Why Is Prostitution Illegal?

Did you ever stop to wonder why prostitution is illegal? I did. Aside from explicitly religious moral reasons, I can’t see why it is.

Pick your jaw off the floor. Got it? OK, then, I’ll continue.

When you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, what is a prostitute doing? She…I know men prostitute themselves, too, but definite pronouns are less confusing…She is selling the use of her body for a span of time. Why is that illegal? It’s her body. It’s not like there isn’t legal precedence for it.

Anyone who does physical labor, be it working in a coal mine, building a house, or being a body guard, is selling his body. His physical strength and endurance is an economic asset to himself, his family, and his employer.

Take athletes for example. They sell the use of their highly trained bodies to sports teams. They can be beaten up repeatedly and left with a multitude of lingering physical ailments when they retire. Nobody’s arresting them (at least not for what they do for a living). Not only do they sell their bodies for competition, but they also sell themselves as clothing racks. Companies pay millions of dollars for a sports star to wear their logos or their brand.

Athletes aren’t the only ones who sell their bodies as advertizements. These days, any ordinary Joe can walk around with an ad for GoldenPalace.com tattooed to his forehead. It’s happened. There have even been pregnant women renting out ad space on their extruded abdomens. That’s not illegal. It’s capitalism.

Let’s not forget the quintessential walking billboard, models. In fact, not only are they paid to use their bodies to show off clothing, they’re paid to do so with sex appeal. Models use their sexuality as a business asset for themselves and for their employers, something they have in common with prostitutes.

Pornographic models are even more closely related. They’re not just selling sexiness, they’re selling eroticism. One might even argue that the goal of their work is to assist in bringing about sexual gratification for viewers. We Christians consider pornography vulgar and sinful, and rightly so, but it’s quite legal (except under certain extreme circumstances).

What, then, makes prostitution illegal? What’s the difference between a guy paying for a dirty magazine, looking at it, and pleasuring himself, and a guy who pays for someone else to arouse and pleasure him? From the preceding, it’s clear that the selling of one’s body, even for sexual purposes, isn’t illegal. Nor is the purchase of goods and services rendered by another body. It must be the sexual act itself.

I suppose one could argue that prostitution detrimentally affects society in the form of broken marriages and the like. Then again, so do spending too much time at work or play, drinking too much, and adultery. When was the last time you saw someone get arrested for any of those?

Maybe prostitution is a public health hazard because prostitutes often carry and spread diseases. Well, there are a hell of a lot of people engaging in consentual unprotected sex and spreading diseases. Are we going to arrest them?

A common arguement is that prostitution is degrading to women. I could list a number of legal things that are degrading to women, but I’ll refrain for fear of being mislabeled as sexist. Of course, for a lot of prostitutes, the job goes well beyond degrading when their pimps beat them or otherwise treat them as cheap property. Well, abuse is illegal on its own, so that’s a red herring. Besides, this problem, and the health hazards, could be more effectively dealt with if prostitution were legal, which brings me to my next point.

Not only can I find little reason for it to be illegal, I can think of potential benefits of making it legal. In fact, legalization could help alleviate or ameliorate most of the problems mentioned above.

Prostitution’s hard work and could permanently damage prostitutes’ bodies. OK, give them health insurance. Better yet, force their pimps to pay for their insurance. As it stands, they’re working anyway, but without insurance.

I mentioned that people sell themselves as billboards. Well, if prostitution were legal, the possibility of endorsement deals would open up. Condom makers, for instance, could endorse prostitutes. Another possibility would be clothing designers paying for their clothes to be worn on the job. There are other economic benefits, though. As a legal form of employment, prostitution would generate tax revenue through income tax collection.

How about the public health hazard? Well, that can be helped in two ways. The first is that legalization would put prostitutes and pimps into a legal employee-employer relationship that would be regulated by applicable laws concerning fair hiring practices, fair wages, etc. The second would be regulation. Corner hotdog vendors have to have 1) a sales permit that allows them to legally solicit on the premises and 2) a health permit that says that their equipment, methods, and raw materials have been inspected and found to produce safe foodstuffs. Why couldn’t the same ideas be applied to prostitution? Permits for solicitation and health code certification could be required. Furthermore, periodic health screenings would help ensure not only the health of the workers, but also their customers.

As legally recognized members of the workforce, prostitutes could unionize. This would give them leverage against their pimps and result in better treatment and probably better pay.

Another considerable benefit of legalization would be spare law enforcement man-hours. If cops didn’t have to investigate and arrest, lawyers didn’t have to prosecute, and judges didn’t have to judge and sentence prostitutes and pimps, they’d be free to pursue other, perhaps more dangerous, criminals.

All in all, the only harm I can see in legalizing prostitution is moral in nature. There are a great number of societal ills, as defined by religious morality, that open acceptance of the practice would cause. Since when is that a reason to make something illegal, though? If it were, there’d be a lot more we’re not allowed to do, and we wouldn’t be very free people. If, as a country, governed by representatives elected to wield legislative power by the free consent of the governed, we can agree that moral grounds are sufficient to make laws, so be it; prostitution should remain illegal. A corollary to that, though, is that the same moral grounds could justifiably be used to ban abortion and homosexual marriage. If, on the other hand, the electorate decides that moral grounds are insufficient by themselves for legislation, prostitution should be made legal.

Please realize that this post is a long out-loud thought. I’m not irrevocably attached to any of the preceding arguments. I just thought they’d spur interesting conversations. So, dear readers, what are your thoughts on this matter?

Addendum 02/08/06: A certain theme in the comments has convinced me that some clarification is needed. A representative sample:

“I was just aghast that so much ink (or pixels, as the case may be) would be spilled on a Christian website arguing that prostitution should be legal.”

If nothing else, it is my hope that a rational debate about this matter would aid in Christians in the pursuit of moral legislation on non-moral grounds. If we could be convinced, and then convince the secular world, that there are good reasons other than divine writ to ban (or maintain bans) on practices like prostitution, we’d be well on our way to formulating and executing more effective plans for getting wholesome legislation passed. Learning how to argue better on secular terms would be an invaluable asset in our efforts to abolish abortion, for instance.

