14 overarching message. Although I don't agree that "women should stay out of the workplace," I do think that we have to "play the game" to advance in the office.

And your moral condemnation of these men who sleep with these women is . . . where? How about those who extort sex from their employees? Have you ever denounced them.

I won't sleep with you, or yours. But I will kick your sorry ass in court if we ever meet.

As Catharine MacKinnon once said "if we women were sleeping our way to the top, we'd be there already."

And that isn't true about Miers. She was involved with a TX supreme court justice, but CNN never reported what you said. How frequently do you make libelous statements online? This may come back to bite you.

Okay, 8:53, that's a great philosophical answer. And Lord knows, as a philosophy major, I love that stuff. Eat it right up. But we're talking about laws here. Decisions have to be made, and the answer simply cannot be "to each his own." The whole point of government is that some people are more right than others. Someone's personal morality will win, and others' will lose. Trying to get others to agree with your morality is a good way to ensure that laws are enforced, but consensus tells us nothing about actual Right and Wrong (assuming you believe in those concepts, which I assume on some level you must, otherwise why bother with anything at all). So, I don't think it's a particularly convincing argument for legalizing prostitution to say, "I can't force my personal morality on others." Of course you can. That's why government EXISTS. Now, maybe you just don't like having government, in which case, I'm very sorry, but hey, maybe someday you'll have your very own planet to run, or not run, as you see fit.

9:04
May the best woman win.

I think we won't be seeing legalized prostitution anytime soon. I would hope we'd be seeing a change in thinking about the worth of women overall, as some of the comments on here indicate how far we still have to go.

Why is it that the sex industry is overwhelmingly men paying women for sex? Why is it that with the number of well paid, successful women out there, the sex industry still caters almost exclusively to men (even male prostitution for the most part is men buying men). There is no demand from women to pay a man for sex. Why do you think that is, seriously?

9:39, it's most likely because 1) women bear the lion's share of risk -- STDs and pregnancy -- from sex, and modern medicine hasn't made remedying this inequality (making sex safer for women, which it could do if it considered this sufficiently important) anything approaching a priority, and 2) women are mocked if they DO have sex, whereas men are mocked if they DON'T.

As for all women being prostitutes, this is a convenient excuse for immature men incapable of maintaining adult relationships. In most healthy relationships, the gifts and such flow both ways -- if a woman is getting all this stuff and giving nothing, the guy is an idiot. Anyway, welcome to 2008. Most women pay their own way most of the time nowadays, and there are plenty of women who don't give a shit about diamonds and such (you'd find them if you ever bothered looking at anything besides platinum blonde hair, 19-inch waists, and 40-inch bustlines).

So, let me understand the argument--- You should be able to legally pay a woman to engage in an intimate act, because you either 1) cannot find anyone willing to engage in this type of intimacy with you for some reason or 2) because the actions you wish to engage in are such that no one would do them but for some sum of money, whether is be large or small. I've not seen anyone yet post about the reality of what prostitution really is (other than the Dworkin post). IF A MAN WERE NOT SEEKING SOMETHING OBJECTIONABLE THROUGH THIS ACT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO FIND SOMEONE TO CONSENT WITHOUT THE INCENTIVE OF PAYMENT. He is paying for it solely because what he seeks to do is objectionable--he seeks to USE the person, and no one in their right mind would consent to such a proposition. It is only through the exchange of money that somehow we can then see this act as "less" objectionable, bacuase accepting the money is consent, even though it is not an activity one would engage in without compensation.

White Girls With Asian Guys support the legalization of prostitution all over the world.

If we view prostitution as violence against women, it makes no sense to legalize or decriminalize prostitution. The primary violence in prostitution is not "social stigma" as some maintain. Decriminalizing or legalizing prostitution would normalize and regulate practices which are human rights violations, and which in any other context would be legally actionable (sexual harassment, physical assault, rape, captivity, economic coercion.) or emotionally damaging (verbal abuse). (Melissa Farley)

9:51

not necessarily. I for one would just want straight regular sex. I would rather not have to waste the whole first half of the night going to bars to find a women who is interested and then waste time afterwards when she wants to stick around. To the extent that a nice hooker costs more than a night at a NYC club, it still make up the difference is not having to put any effort into getting laid The problem is people who are opposed to prostitution put the physical act of doing it on a high pedestal, some of us don't see it any different than a nice massage

Shouldn't it be "semenal" question?

I think he could absolutely be prosecuted for this crime. Federal jurisdiction which can be applied through the Mann act which forbids transporting a woman across state lines for prostitution or for structuring, which is essentially a mild form of money laundering.

I doubt, however, that the feds should prosecute him for this though. The SDNY has more than enough terrorists, white collar crooks, bank robbers, and serial rapists to deal with to keep them busy.

"I would rather not have to waste the whole first half of the night going to bars to find a women who is interested and then waste time afterwards when she wants to stick around."

Yeah, man, having to treat people like human beings is such a drag and a total waste of time. It's so much easier to just pay someone to do whatever you want, without having to worry about troublesome issues like basic human dignity.

