Should prostitution be legalized?
Vancouver’s Pivot Legal Society has launched a challenge against sections in the B.C. Supreme Court that forbid the operation of sex-work houses (brothels), in a hope to decriminalize prostitution.
Two Martleteers weigh in on the pros and cons of legalizing the world’s oldest profession.
Kailey Willetts: Prostitution is a profession, yes, but it is a profession stigmatized with many negative connotations.
Prostitutes are often viewed as dirty and drugged out, unable to make their way in life with a “regular” job.
However, the very conditions that give prostitution its negative connotations (the drugs, the STDs, the beatings from pimps) could be avoided if prostitution was decriminalized and regulations on the industry imposed.
Cody Willett: The answer to persistent social problems like prostitution is neither regulated decriminalization, nor tough on crime stances. It has been, and always will be, smart policy aimed at the root of the problem.
The sad existence of a prostitute is due to the fact that they operate in an environment of exploitation and violence at the hands of men.
Therefore, we need to criminalize the buying of sex and decriminalize the selling of sex, while offering support for women trying to get out.
Kailey Willetts: Prostitution is inevitable, whether or not the buying is criminal, the selling decriminalized, or vice-versa.
As long as there are men and women wanting to buy sex, there will be men, women and even children selling it.
If it is criminal to buy sex it will be done behind closed doors, in alley ways and dirty hotel rooms without any sanctions protecting the prostitutes.
The exploitation and violence won’t end if there is demand for the sex trade unless it is decriminalized and controlled in safe, clean environments.
With decriminalization, prostitutes would no longer be people who have been manipulated into the trade by pimps for food, drugs and survival, but workers in a valid profession who have the right to choose what they do with their bodies.
Cody Willett: By talking about regulations and control, we’re really just talking about legalization (and ultimately taxation) here.
The Netherlands has taken this approach and seen some improvements in living standards for prostitutes.
However, human trafficking into the sex trade, inevitably linked to criminal organizations, flourishes and facilitates disproportional exploitation of the women and children pushed into selling sex.
Sweden has seen an astonishing reduction in trafficking and prostitution in general by criminalizing the purchase of sex.
You can glamourize and sanitize the sex trade, but making it easier for women to take up brothel work is defeatist when we could be getting them help and education, and ultimately off their backs.
Kailey Willetts: It is not up to society as a whole to impose the moral attitude that prostitutes should be getting “off their backs.”
For many, the sex trade is a choice, and society hasn’t always dictated that this is an immoral profession.
In Ancient Greece, for example, high-class courtesan prostitutes called hetaerae had the freedom to culture their minds beyond what was typically allowed for women and enjoyed respect in society.
The Moulin Rouge, built in 1889, started its life as a high class brothel before being transformed into a night club. The stigmatization attached to prostitution is not naturally ingrained into humanity, but has developed in Western society.
Even today, places like Amsterdam show that not all prostitutes are manipulated into the trade through drug addiction and violence, but have made a choice to embrace this profession.
If you happen to be a nympho, what better way is there to make a living?
Cody Willett: This has nothing to do with morality.
Prostitutes are metaphorically on their backs as long as society treads on them while they’re down and out.
Canada jails prostitutes for living on the avails of prostitution and communicating in a public place for the purpose of selling their bodies.
Men who take advantage of women who “choose” to sell their sexual services over starvation must be the ones society
punishes.
Make all the nympho jokes you want, but the social costs of young women aspiring only to peddle poonani are incredibly steep.
Can’t we inspire them to be part of the solution to society’s problems by making it easier to become teachers, community organizers and elected leaders? Do we really want to legislate the bar lower?
As long as we allow men the option of buying, selling and thereby exploiting women, gender equality will remain an elusive goal.
18 Comments
The Martlet has an open comments policy and will endeavour to promote healthy discussion. We strive to act as an agent of constructive social change and will remove racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise oppressive comments.