This entry was posted in government, law, and politics and tagged , , , , , , on by .

About Funky Dung

Who is Funky Dung? 29-year-old grad student in Intelligent Systems (A.I.) at the University of Pittsburgh. I consider myself to be politically moderate and independent and somewhere between a traditional and neo-traditional Catholic. I was raised Lutheran, spent a number of years as an agnostic, and joined the Catholic Church at the 2000 Easter Vigil. Why Funky Dung? I haven't been asked this question nearly as many times as you or I might expect. Funky Dung is a reference to an obscure Pink Floyd song. On the album Atom Heart Mother, there is a track called Atom Heart Mother Suite. It's broken up into movements, like a symphony, and one of the movements is called Funky Dung. I picked that nickname a long time ago (while I was still in high school I think), shortly after getting an internet connection for the first time. To me it means "cool/neat/groovy/spiffy stuff/crap/shiznit", as in "That's some cool stuff, dude!" Whence Ales Rarus? I used to enjoy making people guess what this means, but I've decided to relent and make it known to all. Ales Rarus is a Latin play on words. "Avis rarus" means "a rare bird" and carries similar meaning to "an odd fellow". "Ales" is another Latin word for bird that carries connotations of omens, signs of the times, and/or augery. If you want to get technical, both "avis" and "ales" are feminine (requiring "rara", but they can be made masculine in poetry (which tends to breaks lots of rules). I decided I'd rather have a masculine name in Latin. ;) Yeah, I'm a nerd. So what? :-P Wherefore blog? It is my intention to "teach in order to lead others to faith" by being always "on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word, either to unbelievers . . . or to the faithful" through the "use of the communications media". I also act knowing that I "have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors [my] opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and [I] have a right to make [my] opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward [my and their] pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons." (adapted from CCC 904-907) Statement of Faith I have been baptized and confirmed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I, therefore, renounce Satan; I renounce all his works; I renounce all his allurements. I hold and profess all that is contained in the Apostles' Creed, the Niceno- Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. Having been buried with Christ unto death and raised up with him unto a new life, I promise to live no longer for myself or for that world which is the enemy of God but for him who died for me and rose again, serving God, my heavenly Father, faithfully and unto death in the holy Catholic Church. I am obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. That is, I promote and defend authentic Catholic Teaching and Faith in union with Christ and His Church and in union with the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter. Thanks be unto Thee, O my God, for all Thy infinite goodness, and, especially, for the love Thou hast shown unto me at my Confirmation. I Give Thee thanks that Thou didst then send down Thy Holy Spirit unto my soul with all His gifts and graces. May He take full possession of me for ever. May His divine unction cause my face to shine. May His heavenly wisdom reign in my heart. May His understanding enlighten my darkness. May His counsel guide me. May His knowledge instruct me. May His piety make me fervent. May His divine fear keep me from all evil. Drive from my soul, O Lord, all that may defile it. Give me grace to be Thy faithful soldier, that having fought the good fight of faith, I may be brought to the crown of everlasting life, through the merits of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen. Behind the Curtain: an Interview With Funky Dung (Thursday, March 03, 2005) I try to avoid most memes that make their way 'round the blogosphere (We really do need a better name, don't we?), but some are worth participating in. Take for instance the "interview game" that's the talk o' the 'sphere. I think it's a great way to get to know the people in neighborhood. Who are the people in your neighborhood? In your neighborhod? In your neigh-bor-hoo-ood...*smack* Sorry, Sesame Street flashback. Anyhow, I saw Jeff "Curt Jester" Miller's answers and figured since he's a regular reader of mine he'd be a good interviewer. Without further ado, here are my answers to his questions. 1. Being that your pseudonym Funky Dung was chosen from a Pink Floyd track on Atom Heart Mother, what is you favorite Pink Floyd song and why? Wow. That's a tuffy. It's hard to pick out a single favorite. Pink Floyd isn't really a band known for singles. They mostly did album rock and my appreciation of them is mostly of a gestalt nature. If I had to pick one, though, it'd be "Comfortably Numb". I get chills up my spine every time I hear it and if it's been long enough since the last time, I get midty-eyed. I really don't know why. That's a rather unsatisfying answer for an interview, so here are the lyrics to a Rush song. It's not their best piece of music, but the lyrics describe me pretty well.

New World Man He's a rebel and a runner He's a signal turning green He's a restless young romantic Wants to run the big machine He's got a problem with his poisons But you know he'll find a cure He's cleaning up his systems To keep his nature pure Learning to match the beat of the old world man Learning to catch the heat of the third world man He's got to make his own mistakes And learn to mend the mess he makes He's old enough to know what's right But young enough not to choose it He's noble enough to win the world But weak enough to lose it --- He's a new world man... He's a radio receiver Tuned to factories and farms He's a writer and arranger And a young boy bearing arms He's got a problem with his power With weapons on patrol He's got to walk a fine line And keep his self-control Trying to save the day for the old world man Trying to pave the way for the third world man He's not concerned with yesterday He knows constant change is here today He's noble enough to know what's right But weak enough not to choose it He's wise enough to win the world But fool enough to lose it --- He's a new world man...
2. What do you consider your most important turning point from agnosticism to the Catholic Church. At some point in '99, I started attending RCIA at the Pittsburgh Oratory. I mostly went to ask a lot of obnoxious Protestant questions. Or at least that's what I told myself. I think deep down I wanted desperately to have faith again. At that point I think I'd decided that if any variety of Christianity had the Truth, the Catholic Church did. Protestantism's wholesale rejection of 1500 years of tradition didn't sit well with me, even as a former Lutheran. During class one week, Sister Bernadette Young (who runs the program) passed out thin booklet called "Handbook for Today's Catholic". One paragraph in that book spoke to me and I nearly cried as I read it.
"A person who is seeking deeper insight into reality may sometimes have doubts, even about God himself. Such doubts do not necessarily indicate lack of faith. They may be just the opposite - a sign of growing faith. Faith is alive and dynamic. It seeks, through grace, to penetrate into the very mystery of God. If a particular doctrine of faith no longer 'makes sense' to a person, the person should go right on seeking. To know what a doctrine says is one thing. To gain insight into its meaning through the gift of understanding is something else. When in doubt, 'Seek and you will find.' The person who seeks y reading, discussing, thinking, or praying eventually sees the light. The person who talks to God even when God is 'not there' is alive with faith."
At the end of class I told Sr. Bernadette that I wanted to enter the Church at the next Easter vigil. 3. If you were a tree what kind of, oh sorry about that .. what is the PODest thing you have ever done? I set up WikiIndex, a clearinghouse for reviews of theological books, good, bad, and ugly. It has a long way to go, but it'll be cool when it's finished. :) 4. What is your favorite quote from Venerable John Henry Newman? "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt." 5. If you could ban one hymn from existence, what would it be? That's a tough one. As a member of the Society for a Moratorium on the Music of Marty Haugen and David Haas, there are obviously a lot of songs that grate on my nerves. If I had to pick one, though, I'd probably pick "Sing of the Lord's Goodness" by Ernie Sands.

