w25y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (11/06/90)
Some people would argue for the legalization of prostitution on the
grounds that sex is not fundamentally different from other services
that people are employed to perform. However, I would claim that
there is an important difference: Imagine someone forced at gunpoint
to delete data files, carry boxes, or whatever. Now imagine someone
being forced at gunpoint to participate in sex. The latter is
considered to be a more severe crime than the former.
This may not apply directly to the case of someone selling sex
vountarily, but it indicates that the role of consent in sex is
considered more important than in other activities.
A similar comparison might be made between someone driven to
prostitution by economic necessity and someone who has no choice but
to write COBOL programs; the former case is considered a much greater
tragedy.
There are activities such as voting and organ donation that people may
engage in voluntarily, but may not do in exchange for money. It is
not too unreasonable to suggest that sex should be one of them. Vote
selling, like prostitution, is likely to go on anyway, but this is not
grounds for legalizing it.
-- Paul Ciszek
W25Y@CRNLVAX5 Bitnet
W25Y@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU Internet
UUNET!CORNELL!VAX5!W25Y UUCP
"The trouble with normal is it always gets worse." --Bruce Cockburnturpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) (11/06/90)
----- In article <1990Nov1.173135.727@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>, w25y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: > ... Imagine someone forced at gunpoint to delete data files, > carry boxes, or whatever. Now imagine someone being forced at > gunpoint to participate in sex. The latter is considered to > be a more severe crime than the former. We don't have to imagine people being forced to tote and carry. A century and a half ago, this was a major economic source of labor. In arguing over the different degrees of slavery, one is splitting hairs rather than making a qualitative distinction. Mr Ciszek should note that a Texas rancher and his son were convicted a few years ago of slavery, for forcing hitchhikers to work on their ranch. They were given very stiff sentences for this. It would seem that our legal system treats slavery and rape as roughly comparable crimes. > This may not apply directly to the case of someone selling sex > vountarily, but it indicates that the role of consent in sex is > considered more important than in other activities. If Mr Ciszek is talking about a single instance, he is probably correct. A rapist is usually treated more severely than a burglar who merely orders his victims into the closet. But this difference is easily overstated. Victims of other violence often report symptoms similar to rape victims. The psychological trauma of having one's will denied can be carried in a variety of acts, of which sexual abuse is one point in a continuum. When one considers a prolonged period of coercion, these differences can become less important than the overriding fact of the coercion. In part, this is the point of the saying that rape is violence and violation. > ... Vote selling, like prostitution, is likely to go on anyway, > but this is notgrounds for legalizing it. I see no useful analogy between these two activities. Trying to justify our laws against prostitution by appealling to what is best for prostitutes is an exercise in hypocrisy. I urge Mr Ciszek to go talk to people who have both (1) sold sex for money, and (2) served prison time for this, and to ask them which degraded and violated them more. Russell
dwp@willett.pgh.pa.US (Doug Philips) (11/07/90)
In <1990Nov1.173135.727@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>, w25y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: > This may not apply directly to the case of someone selling sex > vountarily, but it indicates that the role of consent in sex is > considered more important than in other activities. > > A similar comparison might be made between someone driven to > prostitution by economic necessity and someone who has no choice but > to write COBOL programs; the former case is considered a much greater > tragedy. When Cuba offered prostitutes training in "other" job skills, there weren't many prostitutes left. Unfortunately I've lost my source for this info, could someone out there that does have it post or mail it to me? -Doug
7103_2622@uwovax.uwo.ca (Eric Smith) (11/08/90)