Leave a Comment
Suzanne Hammond Oct. 2, 2008, 8:04 a.m.
Just a few points. Firstly, many studies have shown that prostitutes are much safer in the indoor environment than outdoors, and obviously safer in numbers than alone. Therefore criminalising brothel ownership/management is counter-productive to sex workers aafety.
Secondly, actual trafficking stats as distinct from unreliable estimates show trafficked persons to be a tiny number compared with prostitute numbers. Here in the UK, two major exercises by all 55 police forces lasting between them nearly a year discovered 250 persons trafficked or treated as trafficked among an estimated prostitute population of 80,000, or under a third of 1 per cent. The US had spent $150m+ and set up 42 Justice Department task forces after estimating 50,000 trafficking victims a year were entering the US just before the millennium. The Washington Post discovered in September last year that they'd only found less than 1,500 in seven years of looking. Traffickig is a red herring in prosriitution debates.
Cody's idea of criminalising purchasers (the
Swedish model) has major disadvantages: (a) it drives prostitution further underground, as the market moves to avoid police detection. Street workers move to ill-lit alleys, have less time to appraise clients, lose their street networks relied on for safety, fear to carry condoms in case seized for evidence, and become more difficult for health and drug abuse outreach workers and others to count, let alone aid. (b) as there are far more clients than prostitutes, criminalising clients requires a far higher commitment of criminal justice resources. (c) the legislation creates a blackmailers' charter. (d) interference in consenting adults' right to choose violates human rights. (e) the legislation has a very negative affect on not only clients but their families, partners and children, causing employment loss and family breakdown in addition to the court penalties, with significant financial and non-financial costs to both individuals and the state.I recommend you study not Amsterdam but the decriminalised system in New Zealand as a model for a way forward.
S
Suzanne Hammond Oct. 2, 2008, 8:04 a.m.
Just a few points. Firstly, many studies have shown that prostitutes are much safer in the indoor environment than outdoors, and obviously safer in numbers than alone. Therefore criminalising brothel ownership/management is counter-productive to sex workers aafety.
Secondly, actual trafficking stats as distinct from unreliable estimates show trafficked persons to be a tiny number compared with prostitute numbers. Here in the UK, two major exercises by all 55 police forces lasting between them nearly a year discovered 250 persons trafficked or treated as trafficked among an estimated prostitute population of 80,000, or under a third of 1 per cent. The US had spent $150m+ and set up 42 Justice Department task forces after estimating 50,000 trafficking victims a year were entering the US just before the millennium. The Washington Post discovered in September last year that they'd only found less than 1,500 in seven years of looking. Traffickig is a red herring in prosriitution debates.
Cody's idea of criminalising purchasers (the
Swedish model) has major disadvantages: (a) it drives prostitution further underground, as the market moves to avoid police detection. Street workers move to ill-lit alleys, have less time to appraise clients, lose their street networks relied on for safety, fear to carry condoms in case seized for evidence, and become more difficult for health and drug abuse outreach workers and others to count, let alone aid. (b) as there are far more clients than prostitutes, criminalising clients requires a far higher commitment of criminal justice resources. (c) the legislation creates a blackmailers' charter. (d) interference in consenting adults' right to choose violates human rights. (e) the legislation has a very negative affect on not only clients but their families, partners and children, causing employment loss and family breakdown in addition to the court penalties, with significant financial and non-financial costs to both individuals and the state.I recommend you study not Amsterdam but the decriminalised system in New Zealand as a model for a way forward.
S
Jason Fox Oct. 2, 2008, 8:54 p.m.
Suzanne, can you please provide references for your statistics.
Jason Fox Oct. 2, 2008, 8:54 p.m.
Suzanne, can you please provide references for your statistics.
Joyce Oct. 3, 2008, 2:41 a.m.