117 thoughts on “Why Is Prostitution Illegal?

  1. Jerry Nora

    “A common arguement is that prostitution is degrading to women. I could list a number of legal things that are degrading to women, but IÂ’ll refrain for fear of being mislabeled as sexist.”

    So let’s completely degrade women in the name of consistency… I don’t buy it.

    The argument you make is not unlike what the Dutch and Germans have argued, as they have legalized prostitution. That has not prevented the extensive sex slavery where Slavic women are deceived into thinking they can find honest work in the West, only to be kidnapped, raped (“broken in”) and sold. Legalizing prostitution, therefore, even in a highly regulated, “enlightened” milieu like Western Europe is no guarantee. A larger, more heterogeneous country like the USA that isn’t so welcoming of regulation is certainly going to be even harder. Especially since we have no shortage of illegal immigrants that can get sucked into this (on top of the sex slave rings that we have here, to boot).

    In “Salt of the Earth”, a book-length interview by Peter Seewald, Ratzinger does acknowledge that position of Augustine, but said that this cannot work well in a modern society since sex can be so pervasive with the media. Where it may have been the lesser of two evils in Augustine’s time, it may only further damage the fabric of our society.

    Regarding the health aspect: pimps (and even prostitutes in some cases) would have an interest in working even with HIV or Hep C. How frequently would you test them? Weekly? That still gives the “johns” a chance to get infected on Friday by a prostitute who caught a bug on Monday but gets tested on Saturday.

    Actually, the “johns” (which is the usual slang for the men who procure prostitution) bring me to the best remedy: go after the guys who get hookers in the first place. Pittsburgh has had an interesting run with doing that. In return for not getting busted on lewd conduct or whatnot (and having to explain to the wife why they got jailed), they must attend a workshop where ex-prostitutes talk about how they got exploited and how prostitution fed the abuse and the drugs that kept them there. I got the impression that it made an impression on some of the fellas.

  2. Adrian

    Dear Funky Dung,

    I apologize if I seemed off the cuff–I was just aghast that so much ink (or pixels, as the case may be) would be spilled on a Christian website arguing that prostitution should be legal. (Though you have stated you’re not irrevocably attached to the argument.) I guess it’s a purely intellectual exercise, but to the ungrounded it could be scandalous. Please forgive me if I have been insulting, and thank you for being more gracious in your response than I was in mine. I will attempt to provide a more thorough line of reasoning later today.

  3. Funky Dung

    “So let’s completely degrade women in the name of consistency… I don’t buy it.”

    That’s not my point at all. I’m merely stating that the argument for illegality cannot depend on degradation since there are lots of legal means of degradation that society seemingly has little or no drive to make illegal. Put more succinctly, there is little or no legal precedent for establishing or maintaining illegality of an action based on its psychological impact. i think abortion is degrading to women, but that’s hardly an argument for making it illegal. Rather, I must rely on natural law and medical science to make my case that 1) it can be physically harmful to women and 2) it ends the life of a human person and constitutes murder.

  4. Steve Nicoloso

    Don’t apologize, Adrian. It is far from clear whether you’ve hit hard enough… Funky occasionally drinks too much from the libertarian (enlightenment rationalist) bottle and needs a swift kick in the ass to sober up.

    The reason prostitution (and pornography and adultery and fornication and exhorbitant interest rates and unbridled suburban sprawl and excessive fuel consumption and dangerous drugs &c. &c.) should be illegal is that we live in society. The idea that the economic arrangement between the prostitute and the patron is ONLY between them and ONLY affects them is a pure fiction. The transaction affects the families of those contracting for such services. It affects the quality of life in the area where the transaction occurs. Ultimately it affects people completely unknown and unrelated to the participants, since the unhindered provision of such services promises future demand on the part of new consumers and ostensible careers for new service providers.

    Society therefore has a stake (a say) in whether prostitution (or any other societal “ill”) ought be legal. Reducing the question to a private economic arrangement between consenting participants (which is a rule that Libertarianism applies to everything) makes it SEEM logical to suggest that there is no natural law against prostitution. But the fiction of Libertarianism is that ANY such question can be so reduced. They cannot. The view fails to take seriously the way people actually live, i.e., interdependent, in community, in society.

    [/Rant]

  5. Pingback: theartoflife.blog-city.com

  6. Pingback: Ambition Run Amok

  7. Pingback: Homespun Bloggers

  8. Pingback: the mindful mission

  9. Pingback: HappyHumans Network

  10. Pingback: the smedley log :: The enemy you know, and more contrarian fun from eclectic row

  11. Pingback: The Anti-Manichaeist » FunkyDung asks:”Why is Prostitution Illegal?”

  12. Pingback: Confessions of a Wayward Catholic » Prostitution in Nevada - what it is really like

  13. Pingback: Carnival of the Capitalists » frugal underground » money: saving more, making more, enjoying more, needing less

  14. Pingback: Prostitution is Exclusive ONLY for Sheriffs » OddJack, the Gambling Guide - Casino, Poker, Sports Betting, Horse Racing

  15. Pingback: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » On Cartoon Villains

  16. Proskillz3x3

    I, being a Christian also, really find this a hard topic to discuss. I find the act of prostitution morally wrong itself, but I think making it illegal is a wrong move. So many bad things come up from illegal prostitution. Things such as drug abuse, under-age sex, STDS, violence towards the prostitutes themselves, etc.