"some of us don't see it any different than a nice massage"

You show me someone who can give himself a massage and I'll acknowledge that you have a point.

Why, goddamit, why? Please, somebody explain to me why we must view prostitution as violence against women. Or why some many of you nutjobs conflate the kind of legalized prostitution being discussed here with child sex slavery or shit like that. Or why legalizing it would "normalize" or encourage sexual harassment, assault, rape, or other abuse. Are you insane? Where is the goddamn logic?

It doesn't sound like "Kristen" thought her encounter with Mr. Spitzer was so unpleasant. For $3000/hr (or $2000, or $1000), I can't say I blame her.

10:36, why, goddammit, why is prostitution so important? If some people who have been victimized by prostitution have spoken out about how harmful it is, why isn't that enough to override your OH MY GOD IMPORTANT NEED to have a woman at your disposal to service you however you'd like, whenever you'd like, for a way-too-small fee? Are your feelings the only ones that matter??

10:28

uhh since when do lawyers treat people as people. It is only the client's (in this case my LITTLE friend's) interest that matters and everyone else can go F themselves

That's nice. Try addressing just one question. The point isn't that women have been abused by "johns." The question is whether making it a crime and relegating it to a black market helps.

From the NY Post:

"Spitzer, who as attorney general led investigations into prostitution, was among an elite group of power brokers and top attorneys who regularly paid for dates at pricey escort agencies, sex industry sources said."

Can't wait for the rest of the Client names... and the firms where they work!

10:36, it actually doesn't sound like "Kristin" particularly liked her situation or felt good about it:

kristin's words, "I mean it's just kind of like...whatever....I'm here for a purpose. I know what my purpose it...I'm not a moron."

Her purpose...to be USED for money. The argument that buying and selling people is somehow acceptable because men have a right to get sex when they want, from the type of women they want, and should have to do nothing but pay for it, while treating the nameless, faceless woman as nothing more than a commodity to be bought and sold is infuriating, degrading, and ignorant beyond belief. It is disgusting that men continue to make this argument, and continue to think that buying women is perfectly acceptable as long as the price is "enough" in their eyes. Sorry boys---we are not for sale, but, as an earlier poster pointed out, we will be more than happy to kick your ass in court!

The comments here make the argument that prostitution is an affront to human dignity. Men want to hire a prostitute rather than have to treat a woman with basic human respect, or, men want to hire a prostiute to do the things they would not want the mother of their children doing. Inherent in both of these motives is that what a man wants to pay this woman for is NOT simply the act of sex, it is more specifically paying the woman to accept being degraded by this man, whether because he could care less to learn her name, treat her with an ioda of respect, or, even worse, because he wants to engage in conduct that will humiliate her or degrade her in ways he would not degrade a woman he cares about. It proves the point, this is a transaction wherin a man pays a woman to give up her dignity in some manner. It is sick, and should NEVER be legalized.

everyone is assuming that kristen kept all the money that spitzer gave her -- how much did she have to give her pimp!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

Guys in my high school used to get happy endings all the time, it was no big deal.

The Clinton Legacy:
Impeachment
Lewinsky
WhiteWater
Waco Slaughter
Paula Jones
Welfare "Reform"
Don't Ask Don't Tell
Healthcare Task Force Secret Meetings
Nannygate
Travelgate
"Talking" to Eleanor Roosevelt through a Psychic
Perjury
Failure to Hunt Osama
Republican Revolution
George W. Bush
Iraq War
-----------------------------
NO THANKS.

"The question is whether making it a crime and relegating it to a black market helps."

Actually, since it's already illegal, isn't the question whether *legalizing* (or decriminalizing) helps?

What if the intent is not to degrade or spit on or anything like that but just the sex act without all the strings?

And 11:23, the men do not "buy" women at a price that is enough only in their eyes; it is an arms-length transaction where the price has to be right for both sides. I realize you're not going to agree with me, but it's so dishonest for your camp to continue to pretend like the woman exercises no volition. (Again, we're not talking about slavery, trafficking, children, that kind of shit.)

Your "Kristen" quote could be from any junior associate doing mindless billable work when they want to be (or thought they'd be) practicing law. The only thing it proves is that Kristen views what she does as a job, which it is.

11:58 -- that's my point. It doesn't help, and it helps enable much of the abuse that nobody thinks is right.

A lot of really bad arguments here. My favorite was that women on the unemployment roles will be coerced into prostitution (because we know that happens with stripping, pron and other similar professions).

It seems a lot of people are projecting their own misguided beliefs and assumptions onto what prostitution is or would be under a regulated system. All of this talk about pimps, abusive johns, rape, PTSD, STDs, etc., have little to do with a well regulated system (such as the one in Nevada) in which the women have the power and the state provides them protection. I find it amazing that people have to go to prostitution assistance programs in Zambia (!) and interview drug-addicted street walkers when we have a well-regulated functioning system that would approximate any legal system already operating in Nevada.