I think that prostution should be legal, and TAXED. I do not think MARRIED MEN should NOT be allowed to visit them, as they are cheating on their innocent wives. Making it legal would free the women from the ESCORT SERVICES that are just PIMPS, as well as the street pimps. STD Testing should be required. To make it legal would prevent the cops from doing their dirty tricks on the women like the do on the drug dealers. COPS take kick backs. Those who do not pay get busted. The Escort Services take more than half of the women's money! It should be controled by the Government.
Make it legal and any prostitute caught with drugs is banned.
Joyce Oct. 3, 2008, 2:41 a.m.
I think that prostution should be legal, and TAXED. I do not think MARRIED MEN should NOT be allowed to visit them, as they are cheating on their innocent wives. Making it legal would free the women from the ESCORT SERVICES that are just PIMPS, as well as the street pimps. STD Testing should be required. To make it legal would prevent the cops from doing their dirty tricks on the women like the do on the drug dealers. COPS take kick backs. Those who do not pay get busted. The Escort Services take more than half of the women's money! It should be controled by the Government.
Make it legal and any prostitute caught with drugs is banned.
David Oct. 5, 2008, 6:19 p.m.
I don't know how you can have one half of a transaction be legal and the other half be illegal. Either prostitution is illegal, in which case buyers and sellers can be charged, or it's not. To say it's OK to tempt buyers with an offer of sale, and then charge buyers with a crime for accepting the offer of sale, is contradictory.
David Oct. 5, 2008, 6:19 p.m.
I don't know how you can have one half of a transaction be legal and the other half be illegal. Either prostitution is illegal, in which case buyers and sellers can be charged, or it's not. To say it's OK to tempt buyers with an offer of sale, and then charge buyers with a crime for accepting the offer of sale, is contradictory.
Matt Oct. 5, 2008, 11:08 p.m.
To paraphrase the late George Carlin:
How can charging for something be illegal when it is perfectly fine when given away for free?
Joyce - many married men who visit prostitutes do so because their wives withhold sexual contact from them. In these cases their wives are hardly innocent. If you do some reading from people who have been around the sex industry you find out that this is a common fact. The average client of prostitutes are middle-age, mid-upper class men with respectable jobs and have wives who no longer want anything to do with them physically.
Malcolm X's biography is a good place to start. He grew up around prostitutes in Harlem.
Matt Oct. 5, 2008, 11:08 p.m.
To paraphrase the late George Carlin:
How can charging for something be illegal when it is perfectly fine when given away for free?
Joyce - many married men who visit prostitutes do so because their wives withhold sexual contact from them. In these cases their wives are hardly innocent. If you do some reading from people who have been around the sex industry you find out that this is a common fact. The average client of prostitutes are middle-age, mid-upper class men with respectable jobs and have wives who no longer want anything to do with them physically.
Malcolm X's biography is a good place to start. He grew up around prostitutes in Harlem.
Bud Oct. 8, 2008, 12:47 p.m.
As long as we allow men the option of buying, selling and thereby exploiting women, gender equality will remain an elusive goal.Statements like this are a red herring, as they clearly refer to the trafficking aspect often associated with prostitution. Trafficking is indeed wrong and a serious crime, but is not a part of prostitution proper. It is an undesirable activity often associated with prostitution in the same way that drunken driving and traffic fatalities are often associated with consumption of alcohol at public bars.
Prostitution is not the
buyingorsellingof women. If anything, the customerrentsthe use of the prostitute’s body for some pre-arranged time period, much as a massage customer would rent the use of the masseuse’s hands. Why is it OK to rent and pay for the services of one’s hands for one’s pleasure, but not one’s sexual organs? Because the latter involves sex? If we agree that there is nothing wrong with consensual sex, and there is nothing inherently wrong with selling your body (such as a masseuse would do), why then does it suddenly become wrong when the two are combined? This represents a leap in logic, as the sum is greater than the combination of the parts. While leaps of logic are not always fatal, they do require above the ordinary explanations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so to speak. Without digressing into the Dworkian mentality where all intercourse is rape, can anyone offer an explanation for this mind set?Bud Oct. 8, 2008, 12:47 p.m.