    A lot of these problems are due to or are magnified because prostitution is treated as a problem by the government. I would be hard pressed to find why it is considered a crime for reasons other than ones based from certain religious perspectives; it seems prostitution is a ‘victimless crime’ in America, so why should it be illegal?

    If it were to be legal I think it would be better maintained in America. Just as Funky Dung brought up on how a hot dog stand or any business for that matter is ran in America, so could prostitution. As Christians we live in a world that is not our own, we are apart from it but live in it (as explained in the bible) wrong things are going to persist because people do wrong things. We ought to let them make their own decisions on what is right or wrong, but we ought to let them make their own decisions with God’s Word upon them. God gave humanity free will, to do what they want to do, whether God condones it or not. I dont believe it should be the government making decisions for us especially when the Creator of the universe allows us to make our own decisions.

    You could say that the government isn’t forcing decisions on us but is doing more like how God does with us. He gives us an absolute truth: rights and wrongs. We are allowed to do what we want between the two but as God says sin is not rewarded but yet disciplined therefore the sinner would repent and hopefully draw nearer to God. As I said earlier this is a very hard topic to discuss. It comes down to what Adrian said way up on that comment board. The fact that you can’t really set morality and someone’s codes of ethics aside, it would be like “standing up without legs”. Our thoughts, our opinions, are all based on what we think is right or wrong, our morals. Something is either right or wrong, that is absolute truth, and its someone’s morals that reflect that. If you think a certain way about a certain topic (such as prostitution) its because your morals say its either wrong or right you react accordingly to it. You can’t really set that aside.

  17. Bryan Davis

    Wow! What a great discussion. It’s hard seeing it so late into the comment train, because reading along prompted so many potential interjections.

    I think it’s great that Funky prompted the argument – Christians should always be prepared to give an answer, and I don’t think “Because it’s immoral” is an answer. If you say, “Because the Bible says so”, and can quote chapter and verse, that’s one thing (it should be good enough for convincing Christians, but not necessarily the legislature), but you should be able to provide a more thorough, elaborative response than simple immorality.

    Immorality is such a fuzzy topic, when you are talking with people who do not share the same set of a priori assumptions. To say that no-one would want their wife or daughter to be a prostitute would be patently false. I know people who feel otherwise – honestly. Many people in Nevada, who have been able to see prostitution in its actuality, instead of relying upon the mythologized version of it they read about and imagine, are able to see it as an economic transaction, on the lines of being a model.

    To say that the majority of people would not want their wives or children to be prostitutes is certainly more acceptable, but there are millions in the US who would not want their wives or children to be Christians, and that hardly makes Christianity immoral.

    To say that it cheapens sex begs the question – who made sex a sacrament? Some people see cutting a tree as sacriligious – I don’t think you would agree with them.

    One could argue that because this is a Christian country, it’s fair to outlaw prostitution on the basis of Christian morals. Fair enough. I won’t really argue that (though I think it could be strenuously rebutted). But somebody please tell me what the Bible says about prostitution. (Prostitution, not adultery.) Also, please look at what it says about divorce, and tell me we shouldn’t leave prostitutes to their own means and start pushing anti-divorce laws through Congress.

    I think the only justification for the illegality of prostitution is the “public nuisance” factor. People don’t want nuclear reactors in their back yard. They don’t want a train station next door. They don’t want a brothel down the street.

    But those are location problems, not a fair reason to outlaw prostitution itself.

    So, congratulations, Funky Dung. Excellent discussion, and the kind of discussion that should be had. I think we’re beginning to miss the type of Christian (which CS Lewis exemplified) that could rationally apply their faith and religion to their public life in a consistant and reasonable manner that actually follows the teachings of Jesus and the apostles and would make Him proud. I applaud you for your thought on the matter.

  18. Proskillz3x3

    Bryan: “But somebody please tell me what the Bible says about prostitution. (Prostitution, not adultery.)”

    Well, on what stance would prostitution not be adultery? Sex outside marriage is considered a sin, wouldn’t prostitution be categorized as so due to its outside of a marriage, or it could be inside, but that would constitute an even greater problem. Matthew 5:27-28 states, “The law of Moses says, ‘do not commit adultery.’ But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    Lust is adultery in the heart. It is true that when you imagine having sex with someone, you have not consummated it with that person physically. But in your heart, you have.

    As you clearly state in your post it is hard to argue if something is moral or immoral when every one’s moral standards are different. People think different things because people have different beliefs. So how do we prove anything to anyone if we refer to text from the bible as I just have?

    If someone doesn’t believe in God they won’t have any reason to listen to anything the bible says because in their mind it would hold no grounds to judge their actions. If someone did believe in God, and believed he is all knowing and has the right as creator of all things to judge us for our actions-then if the bible says sexual immorality is wrong one would deduct that prostitution is wrong also because of where their beliefs lay. Moral arguments can go in circles because someone could disagree with another at the drop of a hat. The only way moral arguments or concerns are met in agreement is by means of majority consensus; however, someone will always be counted out.

  19. Bryan Davis

    Proskillz – as I understand it, prostitution is by definition fornication, but not necessarily adultery. Adultery requires one or more of the partners to be married (but not to the other parter, or perhaps more specifically, the woman to be married to someone other than her partner. Now, I know Paul takes a dim view of fornication and prostitution in 1 Corninthians 6 (the same passage where he says all things are permissable but not beneficial), but this, to me seems to be on par with his admonition not to marry at all; moreover, by his reasoning, he suggests that prostitutes are unsaveable, which certainly Jesus would disagree with.

    In regards to the quote from Matthew, I believe it is fair to assume that Jesus’s quote could be literally assumed to imply that the woman to whom the lustful man was looking would have been an object of adultery (e.g., his neighbors’ wife from the Mosaic allusion), as opposed to his own wife or sister or an unmarried maiden.