Actually, no, I don't. The "study" is the work of "scientists" searching for facts to support the conclusions they've already arrived at, so I don't find it surprising at all. It'd be nice if I did though.

It'd also be nice if people would stop being arrogant (and/or jealous) and realize that not everyone views sex the same way they do.

I think 70% of the men on ATL would like prostitution legalized because they would patronize (or do patronize) prostitutes. Maybe the reason they do this is because they can't get a decent looking, successful woman to give them a second thought, even with all their money, because they are seriously deficient in some way (personality-wise, looks-wise, height-wise, etc). Sad.

Anonymouse's position is ultimately utopian and so, in a finite universe, untenable.

She argues in essence for a risk-free environment. Don't compare prostitution to other accepted risks - eliminate those risks and eliminate the risks inherent in prostitution. Interestingly have a statistically significant increased risk of brain cancer, leukemia and lung cancer. They also have higher risks of heart disease and stroke. Iron workers have lower risks of those same ailments but equally increased risks of other cancers.

Anonymouse cannot pick any occupation that is without unique attendant risks. Worst of all is being unemployed. Their risks, across the board, are the highest of all.

In the end, life is all about risks. We each do our own risk/benefit calculations and that, after all, is what real freedom is all about.

12:01-"the men do not "buy" women at a price that is enough only in their eyes; it is an arms-length transaction where the price has to be right for both sides."

The problem is that the woman's circumstances determine the price she has to accept, and more often than not, it's her circumstances and lack of other choices that bring her to the point of selling her body. Once a person hits that level of desperation, it's an unconscionable transaction where, in actuality, the woman does not truly have the ability to negotiate a price.

Yo,

You got herpes.

It continues to amaze me that the anti-prostitution advocates see prostitution as an exclusively man-purchases-woman occasion. Guess what, men purchase men, too. In droves. Just checkout rentboy.com.

I shouldn't be amazed, though, because the anti-prostitution advocates realize that their entire premise of sex-for-cash being an inherently degrading, dehumanizing act REQUIRES that prostitution be exclusively man-purchases-woman. That's because they confuse the idea of sex-for-cash with the institution of sexism and the oppression of women. When the prostitute and John are both male, we don't confuse the two issues, and we see that the act itself of paying for sex is, at worst, morally neutral.

"My favorite was that women on the unemployment roles will be coerced into prostitution (because we know that happens with stripping, pron and other similar professions)."

The most hilarious part of this is that your examples, which you obviously THINK make your point, actually make your opponents' point. It's clear you know nothing about stripping, pron, etc. Women are forced into those occupations, um, ALL THE MOTHERFUCKING TIME. Genius.

"When the prostitute and John are both male, we don't confuse the two issues, and we see that the act itself of paying for sex is, at worst, morally neutral."

Did it ever occur to you that (many of) the people opposed to prostitution are not opposed because they are prudes, but because of the blatant sex inequalities inherent in the current system? In such a case, focusing on man-buying-woman prostitution to the exclusion of man-buying-man prostitution makes perfect logical sense. If the problem is sexism and unequal power between the sexes, that will exist when a man buys a woman, but not when a man buys a man. It really does not take a whole lot of thought to figure this out, so I really hope your comment was the result of off-the-cuff "thinking" and not, instead, indicative of a paucity of mental ability.

Notice, also, you did not make reference to all the women buying men. Interesting that it's always MEN doing the buying. Oh, but of course, that's just because men naturally like sex more than women, who are naturally ice queens.

Boy but this board is full of enlightened thinkers...

Why is it that "enlightened" thinkers must always hold your "progressive" viewpoints?

It has been said before, he wasn't paying for the act; he was paying her to leave afterwards.

That my friends, should NEVER be illegal.

12:51 -

Well more than 70% of the posters on ATL either work 60+ hour weeks with unpredictable schedules or will be.

It's called more money than time, especially for a "meaningful interpersonal relationship" whatever that is. That leaves sporadic dating - unless you are some asshole litigation wizard who routinely bills an hour for five minutes of thought and his WP is good enough to get away with it.

Other than that, well, you would be shocked with how often Friday night or your weekend vanishes in a puff of smoke coming out of partner's ears.

In the economic calculus, laying out several hundred for a "date" or laying out several hundred for a date only differs in that sex is assured as a result of the "date," baggage is unlikely, and the fight on the phone over the now-useless Broadway tickets is not happening.

What a stupid series of posts, written by a bunch of naive kids whose entire prebiglaw lives have been spent in educational institutions. Pay close attention to Spitzer, people, and learn a lesson or two about the nonlegal consequences of your actions. When you become spouses and parents, you won't write the same bs.

"Sorry boys---we are not for sale"

Oh really? Then why do you keep taking money?

Anyone out here know what Posner, Gary Becker et al. would say? Legalize it and have a free market of demand and supply govern it?