As long as we allow men the option of buying, selling and thereby exploiting women, gender equality will remain an elusive goal.Statements like this are a red herring, as they clearly refer to the trafficking aspect often associated with prostitution. Trafficking is indeed wrong and a serious crime, but is not a part of prostitution proper. It is an undesirable activity often associated with prostitution in the same way that drunken driving and traffic fatalities are often associated with consumption of alcohol at public bars.
Prostitution is not the
buyingorsellingof women. If anything, the customerrentsthe use of the prostitute’s body for some pre-arranged time period, much as a massage customer would rent the use of the masseuse’s hands. Why is it OK to rent and pay for the services of one’s hands for one’s pleasure, but not one’s sexual organs? Because the latter involves sex? If we agree that there is nothing wrong with consensual sex, and there is nothing inherently wrong with selling your body (such as a masseuse would do), why then does it suddenly become wrong when the two are combined? This represents a leap in logic, as the sum is greater than the combination of the parts. While leaps of logic are not always fatal, they do require above the ordinary explanations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so to speak. Without digressing into the Dworkian mentality where all intercourse is rape, can anyone offer an explanation for this mind set?Bud Oct. 8, 2008, 1:43 p.m.
Men who take advantage of women who “choose” to sell their sexual services over starvation must be the ones society punishes.`
This is an elitist, condescending point of view. Should we also punish those who take advantage of people by employing them as maids to clean the crap out of our toilet bowls for near minimum wage, or those who employ nurses to clean the bedpans of old and incapacitated parents or grandparents, or those who employ dirt-poor Mexicans to perform the backbreaking labor often associated with maintaining a yard? The fact that there a quotes around the word “choose” is a clear indication that the author feels that no woman in her “right mind” could ever freely choose prostitution, and that these women must be protected from themselves. They must decide for these poor, downtrodden women who cannot think for themselves. Again, this is a dangerous, elitist viewpoint held by many feminists.
The bottom line is that hard times often force people to take jobs that they would otherwise not consider in order to survive. But what it is about prostitution that makes it so horribly different than the other undesirable jobs mentioned above? The fact that it has health risk? Many jobs, such as being a doctor or nurse, have similar risks. The fact that it is considered a disgusting (whatever this means) or dirty job? Try being a septic tank cleaner for a few weeks. The fact that it involves subordination to another person? Try being a maid or butler. So again, the only thing left that makes prostitution different is that it involves sex. But again, if you don’t have a problem with consensual sex, and don’t have a problem with the undesirable jobs mentioned previously, why does it suddenly become wrong when the two are combined? We again encounter our leap in logic discussed previously.
Note that this argument of course assumes that many of the clearly dangerous and illegal aspects of prostitution, such as physical abuse, trafficking, and kidnapping, are not present. While I have no doubt that these undesirable aspects do indeed exist, they are already illegal and are not part of prostitution from a legal perspective.
Bud Oct. 8, 2008, 1:43 p.m.
Men who take advantage of women who “choose” to sell their sexual services over starvation must be the ones society punishes.`
This is an elitist, condescending point of view. Should we also punish those who take advantage of people by employing them as maids to clean the crap out of our toilet bowls for near minimum wage, or those who employ nurses to clean the bedpans of old and incapacitated parents or grandparents, or those who employ dirt-poor Mexicans to perform the backbreaking labor often associated with maintaining a yard? The fact that there a quotes around the word “choose” is a clear indication that the author feels that no woman in her “right mind” could ever freely choose prostitution, and that these women must be protected from themselves. They must decide for these poor, downtrodden women who cannot think for themselves. Again, this is a dangerous, elitist viewpoint held by many feminists.