    But you’re right. It’s not worth anything to quote bible verses to non-believers; I brought the Bible into it because I believe this is a worthwhile discussion to have within the context of Christianity. Just like Paul had to knock a few churches about the head and shoulders for excluding non-Jews and those who ate meat sacrificed to idols, or got drunk on the sacraments, sometimes the church today needs a knock or two to make sure their moralities are biblical more than cultural.

    Regarding the law, I think we should be very careful not to have the government take the role of the parent – I think it’s the role of the mother and the father to teach their children sexual mores, not the state. Even when there is a moral majority, I don’t recall any biblical admonition after the advent of a Hebrew king (i.e., the end of the Theocracy) to have morality enforced by law. But I’m certainly open to being disproven!

  20. Iain Parkes

    An interesting discussion, I’m not a christian, so maybe I look at matters differently.

    One could argue that marrage is a form of ritual prostitution – afterall, the woman agrees to have sex with and have babies by one man in return for protection and support! Bartering away sexual rights for goods and services is prostitution!

    regina doman said “Prostitution is in and of itself a disordered practice – using the sexual act in a way it was never intended to be used and in a way that is foreign to the very nature of the act. The natural state of the sexual act is that it is intended to be practiced in a loving manner between one man and one woman who have committed themselves to one another for life in a covenant with legal status (marriage).”

    Now, given that we evolved from other forms of animals, it must be infered that the nature of the act is simply to reproduce – afterall, the beasts in the field do not have marrage contracts (legal or otherwise!) do they fornicate or commit adultery simply because they are not married?. With farming, it is often the case where one male will service a large number of females – is that against gods way too?

    Maybe my arguments are below the standards expected of this forum but if you are going to talk about an act being wrong simply because some people talked to burning bushes or hiked to the top of mountains to communicate with invisible beings, then maybe rational discussion is simply not possible!

  21. Pingback: Making the Best of a Bad Situation | Christianity @ Ales Rarus

  22. BV

    “One could argue that marriage is a form of ritual prostitution.”

    Sacrificial love expressed in a life-long union between man and woman ordered toward their growth and the raising of a family, is not similar to sex for money.

    “Now, given that we evolved from other forms of animals, it must be inferred that the nature of the act is simply to reproduce – afterall, the beasts in the field do not have marriage contracts (legal or otherwise!) do they fornicate or commit adultery simply because they are not married?.”

    You have countered your own point: the very fact that ‘beasts of the field don’t have marriage or contracts’ suggests that man is different than beasts.

    “If you are going to talk about an act being wrong simply because some people talked to burning bushes or hiked to the top of mountains to communicate with invisible beings, then maybe rational discussion is simply not possible!”

    I dunno, the acknowledgement of God is a reasonable starting point.

    There seems to be an overall thread to your observations: denial of the existence of things that cannot be seen. As a result, marriage and prostitution appear the same, humans are no different than other beasts, and the existence of an invisible God is irrational. This idea itself is evidence of the unseen, because ideas exist, but they are not material.

  23. JeroenBok

    As stated previously

    “The only way moral arguments or concerns are met in agreement is by means of majority consensus”

    Hmmm, the majority consensus, can’t be a vehicle for morality, Sodom and Gamorha come to mind. The Majority of peoples in those cities were corrupt, and they chose to be so, does it make them “corrupt” because a minority thought that what they were doing in those cities was wrong?

    And the Adultry by way of Marriage card can’t be played either, Marriage as being a union sanctioned by the church, didn’t exist til the middle ages, when the struggling churches as they separated from the Roman Catholic Church, looked to find ways of generating income. Prior to the Churches involvement, people pledged themselves to each other, or were pledged by their parents, but these pledges were not binding, and could be severed if certain agreements were no upheld, it usually wasnt severed, but the option still existed. So what then was meant by Adultry back when the 10 commandments were penned to Moses? I personaly think it was the taking on a second or more wives to produce a male heir, because the first one cant concieve a son, I believe was the concern of God, not nessesarily the act of sex with another partner.

    Adultry is number 7 on the list of commandments,
    The churchgoers break the 2nd all the time by pray befor a cross on the wall as to focus our prayers. We as a whole as Christians dont take the 4th one to heart either that being the Sabbath. And we all fall short on the 5th and 10th, we find fault with our parents, and we judge our worth and stature by seeing what everyone else is or has. So why not slip adultery under the table as well?

    I think it is because we all want to be better than we are. As we grow in God, and begin to rise above our limitations, we strive to lift others to our new found level of morality. Whether they want to go their too or not.

    So where does all this leave us with our concerns over prostitution? Well, who are we to judge another, for their heart is seem by God alone, it is not our place to be the judge of them.

    Well I hope I have come full circle in my reasoning, and made no point at all.

  24. Pingback: The Anti-Manichaeist » Blog Archive » Why is Prostitution Illegal?

  25. Funky Dung Post author

    I think a feminist argument would say that to make prostitution gives women more bargaining power in their relationships with me since they ultimately control when a man can have sex(this is a fair amount of power given that men want to have sex much more frequently than women do.).

    Huh? The way I see it, getting men to pay for sex gives women a hell of a lot of power.

    I’d argue for prostitution remaining legal on the grounds of promoting greater equality between the sexes. If poor women turn to prostitution out of desperation, there are better ways to help them out than making prostitution legal. I agree about focusing on johns for the purpose of prevention of prostitution.

    How do you know that all or most women turn to prostitution out of desperation? Even so, abuse does not destroy right use. What’s at issue here is not whether prostitution sometimes causes harm (i.e., is abused), but whether there is any right use for it and whether that right use is worth protecting by law in the face of abuses.

    One can argue also that even though it is impossible to end prostitution that having it be illegal sends an important signal socially that sex is not a commodity.

    I agree. However, one could ask if it’s the government’s job to make such a statement.

    In this world of ours where regions that have lax views on sex are suffering greatly from the AIDS virus, this is an important message to have. I know that in Thailand, paying to have sex with a prostitute is viewed at the same level as buying a coke and a father would take his son to visit a prostitute to teach him about sex.

