Skip to comments.Prostitutes and Politics Why is it still illegal to pay for sex?
Posted on 05/09/2007 6:51:49 AM PDT by Lusis
The resignation of Randall Tobias, the chief of the Bush administration's foreign aid programs, for "personal reasons" following the revelation that he had engaged the services of two escort-service workers has provided rich grist for amusement on the punditry circuit. There was indeed plenty of material for humor in the situation, from Tobias's strong stand in favor of abstinence teaching in AIDS prevention programs to his "I didn't inhale"-style assertion that he never had sex with the women. But the predictable laughs have obscured a much larger issue than hypocrisy in the ranks of social conservatives. The reason Tobias's call-girl adventures became public is that the owner of the Washington, DC-based service, Pamela Martin, is facing prosecution and has turned her records over to news organizations to help pay for her legal defense.
Even those who feel a certain schadenfreude at Tobias's downfall should be asking the question: should there have been a criminal case in the first place?
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Perhaps because trafficking in human flesh is bad policy as well as immoral.
Man has always paid for sex. One way or another.
Actually we are asking why the list was not published with the rest of the names.
Then there is the disease vector issue...
More specficially, it has always been legal to pay for sex. It is only illegal to do so in SOME circumstances.
The government is worried about getting their “cut”. If health were an issue, cigarettes and booze would be outlawed.
I thought politicians and prostitutes were one and the same. I’ve been paying the government for years and getting screwed royally for it.
The government doesn’t see a cut of all that baby sitting money earned by school girls. Underaged employees administering unlicensed childcare.
To those opposed to prostitution, which of those are you opposed to?
Marriage or divorce, either way, you pay............
I thought women had control over their bodies?
If they can kill a human being in their womb it surely seems like they should be able to charge for sex.
Did you read the article?
Another common claim is that prostitution causes direct harm by contributing to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. However, that may be the reddest herring of them all. In Australia, where sex for money is legal, the rate of HIV infection among female prostitutes is so low that prostitution has been removed from the list of known risk factors in HIV surveillance. In the U.S., reliable data are more difficult to come by, but a 1987 Centers for Disease Control study likewise found very low infection rates among prostitutes.
I'm in favor of legalizing prostitution, as it is one of those "victimless crimes." By making it illegal, it isn't like we are getting rid of it, and instead we are throwing away money at policing it. If prostitution was legal, then there would be fewer pimps, since a prostitute could go to the police for protection from Johns who beat them or don't pay (I'd wager this costs less than prosecuting and jailing them). Legislating morality will not make people any more moral, and only makes the government a bigger nanny state.
Well said, sir!
1) Surrendering to al-Quaeda
2) Opening our national borders to everyone.
3) Legalizing drugs.
4) Legalizing prostitution.
It's just hard to take the Libertarians seriously.
Would they allow legalized abortion?
No sales our “use” tax? /sarc
As Ronald Reagan so eloquently put it:
“Politics is the world’s second oldest profession and it bears a close relation to the first.”
Absolutely not. We have Nazis and racists like Margaret Sanger to thank for that.
Adultery is destructive yet it has been decriminalized (even though there is a violation of a legal agreement).
Fornication laws also were repealed against unmarried sex and cohabitation.
Now the Supreme Court has skipped the legislative process and decreed that homosexuality is a protected right in America.
We were told that it was about the actions of consenting adults in private yet school children are being instructed in the homosexual lifestyle and the GBLT people are urging for a change to our nation’s vice laws that see homosexuals prosecuted for public sex in washrooms. There is also a push for same sex marriage.
So much for it being about ADULTS in PRIVATE.
The act of sex with a prostitute is conducted in private yet it is considered in another strata. I’ve already pointed out the unregulated activity of babysitters.
If prostitution is regulated by the government, then again you have Big Brother in the bedroom. Right now Big Brother is busy in the bathroom checking out the size toilet bowl Americans have and may soon be inspecting the bulbs in the lighting fixtures and the number of sheets of toilet paper you are using.
I may not argue against the way the laws were but in the modern era, it is an unequal application of the Constitution. Rick Santorum spoke about the slippery slope. Some of it has come to pass. Other elements have not yet. All of it was ridiculed.
I prefer to point out that, if one accepts the right to privacy that “emanates” from the “penumbra” of our Constitution and subsequently permits abortion on demand up to and including the ninth month of gestation, there is no way that such a right to privacy would not also extend to the right to rent out reprodutive organs according to the wishes of their owner.
It all might be morally reprehensible to any decent person, but this is what happens when written law is rejected in deference to someone divining the emanations of our body of law.