To "Rationalist" (overbill yourself much?): Of course my postion is rational. Let me set it out with numbers, if that will help:

1. Prostitutes (including high class call-girls) often have histories of childhood sexual and physical abuse.
2. They (meaning the majority) go into prostitution, not because it is fun or just another job, but because they are poor and/or their sexual boundaries are nonexistent.
3. Many develop PTSD, and the severity of the PTSD is connected to the number of customers they service.
4. The Johns are therefore harming people who are already injured.
5. STDs are serious, can be life-threatening, and lead to infertility in prostitutes.
6. Fewer prostitutes = less spreading of disease.
7. No one has a right to sex.

I am NOT aruging for a risk-free environment. I am arguing that the risk is NOT acceptable, that buying sex is NOT a moral act because it harms the purveyor who 67% of the time develops PTSD, and because it is a continuation of their victimization as children.

So what is my answer to an immoral act that happens ALL THE TIME? Decriminalize it for the prostitutes themselves, and STOP acting like it is some kind of morally neutral choice akin to getting a massage.

If you read interviews with women prostitutes, including expensive ones, they describe their experience as akin to rape and domestic violence. They try to kill themselves. WHY THE HELL DOESN'T THAT BOTHER YOU!

If you guys are so pro-prostitution, how would you feel about your 18-year-old daughter deciding to have that career?

The arguments that assholes will come up with to justify their immaturity is truly astounding. Thank God I'm not such a social retard that I actually think the best way to get off is to pay a complete stranger for sex. Enjoy your herpes, boys!

10:45, you think that the men on here justifying prostitution have daughters? Wouldn't the require that they have taken the time to nurture a relationship resulting in offspring? Which would obviate the need for prostitution?

The thought...

10:45: fine with that, though she's getting disowned.

So if incest (according to Dworkin) is the primary training grounds for Prositution... then I am giving back to the community by have sex with my daughters! (can I count them as pro bono hours)

10:45 and 10:50 -

Don't make the mistake of thinking that the only people supporting legalization are horny men. Women who believe that the government should not tell people what to do with their bodies also support legalization.

As for whether I would want my daughter to do it ... I wouldn't want her to be a trash collector either, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. In the current system, whether I want her to do it or not is irrelevant because the government makes that decision for both of us.

That's fine, slow down, but women have daughters too. I meant "guy" in the gender-neutral sense.

Is there any job you would put lower on the list for your child than prostitute? And why wouldn't you want her to be a prostitute?

11:10 If she had to choose between being a trash collector or any other similar job versus being a prostitute you wouldn't strongly prefer the former?

Your innate preference only matters in that it suggests you may even think, without realizing it, there's something uniquely degrading about prostitution.

Hey 11:22, how about you inquire whether we'd prefer our daughter be a legal prostitute working in a regulated, above ground trade... or a whore in current sense, avoiding all transparency in what she does, with all the attendant increases in abuse that entails?

The way women are treated, and have been treated forever, is horrible.

Where can I get a young male hooker and take out my moral outrage?!

11:24-

Your post asks "if she had to choose..." My point is that the government takes away that choice. And you're correct, my innate preference is completely irrelevant, as is yours. What should be relevant is the preference of the individual. And criminalization of prostitution means that preference is not respected.

I have to head to a meeting now ... but I find this debate really fascinating. Hopefully I can join back in later.

11:32, you get what you tollerate.

sould prostitution be legal? seems like (and is) a question for the states to me. the states have spoken--so if you have such a problem with the illegality of prostitution let the free market forces work and let your feet direct you to your promise land (the one county in Nevada with over 400,000 people (this includes Las Vegas) or Rhode Island). moreover, if you are so concerned about your daughter's trash-collecting career, buy her a bus ticket. or, simply elect sufficiently morally defunct state legislators to end you prostitution woes. i will be proud to oppose any such effort (except the one which takes you out of my state). cheers.

Amen 10:44.

These comments are disgusting. As a woman, I feel violated just by reading this trash. Where are all the women on this blog? Are there any of you actually supporting legalizing prostitution?

As a former prostitute -- I worked my way through law school and undergrad as an escort. I was not abused as a child, nor was I raped by anyone at my agency or any clients. I enjoy sex, and decided to get paid to do it in my free time. The money was incredibly addictive, and I woud have remained as an escort -- but it was always lying to people and not having a real relationship. I am in a relationship with a man now that has no idea about my past -- and never will. Should it be legal? There is a difference in my mind between escort and street walker -- and working toward a goal (of education) rather than for next hit of crack.

10:44 (item 6) -- 1/4 of teenage girls have an STD -- I doubt there is more than a de minimus link to prostitution. We are a promiscuous nation, and we are turning on our own shildren to fill this need. We need stronger laws against statutory rape and children having sex with children.

Most of them (18%) have HPV. Which can be quite problematic (cervical, tongue, throat and mouth cancer) but which is not the same (or nearly as dangerous for women) as HIV, chlamydia, syphilis, gonorhhea, and trichomoniasis, which the young teenage women had at much lower rates. More people who have few partners (1-2) increasing their partner numbers (say, to 3-4 per year) decreases the spreading of STDs more than few people (i.e., prostitutes) having sex with tens or hundreds of people per year. Do the math.