    You have conflated two arguments, the latter being moral (and thus out of bounds for this discussion). Stopping prostitution could be viewed and defended as a public health measure. However, some countries have dealt with that issue by instead regulating prostitution. My impression is that in those countries sex with prostitutes is much safer for both hooker and john. Your statement about sex, coke, and learning about sex is a non sequitur in relation to the first argument and appeals to a moral code in which prostitution is immoral and for a father to take his son to a prostitute for sex is scandalous.

    Lastly, sexual intercourse tends to cause an obsession that is not healthy, consider the film “The Story of Adele H”, which is based on the true story of how Victor Hugo’s daughter went against her family’s wishes to chase after the British soldier that had seduced her and ends up frittering away her sanity trying to make him love her. It’s extreme, but the danger of sexual intercourse leading to obsession, crimes of passion, or even just addiction are good reasons to set the cultural rules of the game to discourage males from being able to have sex whenever they feel like it and can afford it.

    If we follow this line of reasoning, all sex would be banned, not just prostitution. 😉 Seriously, though, this line of argument is dangerous because it would lead to serious curtailing of privacy and personal freedom.

    Another good movie on this theme is “The Decline of the American Empire”. It’s a French Quebec film and explores thoroughly how the secular permissive approach to sex is unfulfilling, with many being hurt as sex no longer serves as the bond of marriage in a family.

    This only demonstrates that casual sex is a bad idea, not that it should be restricted by law. I think becoming a mine and annoying people with mime routines is a bad idea, but I wouldn’t legislate against it.

    Then again, a mime is a wonderful thing to waste. Perhaps I would ban them. 😉

  26. TJinSG

    I think it’s time to fight this ridiculous law that makes paying for sex a crime. Men have always paid for sex in one way or another and always will. Sex between consenting adults is a great experience that everyone wants and most people indulge in as often as they are able to. The fact that a man pays a woman or a woman pays a man should be none of the governments business.

    Sex is a basic human desire and need. Everyone on this planet thinks about it at some time or other and many participate as well. Who knows what the percentage is that participate but it is probably well into the 90’s.

    I understand that the issue is about paying for sex, not the act of engaging in it. And since that is the case the law must widen the nets for those that are arrested because the constitution gives Fair and Equal treatment under the law. And here are examples.

    Men go to bars and pay for drinks for a woman hoping to get sex. Didn’t he compensate the woman by paying for her drinks? Sure, he bought her the drinks to “loosen” her up so she would be more apt to go have sex with him., but, she on the other hand knows what may happen if she accepts the drinks. But isn’t that income for the woman? Whether or not it was expressly agreed to that she would have sex if he bought her drinks the outcome is still the same. Especially if she more than likely would not have had sex with him if he did not pay for the drinks and maybe even breakfast.

    When a man goes on a date with a woman he is hoping to have sex with her. The man generally pays for the date hoping it will get him sex. Men generally know in they don’t pay for the date the chance of them having sex is very minimal. When they do end up having sex hasn’t the woman become a prostitute? How many women would go on a date or have sex with the guy if she had to pay her own way? The only way to guaranty she did not become a prostitute would be for her to pay her own way and then have or don’t have sex with the man just based on his personality, that way money or some kind of compensation is not involved.

    Aren’t women always turning themselves into prostitutes when they expect, or even demand, that the man pay for something or she would not have sex with him? She may not say she won’t have sex with him if he didn’t pay but the result is the same.

    Aren’t wives turned into prostitutes and husbands turned into John’s? How many wives would continue to have sex with their husbands if he told her she had to get a job and support herself. Her money was her money and his money was his. They would split all the household bills like the mortgage, electricity, gas, water. etc. in half as well as the cost for any children but she was financially responsible for her own survival, just like when she was single. She now had to buy her own food, clothes, jewelery, car, insurance and what ever else she needed. But he still expected her to have sex with him as often as he wanted. How many wives would agree to that? She would probably tell him since she was now responsible for her own self then he was too and he was now responsible to take care of his self sexually as well.

    How many husbands would stay with his wife if she told him she was not going to have sex with him anymore but expected him to still continue paying for everything as if she was having sex with him? (oops, that already happens, it’s called DIVORCE and ALIMONY, or should that be spelled alimony?)

    What about when a couple have an argument and the man goes and buys the woman something and because of buying that something for her she is now happy and decides to have sex with him? Hasn’t she become a prostitute and him John? She would not have had sex with him if he didn’t buy that something for her.

    What about when a boyfriend gives money to his girlfriend. She is his girlfriend because they have a sexual relationship. Doesn’t that make her a prostitute and him a John? What if he gives money to several women that he is sexually involved with? Doesn’t that make them a prostitute and him a John. What if she has the same kind of relationship with several guys, as in cheating? Doesn’t that make her a prostitute and the guys Johns, even though none of the parties realize or acknowledge it? Isn’t this just another form of prostitution?

    This has to show that prostitution exists in many forms, not just the direct exchange of money from hand to hand at the time the activity happened. And not because of the relationship of the parties involved. Prostitution still happens between boyfriends and girlfriends, husbands and wives that way too by the husband or boyfriend giving money to the girlfriend or wife before, during or after the act. They don’t think they are paying for sex but would they give the money to the girlfriend or wife if sex was not a part of their relationship?

    For prostitution not to exist sex would have to be engaged in between parties freely and with no compensation, enrichment, giving up of funds, receiving of gifts, food , shelter or liquids of any kind being paid for by either party at any time. There could not be any kind of exchange between the parties that caused either party to incur any kind of loss or gain weather financial or otherwise.

    For Fair and Equal treatment under the law there would have to be policemen in every bar, night club, restaurant, store, etc and anywhere men and women meet making sure that if the couples were going to have sex there would be no other exchange involved. The police would have to be watching every relationship and marriage to make sure money was not involved in that relationship if the people involved were having sex.

    Women are taught from an early age “Don’t give it up freely”. Even Dr. Laura Schlessinger on her daily radio show tells women not to give it up without getting something in return. If a woman is living with a man she says the man is getting sex for free! Make him marry you so he has to pay for it!