The bottom line is that hard times often force people to take jobs that they would otherwise not consider in order to survive. But what it is about prostitution that makes it so horribly different than the other undesirable jobs mentioned above? The fact that it has health risk? Many jobs, such as being a doctor or nurse, have similar risks. The fact that it is considered a disgusting (whatever this means) or dirty job? Try being a septic tank cleaner for a few weeks. The fact that it involves subordination to another person? Try being a maid or butler. So again, the only thing left that makes prostitution different is that it involves sex. But again, if you don’t have a problem with consensual sex, and don’t have a problem with the undesirable jobs mentioned previously, why does it suddenly become wrong when the two are combined? We again encounter our leap in logic discussed previously.
Note that this argument of course assumes that many of the clearly dangerous and illegal aspects of prostitution, such as physical abuse, trafficking, and kidnapping, are not present. While I have no doubt that these undesirable aspects do indeed exist, they are already illegal and are not part of prostitution from a legal perspective.
Bud Oct. 8, 2008, 2:53 p.m.
`Make all the nympho jokes you want, but the social costs of young women aspiring only to peddle poonani are incredibly steep.
Can’t we inspire them to be part of the solution to society’s problems by making it easier to become teachers, community organizers and elected leaders?`
These are just plain silly arguments. I sincerely doubt that anyone “aspires” to become a prostitute. But in the same vein, there are probably few, if any, who aspire to become janitors, gas station attendants or burger-flippers at MacDonald’s either. The reality is that many choose these professions in times of trouble or during hard economic times. And many work such jobs temporarily to obtain money while pursuing an education. But just because a job is not glamorous or is less than desirable does not make that job wrong or illegal. So should we also gather all the janitors, maids, butlers, waitresses, burger-flippers, etc., and feel sorry for them and encourage them all to be “part of the solution to society’s problem” as well? Why single out the prostitutes?
Society has a need for these jobs that are considered less than desirable as outlined above and there is nothing that prevents one from doing any of them in a proud and conscientious manner, whether that job is a prostitute or a janitor. And of all of the jobs discussed, prostitution has the highest earning potential by far. Our society needs to realize that the negative stigma attached to prostitution lies deep within the negative attitudes and mores our society attaches to sex itself.
Bud Oct. 8, 2008, 2:53 p.m.
`Make all the nympho jokes you want, but the social costs of young women aspiring only to peddle poonani are incredibly steep.
Can’t we inspire them to be part of the solution to society’s problems by making it easier to become teachers, community organizers and elected leaders?`
These are just plain silly arguments. I sincerely doubt that anyone “aspires” to become a prostitute. But in the same vein, there are probably few, if any, who aspire to become janitors, gas station attendants or burger-flippers at MacDonald’s either. The reality is that many choose these professions in times of trouble or during hard economic times. And many work such jobs temporarily to obtain money while pursuing an education. But just because a job is not glamorous or is less than desirable does not make that job wrong or illegal. So should we also gather all the janitors, maids, butlers, waitresses, burger-flippers, etc., and feel sorry for them and encourage them all to be “part of the solution to society’s problem” as well? Why single out the prostitutes?
Society has a need for these jobs that are considered less than desirable as outlined above and there is nothing that prevents one from doing any of them in a proud and conscientious manner, whether that job is a prostitute or a janitor. And of all of the jobs discussed, prostitution has the highest earning potential by far. Our society needs to realize that the negative stigma attached to prostitution lies deep within the negative attitudes and mores our society attaches to sex itself.
Socraton Oct. 8, 2008, 8:51 p.m.
I live in Norway, and here we are making prostitution illegal starting 2009. This because it sucks to have our downtown area filled with them, and because Sweden has had a great success in making it illegal.
It's fun to see how bad communication between nations can be in questions like this.
Socraton Oct. 8, 2008, 8:51 p.m.
I live in Norway, and here we are making prostitution illegal starting 2009. This because it sucks to have our downtown area filled with them, and because Sweden has had a great success in making it illegal.
It's fun to see how bad communication between nations can be in questions like this.