We can decriminalize it for the prostitutes, and that would make it a lot safer. Then they could report it when a John beat them up.

To 10:44--I am glad that you were safe and content with your work. But a number of sex workers lack your detachment from the act, positive (I am guessing) childhood, and lack of traumatic experiences while in the trade. If I thought all, or even the vast majority, would have experiences as non-negative as yours, I would probably be pro-legalization, instead of just pro-decriminalization. I don't want to pry if it isn't something you want to discuss, but you mentioned that "but it was always lying to people and not having a real relationship." Could you explain more about what you mean by that?

Also, not all low-cost prostitutes are drug addicts, and I don't know if I agree that a true addict is wrong for being a prostitute--a lot of male addicts steal, a lot of female addicts turn to prostitution. Of the two, I think prostitution is the more moral choice, because it involves more danger to self than to others. (I am presuming this because clients can insist on condoms, where low-cost prostitutes often cannot, and because STDs are more easily trasmitted to women or to men on the receiving end.)

to the 11:24s and 11:34 (and I was 12:22, for the record)

I think it is "degrading" because (1) prostitutes are treated with disrespect if they identify themselves as such; (2) they are being paid money to engage in a sex act in a very specific manner; (3) even the high-cost prostitutes don't get to choose their clients---what do you think would have happened to "Kristen's" career if she had rejected Spitzer; (4) many of them suffer from PTSD and STDs at much higher frequencies than people who have other consensual sex do; (5) many are very poor, and on the street.

Arguments for decriminalizing (some of which also apply to legalizing): (1) it would prevent them from getting misdemeanor and felony convictions for solicitation that can ruin their later efforts for a "straight" career (anyone else grossed out that the Johns get off, if caught, with an infraction for "disorderly conduct"; (2) they would be much less vulnerable to the Johns and the police, and could report it if Johns beat them up; (3) it is a good middle path, not punishing people for selling sex (and perhaps not punishing them for buying it) but failing to give it a stamp of approval; (4) it could allow us to provide social services of a type that are not given to women in prostitution legal states like Nevada (counseling, options to get out, because trust me, the bunny ranch is not going to let in counselors, and the State of Nevada is not providing them because of, gee, tax revenues.)

So that's why I think prostitution is degrading to many, but not necessarily all, prostitutes. Even 10:44 wants to keep it a secret, and I do not blame her at all.

Do I want my daughter to be a prostitute? No. I also don't want her to have an abortion. The thing is, I don't think the government should make either of those highly personal decisions for her.

So are you for decriminalization, or legalization? Which is better, and why? And do you deny that there is a stigma attached to prostitution, and that it has negative affects?

(And don't go on about post-Abortion syndrome---it is a crock. Not that some women aren't deeply depressed after an abortion, but a larger proportion are deeply depressed after childbirth.)

I suspect this would be a much different discussion if it were on a medical website. There are not only issues of humane treatment, slavery, abuse, suicide, and PTSD, but also serious public health issues involving deadly disease.

I've read that in some NYC neighborhoods over 90% of prostitutes are HIV positive. The men who visit them may become "vectors" for transmission of disease to their wives, and clearly are carrying the disease to other prostitutes. You are the partner of your partner's partner. Safe sex can be practiced but often isn't. Maybe the "Emperor's Club" is different than street corner sex, but even Spitzer was pressing his call girl to have unprotected sex and for the right price probably could have had it. And even Wall Street lawyers may opt for a less expensive and less safe alternative.

I don't know what the best legal regime would be from a public health standpoint. I know the New York City Health Department shut down gay bathhouses in the 1980s to prevent the spread of AIDS.

Personally, I don't think hookers should go to jail - by and large they are just victims, of men, of society, or just bad luck in life. They should receive the treatment appropriate for victims: medical attention, psychological and occupational counseling, etc. Under what kind of legal regime I don't know. I also hesitate to say johns should go to jail - some of them are in little better economic shape. Some are so poor, sex in marriage is not even an option. And the biological reality is that many men always have and always will seek out sex outside of marriage.

But completely de-criminalizing prostitution and letting the "free market" go to work - are we really ready for that, and could it really be made safer than what exists? We would probably have to have regulation on such a scale it would need a Cabinet-level position to manage. And just as much police activity. It would also still leave us with many women who didn't really choose the calling, get beaten or raped but don't complain or report for fear of losing their employment ("at will" in the state of New York), etc. And there is still the emotional toll on wives like Silda Spitzer (or husbands or partners, as the case may be) and families, something not factored into price at all.