    Why is this a law? There are two consenting adults that are not being harmed. Alcohol does more harm to the people who drink and to their families, but it is legal. Is this some baseless law that we are blindly following? Is this a law because “moral”, fanatical, hypocrite’s are forcing their beliefs on others? If no one is being hurt let them follow their beliefs and leave others alone.

    And what is it that they are objecting to? Is it that a man is paying to have physical pleasure? What about all the other physical pleasures men pay to get, should those be made illegal too? Is it because the woman is having the pleasure of sex and being paid too? As mentioned above that happens anyways. Is it the amount of sex she or he is having? Do we have to be restricted to once or twice a week? Just what is their problem?

    How can it be illegal if so many people are involved in it in one form or another? How can she be arrested for something that so many people are openly involved in? Every relationship would have to be examined. Everyone in government positions would have to turn themselves in because they were sworn to uphold the law. If they themselves are breaking the law they have to turn themselves in, from the president on down to every policeman on the job. From politicians to judges and even the jurors.

    When men get married it is mostly because they think they are going to have all the sex they want, and the price of marriage is worth it. Ask him would he marry this person if everything else was the same but there would be no sex at all. If he is honest he will say NO.

    When a woman gets married it is mostly for the security and support from her husband. Ask her if she would have sex with him after they got married if he didn’t support her financially? If she is honest she would say no.

    Sex is the one area where women have greater control over men, to get the man to give them what they want.

    Maybe this law is being driven by both single and married women because of fear of losing their power over men. If one woman is willing to take money for sex then the other woman is losing her power and control over the man. Now he can get what he wants without having to submit to a woman’s control to give it to him.

    If prostitution were legal it would help to make marriages better. The wife would now know her husband could legally go to a prostitute for the sex he is not getting from his wife. If she is smart it should make her think about how to be a better sexual partner for her husband so he won’t want to go anywhere else. It should help to keep her from becoming fat and lazy and realize she needs to be attractive for her husband.

    And of course there are those women out there that don’t want to have sex anyway. Now she can send her husband to the local prostitute to take care of him, knowing he’ll be coming back to take care of her financial needs, which is all she wants.

    The argument of paying for sex will probably go on and on. But what if comes down to is it should only be a matter between the parties involved.

  27. dlw

    My counter args vs Funky and the other position is that sex shd not be commodified and ought to be ensconced in relationships due to its psychological and physiological hazards, which can only be mitigated imperfectly.

    I am not saying that money will not play a role in sex, but I am saying that its role shd be delimited by keeping prostitution illegal. Since us males will continue to want sex more frequently than females will and will likely continue to have a higher purchasing power for the foreseeable future, it is important to set the rules of the game for sex so as to promote females’ interests rather than ours and to promote more discipline or a less consumeristic mentality among us males wrt sex. I believe this, ensconcing sex within relationships, will also mitigate the inevitable conflicts between the genders and foster greater cooperation and specialization within our households.
    dlw

  28. JeroenBok

    OK…Males also Drink and Smoke far more than females, they are legal. And yet the majority of the population doesn’t smoke or drink, because we know the hazards involved and don’t wish to run the risk of dying a horrible death, either abruptly or lingering. Same with prostitution, there are hazards involved, not to mention the STD’s , but the relationship with your spouse would be in ever increasing stress. Legalizing prostitution could be legalized for those willing to take the risks involved, like skydiving, or joining the military, or driving under overpasses in Indianapolis. All life is a risk, even though certain endevors are riskier, it should be up to the individual. Free Will and all that, though we were given free will, it is within us to forgo it and do what we as individuals know is the Divine Will.

  29. Pingback: Confessions of a Wayward Catholic » Prostitution in Nevada - what it is really like

  30. Pingback: why prostitution - Web - WebCrawler

  31. Pingback: Why Is Prostitution Illegal In The US - Dogpile Web Search

  32. Pingback: the mindful mission - (Il)Legal Prostitution

  33. sophie Friedman

    i’m a student in a debate class, ( I’m in 10th grade.)
    and me and my partner are going againt two people debateing why
    we think prosituion should be legal.
    This site has been extremly great to me, so i just wanted to
    thank you.

  34. Funky Dung Post author

    Sophie, it pleases me to know that a post on this blog has helped further someone’s education. Bear in mind, though, that this post only scratches the surface of relevant issues. At minimum, you should also look into social contract theory and how it applies to our countries founding documents. You may also wish to look into varieties of natural law and how they differ from each other.

    Please come back and let me know your grade on the paper. 🙂

  35. Funky Dung Post author

    I know it’s been a very long time since any substantive comments were made, but I’d like to offer another bit of food for thought.

    In light of the Supreme Court decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws in Texas, are anti-prostitution laws really constitutional?

  36. gbm3

    [A]re anti-prostitution laws really constitutional?

    Really, are any marriage laws to be upheld? Polygamy, bestial relations, underage marriages, sibling “marriages”, etc. What keeps them out?
    (I might say Leviticus 18 ( http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/leviticus/leviticus18.htm ) and all the voting public who agree with it in addition to the natural laws pertaining thereto.)

    You may also want to see the case study done by 20/20 at http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4480892&page=1 , “Prostitution in America: Diane Sawyer Special Examines World’s Oldest Profession”. March 19, 2008

    Prostitution still has a capital compensation component which sodomy does not. However, I still think sodomy should be illegal as the law is drafted since I believe it is an assault (no pun intended) of the sodomized, even if consented: just as in prostitution, the victim’s humanity is stripped as if they were considered an animal and not a human. The person is used as a means for bestial pleasure instead of being treated with human dignity (as in marriage without assault).

  37. Funky Dung

    “Really, are any marriage laws to be upheld? Polygamy, bestial relations, underage marriages, sibling “marriages”, etc.”

    Not at the federal level, I’d hope. States and social institutions, by rights preserved under Amendments 9 and 10, should have the right to freely associate and determine marriage laws. Still, as I’ve stated elsewhere, I don’t see a need to give the State any role in marriage whatsoever.

    “Polygamy, bestial relations, underage marriages, sibling ‘marriages’, etc. What keeps them out?”