Speaking of which, isn’t “emanation” just a Three-dollar word for a fart?
You posted: “Legislating morality will not make people any more moral, and only makes the government a bigger nanny state.”
To some extent, every law is a legislation of morality (as a principle). Should we take, “Thou shalt not kill”, or “thou shalt not steal”, out of our criminal codes as well...since they are legislations of morality?
But banging the secretary at work and making excuses to the wife is no crime at all.
I have yet to hear a legal / moral rebuttal to that.
Perhaps you would care to explain to the viewing audience, the existence of legal brothels in the State of Nevada.
Many great arguments against legal prostitution, but a not a valid argument from “intent of the framers”.
It isn’t “victimless”, there is trafficking in sex slaves. Women who appear to be “free” but are smuggled into this country illegally, and kept through constant threats on their family and “debt” contracts that can never be paid off.
It is an international problem. But there is little attention focused on it. There are estimated to be at least 25,000 slaves in the US.
Now if any woman could get in the game, it might drive down the business interest of organized criminals to engage in such operations.
“The men who wrote that Constitution .....’
codified slavery, but found this ‘abhorrent’.
Just thought I’d point that out. Which is the worse ‘evil’ a woman taking capitalism to the proverbial ‘street level’ or enslaving humans for material gain?
citing the founders, and the Constitution, on this topic has its flaws, thats all I’m noting here, btw.
Not too sure about how that Franklin fellow would have regarded it, personally.
For the most part, they were relatively silent on the topic. The real push for making prostitution illegal came towards the end of the 19th century from the remnants of the Abolitionist movement. The main focus was protecting women from being forced into prostitution and not to support some Puritanical moral code as some might suggest (although I'm sure the remaining Puritans were quite happy to sign on as well).
“Legislating morality will not make people any more moral, and only makes the government a bigger nanny state.”
We have a winner.
By “legislating morality,” the would-be legislator must first ask “Whose morality?” And when you get into those types of semantics, you are without doubt on your way to sustaining, if not further growing, a tyrannical and overbearing nanny state.
Check out the Rad-Islams: They “legislate” their brand of morality all the time. But to them, they are the only ones with true moral standing - so, in their minds, why shouldn’t they force their moral beliefs on others?
Ummm..., I give up, why? (as if anyone had to ask the question). The first time someone started listening to “innocent questions” about something, it got the entire human race in trouble...
In the first book of the Bible, Genesis, we’re told about that question —
Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” [Genesis 3:1]
And from that one little question, the entire human race went downhill from there. That one little question wreaked havoc upon the human race.
And so, once again, we have a “little simple question” here.... don’t we? And when people decide that they don’t see it the way God sees it, *havoc* ensues... And so it goes...
But, as a side note — perhaps that hasn’t been allowed for another reason (for those who don’t want to listen to God anyway). Maybe it’s because — then — women would be making more money than men....
Prostition is not illegal in all states.
Actually they did. But why let little things like facts get in the way of a good rant.
I agree with you. When I was debating abortion with a lady, she said that a women should be able to do whatever she wants to do, with her body. I asked whether prostitution should be legal, and she said no. I said, “You said a woman should be able to do whatever she wants, with her body. You just contradicted yourself. You think it’s okay to murder a baby but not okay to have sex for money.” She said, “Abortion doesn’t kill a baby. It’s just a bunch of cells.” I might expect that from a lady who didn’t have kids, but her one year-old daughter was a few feet from us.
Only someone ignorant of history could go down this road this way.
Legal to give away... illegal to sell.
The problem with pure libertarians is the fact that they get to the word ‘freedom’ and stop thinking right there. Pure libertarianism is selfishness with no thought about the effect on society.
For instance the claim that legalizing drugs will empty our prisons. The fact is that there are very few people in prison for simple drug use. Most are there for crimes they committed while under the influence of the drugs or in an attempt to get the drugs. If you legalize crack, you aren’t going to create model citizens who just happen to like crack. Instead you now have a guy who robs or steals to support his now legal habit.
I'm not surprised that she refused to actually answer your question. I get the same result and always point out their evasion.
Judeo-Christian values "priestcraft". Though for good reason. To prevent the spread of STD's and since back in the day they had no birth control, well you know.
Oh, and how do you explain Billy Priapus Clinton? He is reputed to have groped and serviced thousands of willing and unwilling femmes and still became very wealthy. The only female gropee we know he was forced to pay was named Jones (a somewhat expensive grope it was too!).
I see you use the big L when not taking Libertarians seriously. Most who consider themselves libertarians dont necessarily follow that party’s line.
I would side with your position. Whose business is it if two adults agree to a money-for-sex exchange?