I find it rather mind-boggling that we're discussing, in 1990, on a feminist newsgroup, the question of whether or not the government should have a say in a woman's choice of sexual partners. I don't think this should be an issue at all. Whom a woman sleeps with, and why she sleeps with them, should be none of the government's concern (unless coercion is involved, of course -- in which case the coercer, NOT the woman, should be punished for a crime). I do understand that many women turn to prostitution because of economic reasons, and are exploited by pimps, clients, etc. I fail to see why this should make the woman a criminal. The proper response to this is to provide viable job alternatives for these women. Those who choose to remain prostitutes (for whatever reason) should keep the money they earn, and receive police protection from pimps and unruly clients. Being exploited shouldn't be a crime. Exploiting should. -- Eric R. Smith email: Dept. of Mathematics ersmith@uwovax.uwo.ca University of Western Ontario ersmith@uwovax.bitnet London, Ont. Canada N6A 5B7 ph: (519) 661-3638 -- Eric R. Smith email: Dept. of Mathematics ersmith@uwovax.uwo.ca University of Western Ontario ersmith@uwovax.bitnet London, Ont. Canada N6A 5B7 ph: (519) 661-3638
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) (11/16/90)
In article <1990Nov1.173135.727@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> w25y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
Some people would argue for the legalization of prostitution on the
grounds that sex is not fundamentally different from other services
that people are employed to perform. However, I would claim that
there is an important difference: Imagine someone forced at gunpoint
to delete data files, carry boxes, or whatever. Now imagine someone
being forced at gunpoint to participate in sex. The latter is
considered to be a more severe crime than the former.
This may not apply directly to the case of someone selling sex
vountarily, but it indicates that the role of consent in sex is
considered more important than in other activities.
I don't think it's so much the consent as the physical violence that
makes the two cases different. Certainly, being held at gunpoint is
going to be extremely upsetting for someone anyway. There is violence
against the mind and will. Rape adds physical violence. There really
isn't anything you can compare this to that I can think of. Also note
that your analogy breaks down because rape is not the same as having
sex. That is, you're not just being forced to do something you might
do anyway, like carrying boxes.
A similar comparison might be made between someone driven to
prostitution by economic necessity and someone who has no choice but
to write COBOL programs; the former case is considered a much greater
tragedy.
Are you suggesting that legalizing prostitution is going to cause more
people to be driven to it by economic necessity? People are also
driven to dangerous jobs. Comparing it to writing COBOL is hardly
accurate. Comparing it to working with dangerous chemicals might be
more so. Sometimes people are driven to do something they wouldn't
normally choose to do. People are already being driven to
prostitution; it is possible that if it were legal, it would be less
of a tragedy (I can't prove this, but it seems that prostitutes
currently don't have the ability to protest unsafe working conditions
and get laws passed to protect them, so that would certainly be an
improvement).
There are activities such as voting and organ donation that people may
engage in voluntarily, but may not do in exchange for money. It is
not too unreasonable to suggest that sex should be one of them. Vote
selling, like prostitution, is likely to go on anyway, but this is not
grounds for legalizing it.
It's not clear how prostitution resembles organ donation or vote
selling. You might just as well say maybe people shouldn't be able to
program for pay, only voluntarily...where's the connection?
Note that I don't know whether prostitution should be legalized or
not; I know very little about the practice (I do have an opinion, but
I'm not expressing it here). However, I don't think the article I'm
replying to is a good argument against legalization.
Muffy
muffy@mica.berkeley.edugazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (11/16/90)
In article <7684.27388aae@uwovax.uwo.ca> (Eric Smith) writes: >I find it rather mind-boggling that we're discussing, in 1990, on a >feminist newsgroup, the question of whether or not the government should >have a say in a woman's choice of sexual partners. Quite a few women feel that they are degraded and/or in a risk of being raped because there are prostitutes around. Most of the feminists who don't think so don't see this subject as important enough to debate. >see why this should make the woman a criminal. The proper response to this >is to provide viable job alternatives for these women. Those who choose >to remain prostitutes (for whatever reason) should keep the money they earn, >and receive police protection from pimps and unruly clients. A situation like this will insure the safety of the clients as well, and therefore the demand will go up. When demand goes up, and the risk (for the supplier) goes down, then the supply goes up. An increase in the number women who *choose* to be prostitutes is something that most main-stream feminists don't want to see... (Just try to fit it into the theory...)