    Nothing. Nor do I believe there ought to be, with the exception of underage marriages, because they involve sexual abuse. With few exceptions, people should be legally free to copulate with whomsoever they please, so long as consent is given, or whatever they please, so long as they own it or have consent of the owner. If folks want to create towns like the one the Dominoes guy created in Florida, and strictly regulate marriage and marital relations, they should be free to do so, but freedom association means that those who completely disagree should be free to create their own towns reflecting their beliefs.

    “I might say Leviticus 18…and all the voting public who agree with it in addition to the natural laws pertaining thereto.”

    Sometimes the voting public is wrong. Really, have you no respect for rule of law? Whether a law is just is one matter. Whether it is good is another. Whether it is valid is yet another. Regardless of how people vote, if a law is unconstitutional it should be struck down until appropriate amendments are made to the Constitution. To do otherwise is to reject rule of law when it suits voters.

    As for sodomy, why should the State have any say about whether and under what circumstances a person may or may not they consent to be treated with less than human dignity.

    BTW, “human dignity” is hardly a universal concept. There may be generalities people agree on, but people will always disagree about details.

  38. gbm3

    Really, have you no respect for rule of law?

    I was wondering when you were going to ask this. Yes. That is why I try to change the laws with my vote and reasoning.

    Specifically, however for this subject of sodomy, the rule of State law was overridden by the Supreme Court (SC) and not by the true rule of law. By using non-Constitutional “privacy” right idea from, among other rulings, Roe v. Wade, the Court overruled a State law. Perhaps you should ask if the SC has respect for the rule of law. Texas had a sodomy law, the US Constitution does not have a sodomy section, therefore the SC should have deferred to the State law.

    Why is Sodomy illegal? Why is prostitution illegal? Because, legally speaking, the State, i.e. one of the fifty states has a law that deems it illegal. Same goes for prostitution.

    As far as the desire to amend the US Constitution for every law under the sun, I don’t know if this is really necessary. Obviously, I’m no legal scholar, per se, but I’m sure if Congress passes laws without having to amend the US Const. every day, Congress has to have legal permission to make laws of public interest. To what degree? I’m not sure. That’s the kicker.

  39. Funky Dung

    Specifically, however for this subject of sodomy, the rule of State law was overridden by the Supreme Court (SC) and not by the true rule of law. By using non-Constitutional “privacy” right idea from, among other rulings, Roe v. Wade, the Court overruled a State law. Perhaps you should ask if the SC has respect for the rule of law. Texas had a sodomy law, the US Constitution does not have a sodomy section, therefore the SC should have deferred to the State law.

    I’m disappointed. That’s one of the most ignorant statements about the Constitution I’ve ever heard. It’s also an example of why some of the framers didn’t want an explicit bill of rights; they feared that enumerating some rights would endanger others. That’s the reasoning behind amendments 9 and 10. Tolle, lege.

    There is no need for a right to be explicitly mentioned for it to be protected. We shouldn’t have to argue for particular rights as though the State granted them as privileges. It should be quite the other way around. The State should have limited and enumerated powers, and any power not given to the State should be a right of the People. Oh wait, that’s exactly what the Constitution dictates. I wonder why we don’t obey it. >:-/

    As far as the desire to amend the US Constitution for every law under the sun, I don’t know if this is really necessary. Obviously, I’m no legal scholar, per se, but I’m sure if Congress passes laws without having to amend the US Const. every day, Congress has to have legal permission to make laws of public interest. To what degree? I’m not sure. That’s the kicker.

    Congress oversteps its bounds and shirks its duties frequently. That doesn’t make it right in doing either. That’s why I support the following bills and wish to see them passed into law.

    Enumerated Powers Act
    Read the Bills Act
    Write the Laws Act

  40. gbm3

    The State should have limited and enumerated powers, and any power not given to the State should be a right of the People. Oh wait, that’s exactly what the Constitution dictates. I wonder why we don’t obey it. >:-/

    Here are the 9th and 10th amendments:

    Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am15

    Tolle Lege – Take Up and Read!

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/tolle-lege.html

    Where in the US Constitution does it discuss power to outlaw sodomy? Nowhere. So, it goes to the States or the people. Texas passed a law to outlaw sodomy. You’ll probably call me dense, but I don’t see the problem here with Texas, a State, to outlaw sodomy. Where has my “disappointing” logic gone wrong?

  41. Funky Dung Post author

    The Constitution is a fundamentally libertarian document, codifying the beliefs that brought about a preceding libertarian document, the Declaration of Independence. Nobody, least of all the State, has the right to forcefully take life, liberty, or property without good reason. For the State to have legitimate complaint against sodomy, it would have to give substantive proof that it harms non-consenting parties. The involved parties themselves, so long as they maintain consent, are free to harm themselves. It is not the duty of the State to protect us from ourselves.

  42. gbm3

    For the State to have legitimate complaint against sodomy, it would have to give substantive proof that it harms non-consenting parties. The involved parties themselves, so long as they maintain consent, are free to harm themselves. It is not the duty of the State to protect us from ourselves.

    Please tell me where my logic is faulty regarding the Texas sodomy law vis-a-vis the 9th and 10th amendments.

    Where has [m]y “disappointing” logic gone wrong?

  43. gbm3

    … but I must say that “libertarian” not a label I’ve heard applied to me before. -FD
    Posted 08 Feb 2006 at 4:09 pm

    So, what happened? I guess Ron Paul?

  44. Funky Dung Post author

    “Please tell me where my logic is faulty regarding the Texas sodomy law vis-a-vis the 9th and 10th amendments.”

    I stand corrected. After much thought, I’ve realized that states should have the constitutional right to enact anti-sodomy laws. Interestingly, the SCOTUS did not disagree. They struck down the law based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment said that an anti-sodomy law that applied to heterosexual couples as well would meet constitutional muster.

    “So, what happened? I guess Ron Paul?”

    Yup. I’m certainly not a through-and-through, principled libertarian, though.

    Anyhow, people change over time. Heck, commenter Steve Nicoloso is now Catholic. 🙂

Comments are closed.