Hi Anonymouse,

I will always be in favor of legalizing prostitution because of the high value I place on personal freedoms. However, you've given me a new perspective. Because I'm a gay man, I see prostitution as a transaction between two androgynous individuals; I don't infuse the act with gender issues. You take the opposite approach. Your (and others') insistence on referring to prostitutes as women only indicates that you see prostitution ONLY as a gender issue. From that perspective, you're right. In societies with institutionalized gender hierarchies, there are strong arguments that many (perhaps most) of the prostitutes of the oppressed gender are not making the decision based on their own free will. I'll have to think further about whether there is a way to legalize prostitution while still protecting those who aren't making a free choice. I suspect that there is, but you've given me food for thought.

to 1:41.

I do not mean to see it only as a gender issue. I'm just not as aware of the issues that affect male sex workers, and the overlap (or differences) between those and the issues that affect female sex workers. I can imagine the STD issues are probably fairly significant, at least for the enveloping partner. (I don't know what the breakdown is, I would assume the prostitute is more often the enveloping partner, but to be honest, I really have no idea.)

I did not mean to marginalize male prostitutes, and I apologize if I did.

"Kicking religion out of public policy would kick out 99% of political philosophers from history, especially the US founders. It's much easier to win an argument when you disqualify almost the whole field of debate, isn't it?"

Maybe instead of 'religion' you meant 'deism'; otherwise, you have no clue what you're talking about.

See, e.g., Paine, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams... Voltaire, Rousseau, Russell, Locke, Hume... I could go on.

Anonymouse, most male sex workers take a top-only approach for health reasons. Similarly, the vast majority insist on safer sex practices. Women sex workers, of course, do not have the luxury of a top-only rule. Another difference is the clientele. For male sex workers, the majority of clients are either (1) straight-identified men who need privacy, (2) men who aren't young or attractive enough to sleep with the men they desire, and (3) men with a kinks who cannot, or are to embarassed to, find someone to indulge them for free. For these reasons, men who hire male sex workers are far more likely to treat them with respect and gratitutde. The minority of male sex workers (pre-operative transexuals and those whose clientelle are men on drugs) potentially face problems similar to those you describe with female sex workers, albeit less severe.

The STD issue is of course a concern, but no more so than men who have an equally high number of sex partners for free. My knowledge of the male sex worker subject comes from the fact that (1) I studied male sex workers in college, and (2) I have had 3 friends who were, at the time of our friendship, male sex workers.

From what you tell me about female sex workers (of which I am largly ignorant), especially PTSD, there seem to be significant differences between male prostitution and female prostitution. Your arguments leave me open to (although not convinced without further reflection) the idea that female sex work should be decriminalized but not legalized. However, it just feels wrong to have a law that treats male sex work and female sex work differently. Do you have any ideas?

to 1:41,

I was just thinking about that at lunch. I agree that it would be very strange to say, oh, men can sell it, but women can't. Because our emotional delicate ladybrains cannot handle the trauma. On the other hand, to flat out legalize it, with the attendant harms, also seems wrong.

What benefits do you think legalizing male sex work (as opposed to just decriminalizing) would create?

Further to my earlier post, I think the news report I have seen about +90% prevalence of HIV among some female prostitutes in NYC cannot be correct.

Still, CDC has said, at least as of 1989 (6/23/1989 MMWR):

"Female prostitutes are at increased risk for acquisition and potential transmission of HIV infection. In the United States, HIV infection in prostitutes is strongly associated with IV-drug use. In a multicity study, HIV antibody was detected in 180 (13%) of 1378 female prostitutes; 80% of the infected prostitutes reported using IV drugs (3). In prostitutes with no histories or findings suggestive of IV-drug use, HIV seroprevalence was 5%; HIV seropositivity in this group was greater among blacks and Hispanics and among those with greater than 200 lifetime nonpaying sex partners."

Also, according to one research paper there was much higher mortality, both in general and from homicide in particular, especially during the period of active prostitution, among Colorado Springs female prostitutes studied.

to 1:25:

I think homicide is the most common cause of death for prostitutes (and pregnant women). Re: HIV infection rates, two things can increase them in prostitutes: (1) use of spermicides, which make STD transmission easier (irritates the skin, makes breakage easier); and (2) infection with multiple STDs, because open sores or lesions (which probably includes those pesky, internal HPV lesions on the cervix that you can't see) make it easier to contract the virus.

1:41, thanks for the info about male sex workers. I'm another person here who came in with no idea what it was like -- it sounds like a night and day difference from what I know of female sex workers. If sex work for everyone were what it sounds like it is for gay men, I would be all for legalizing prostitution. I think probably the problem is that men who go to women for sex services have absolutely no empathy for the women. Why would they? Men are raised to think empathy is girly and therefore bad, and they are raised to think they are stronger and more virile than women, and that women are delicate flowers for them to use and *damage* sexually. A woman who is not a virgin is STILL, in modern-day America, referred to as "damaged goods" by people who are being only a tiny little bit ironic. A recent horrific Massachussetts case actually used the language "the damage has already been done" to justify its decision not to find a rapist guilty of rape once he refused to stop having sex with a woman who initially consented but then withdrew consent.