dcasper@antares.concordia.ca (david Casperson) (11/23/90)
7103_2622@uwovax.uwo.ca (Eric Smith) writes: >I find it rather mind-boggling that we're discussing, in 1990, on a >feminist newsgroup, the question of whether or not the government should >have a say in a woman's choice of sexual partners. I don't think this >should be an issue at all. Whom a woman sleeps with, and why she sleeps >with them, should be none of the government's concern (unless coercion >is involved, of course -- in which case the coercer, NOT the woman, should >be punished for a crime). I find it interesting that this article is apparently written by a Canadian--interesting for the following reason: in Canada prostitution is legal. Most Canadians don't realise for the simple reason that while prostitution itself is legal, almost every related activity is illegal: pimping, soliciting, discussing the price of sexual services in a public place, and so on. I doubt that this reflects any great sexual enlightenment on the part of the Canadian government (Note to U.S. readers: in Canada criminal law is in the federal jurisdiction, and therefore uniform across the country). I think it is more a case of the government wanting to be able to tax prostitution. >I do understand that many women turn to prostitution because >of economic reasons, and are exploited by pimps, clients, etc. I fail to >see why this should make the woman a criminal. The proper response to this >is to provide viable job alternatives for these women. Those who choose >to remain prostitutes (for whatever reason) should keep the money they earn, >and receive police protection from pimps and unruly clients. Also ignored in much of this discussion are the more direct consequences of prostitution. Canadian law w.r.t. solicitation used to be more liberal. De facto "red light" districts in larger Canadian cities, Vancouver and Halifax in particular, resulted in a lot of local pressure to restrict prostitution through legal means. Some of the objections were based on moral arguments, but most of the pressure came from people living in the affected neighborhoods who did not want to put up with muscle cars and shouting matches at 3 a.m., etc. I am not sure that this is relevant to the issue of whether or not prostitution ought to be legal, but it is worth bearing in mind that some people (I expect that local police departments often fall in this category) are opposed to legal prostitution for relatively amoral pragmatic reasons as well as possibly other moral reasons. I think that it is difficult to discuss prostitution without discussing the context in which it will take place. It seems clear to me that in theory at least there can be no objection to legalised prostitution. On the other hand we know that in practice prostitution does lead to exploitation. I think that the criminalisation of prostitution solves no problems, but I doubt that decriminalisation would make all that many go away either. Still, I think that prostitution ought not to be illegal. --David Casperson
sharring@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington) (11/30/90)
In regards to the prostitution debate, I would like to point out a few things that haven't been mentioned. First of all, there are practical reasons as well as moral ones for legalizing prostitution. Prostitution is a victimless crime, wherein two consenting adults engage in a practice that would otherwise be legal (were money not exchanged). Further, it has been shown throughout history that prositution laws are virtually unenforcable; while this is not a reason to quit enforcing a law (i.e. murder) in and of itself, it should be when the crime does not have a victim. Thus, enormous amounts of money are wasted in a futile attempt to stop prostitution. The enforcement of prostitution laws is patently sexist. It has been shown that women (the prostitutes) are disproportionately arrested and harrased wheras the solicitors (men) are frequently given a wink and a nod from the cops. There are notable exceptions which usually involve famous male personalities, such as James Worthy, Edwin Moses, politicians, etc. In addition, the women are usually back on the streets almost immediately. The judicial system is merely wasting its resources on the trivial issue of prostitution. Finally, it has been shown in country after country that when prostitution is legalized and regulated, the rate of transmission of std's by prostitutes decreases. This is reason enough to legalize prostitution. We must ask ourselves whether our tax money could be better spent on stopping real crimes (those that involve a victim and which don't involve two consenting parties) rather than prostitution. I believe the answer is clear. --steve harrington