Whereas, gay or bi men would likely have nothing BUT empathy for fellow gay men -- especially when the one empathizing is trying to stay in the closet. Gay men have shared experiences. They have been born and raised in a society where they are expected to be straight males, and then come to realize that they don't fit a social norm, and there's a relatively small set of likely occurrences that follows from this. Empathy in this situation is easy.

The reason empathy is important is because you cannot have respect for someone with whom you cannot empathize. Empathy is the ability to see another person as a distinct human being in his or her own right, with feelings and desires and rights. Most johns are incapable of seeing female sex workers this way, whereas it sounds like most johns in the gay male sex work community are the opposite.

Anyway. I'd favor legalizing prostitution, but not a moment before we fix the way fucked-up view of women that our society has.

"Whereas, gay or bi men would likely have nothing BUT empathy for fellow gay men -- especially when the one empathizing is trying to stay in the closet. Gay men have shared experiences. They have been born and raised in a society where they are expected to be straight males, and then come to realize that they don't fit a social norm, and there's a relatively small set of likely occurrences that follows from this. Empathy in this situation is easy."

HAHAHAHAHAHA... oh, wait, you're serious. Always nice to see another person apply the pathetically overbroad stereotype of the "sensitive" gay man. Next you'll be saying how feminine they are, and how good they are with interior decorating.

Um, no, 5:45. My point (which should have been obvious) was that people with shared experiences tend to have empathy for those who also share those same experiences. Straight men who played football in high school have empathy for other straight men who played football in high school, though you'd never hear them admit it.

Why aren't hookers encouraged to carry guns? That way they can protect themselves. Also, chicks with guns are hot!

Check it out boys and then tell me you wouldn't hit this for $1,000:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/nyregion/12cnd-kristen.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This is "Kristin's" myspace page: http://www.myspace.com/ninavenetta

Abused, was a drug addict and was homeless...apparently fits the profile, even though she was well paid. Furthers the arguments made earlier against legalization...

Her description says the following:

When I was 17, I left home. It was my decision and I’ve never looked back. Left my hometown. Left a broken family. Left abuse. Left an older brother who had already split. Left and learned what it was like to have everything, and lose it, again and again. Learned what it was like to wake up one day and have the people you care about most gone. I have been alone. I have abused drugs. I have been broke and homeless.

According to her Myspace page, "Kristin" was apparently abused, at some point was on drugs and homeless. She left a broken home and abuse at 17. Even though she was well paid, one cannot argue that her "consent" was not coerced through her hideous life circumstances.

"one cannot argue that her "consent" was not coerced through her hideous life circumstances"

Uh, no, one most certainly can and should argue that, despite abuse, she remains an adult with full capacity to consent. To do otherwise allows the abuser to take something from her far more fundamental than whatever dignity she lost.

12:51 -- you really are a dumb broad. So men who want to pay for no-strings sex are ugly or otherwise unattractive. Just like Spitzer, right? Just like Clients 1-8 and 10 who are shitting their pants right now. Just like professional athletes, A-list celebrities, and other "undesirables" who are married or otherwise committed or who just don't want the hassle. Please. You think Spitzer wanted a bunch of "girlfriends" running around running their mouths? You think people like him don't compensate their "girlfriends" anyway?

Hi Anonimouse and 4:58,

I haven't been able to post for a while, so I don't know if you're even still reading at this point, but here is my view of the positives of male sex work:

Many individuals (e.g., older, less attractive, handicapped, physical deformities, people with safe but unconventional kinks or fetishes, closeted individuals) just can't get laid by the people with whom they'd like to sleep, and the extreme versions of these people can't get laid at ALL. On the flip side, some people love sex, and would gladly have sex with a person but for his or her age, attractiveness, physical handicap or deformity, safe but unconventional kink or fetish, or lack of knowledge that they exist (for closeted people). For them, money fills in the gap, and makes both parties better off. I'm sex-positive, and believe that sex makes people happier and healthier (except for STDs). Sex is a wonderful thing! So is the profit that the male sex worker receives. I think prostitution (gender issues aside) should be legalized because I value individual freedoms AND sex AND the creative power of capitalism.

Knowing now what I do now about what happens when sex work combines with sexism and oppression and gender inequalities and power, I understand that the issue is much more complicated than I thought a few days ago. I would love to see sex work legalized when money is an equalizer rather than an instrument of oppression.

1:41, please explain how those possessing free will (which you claim to value) can be oppressed by green pieces of paper.

10:58, I think the point was that that the majority of female sex workers don't truly possess free will just like a child consenting to sex doesn't truly possess free will. If you've been following, I don't know much about female sex work, so I don't know whether this analogy is accurate. I of course agree that individuals possessing free will should be able to have whatever kind of sex they want, whether for free or for profit.

The only only really "free" to have sex for money is the one paying for it. The other partner is usually driven by some life circumstance to do it. (See posts re "Kristen's" website).

I think same considerations probably apply to same sex prostitution. At least, if you read and credit Pat Barker's WWI fiction trilogy (Ghost Road et al.), which are very sympathetic to gays, you'll see the experience, including such things as negotiating the "price" for each sex act, can leave a life-long scar of humiliation on the sex worker. I doubt the "John" feels any such humiliation years later.

I don't think sex and money should be connected. It's not just like mowing a lawn, or giving a massage or pedicure or body wax, although some of the same inter-personal dynamics are involve in the latter too. Whether the participants should go to jail is another question. IMHO.

12:02, I also don't think sex and money should be connected, which is why I don't connect them. I don't believe, however, that the government should be in the business of forcing my opinion on others.

Legalizing it worked well in Holland, New Zealand, Germany and many other countries. The industry was regulated, meaning kids were kept out, brothel owners had to abide by health and safety laws and employment laws, the governement was able to tax earnings, and sex workers unionized so they control the industry instead of brothel owners/pimps.

Grow up America and legalize it already.

God/Jesus gave us the freedom to choose what to do with our lives. We can freely choose to follow or reject him. Why do you religious tyrants seek to force everyone to follow him? You are a beacon of Hypocrisy.

Prostitution should be legal...as should all consensual acts between adult persons. You should be allowed to do whatever you want with your own body. If I want to shoot up, sell an organ, bang a hooker, and jump off a bridge, its my choice. Freedom is the ultimate value as reflected in our constitution. Leave your religious oppression at home, and allow others to live free!

4:57. I dount you have any intention of using your "God-given freedom" to become a hooker. THAT's the Hypocrisy.

There is still illegal trafficking in the countries with legalized prostitution.

And legal prostitutes still get STDs, had abusive childhoods, and can be victimized.

It isn't about religion. It is about dignity and respect.

6:55. You're missing the point. I never said I would be a prostitute or do drugs, etc. I said that because God has given me the freedom to choose whether to follow him, I should respect the freedom of others. Most fundamentalists would rather force people to follow 'moral law' than to try and persuade them to freely follow God's path. We don't need the government telling people what to do with their own bodies. We're talking about throwing people in jail for a consensual act! We should be convincing people that there's a better way. That's what Christ would do.

Anonymouse. Illegal Trafficking would still be illegal if prostitution was legalized because those people don't consent to becoming prostitutes. You need to give dignity and respect to other people's right to make choices. You're advocating government paternalism.

It isn't about "freedom" either. You might as well defend "freedom to work for minimum wage", "freedom to quit your job", "freedom to pay rent" (or your "freedom to own slaves") and other such "freedoms." These are human beings (men or women, who knows, maybe even boys and girls) you are using as your toys, and not in a way they "freely" choose to live.

The "freedom" you espouse is this, as somoene said a long time ago: "The rich as well as poor are free to sleep under bridges." Except that only the poor do sleep under bridges . . . and become "sex workers."

And what do the stereotypical (but very rare) $1,000/hr. sex workers do in a few years when they're no longer the newest trick at the bar, body begins to sag, wrinkles begin? Give blow jobs for $5 on streetcorners? Some "freedom."

Finally, as many others have said, you would never allow your mothers, sisters, daughters (brothers, sons, etc.) to exercise this "freedom", just as tobacco execs wouldn't ever let their kids smoke.

Your "freedom" is bogus.

10:04. So you're answer is to keep it illegal and throw them all in prison?

Christian Libertarian: I'm not just talking about illegal prostitution involving trafficked women. Illegal prostitution involving non-trafficked women will also continue. I support decriminalization for prostitutes, and no one has yet convinced me I should support the same for johns or pimps.

And you still don't respond to me about the human costs of legal prostitution.

I am completely against any "regulation" that applies to prostitutes but not Johns. If she has to be tested, so should he. If her name and image have to be published, so should his.

Finally, leaving legality out of it, what are the ethics of the situation. Should people visit prostitutes? Why or why not?

Christian Libertarian: no, personally I don't think either party should go to jail. "Buyer" is responding to the number one natural human urge, at least for males, and not thinking entirely rationally, as Spitzer's case shows. So not consistent with criminal responsibility in my view. "Seller", usually but not always a woman, is also mainly a victim, not just of "buyer" but of many other forces as well. Also not consistent with criminal responsibility.

But I also don't believe in just "letting the free market" work. Because IMHO it's not really "free" for at least one party. And I think sex is not just another "service."

I don't know what the middle ground is. If the question is should prostitution be completely legal, I vote no. And I think society does have some power to make and enforce such judgments, just as it judges that sex between adults and children should not be legal.

Picking up on 11:50, if prostitution is to be de-criminalized, maybe buyers as well as sellers should have to be licensed, e.g., show no prior history of violence, STDs, illegal drug use, or other risk factors for violence and STDs, and license subject to revocation on such grounds. After all, if buyer really feels there is nothing objectionable about what buyer is doing, and all that is happening is an exchange of "services" for money, hurting no one, buyer should not be concerned about being registered and recorded like many business transactions. Please don't say, "but freedom of association . . .."

See Sweden's Solution @http://www.justicewomen.com/cj_sweden.html.