Prostitution: Victim or Victimless?

[Boston Guy]

In the "When Two Worlds Collide" thread, Duke37 wonders about the nature of prostitution and if it's a victimless crime or one that has one or more victims. He asks: "Is there some objective standard that makes prostitution bad and not just unpopular?"

 

It's a good question and goes straight to the heart of the laws that have rendered prostitution illegal for centuries. Is prostitution inherently bad -- or "evil" -- and, if so, are those of us who engage in it from either side of the transaction evil for doing so? Or is prostitution simply unpopular? Does it matter that -- as Woodlawn points out -- most of the people in most "civilized" societies pretty much frown on it, often with great vigor?

 

I knew I liked gay sex long before society began to think about gay sex as being something that might, perhaps, possibly some day approach being acceptable. And I knew, too, that what I was doing was not evil or wrong, despite the fact that most people in the country would have strongly disagreed with me. There are certain things that I reserve to myself and one of those is deciding what's evil and what's not. (Perhaps that explains one of the reasons why I reject the teachings of organized religions.)

 

But being evil or wrong or not has nothing to do, really, with being illegal. One hopes, of course, that the things that our laws forbid are things that most of us can agree are wrong and that, as a society, we're willing to live within the laws that we collectively adopt. But there are exceptions -- lots of them.

 

Many of us talk on cellphones while driving, even in states that prohibit such activity. We don't always wear seatbelts for short trips. I bet we could come up with a fairly long list of laws that are often disregarded by "law-abiding citizens". So we're familiar with the concepts of civil disobedience and deciding for ourselves which laws to obey and when.

 

Somehow, out of all this, each of us came to the conclusion one day that it would be ok, at least, to hire an escort. When we did that, we broke a law, as did the escort. Yet most of here aren't anguishing over that fact. Why? Is it because we have decided, each of us, that while prostitution may be illegal, it's not wrong? My guess is that the answer to that question is yes.

 

There are lots of laws on the books that are routinely disregarded by everyone; silly examples are often floating around the Internet, citing outdated laws that some jurisdiction passed a hundred years ago or more and that just make us laugh. Will the laws against prostitution go that way? Or will there be a backlash?

 

I suspect that some of the laws stemmed from people feeling sorry for poor, downtrodden women who were abused and used by their pimps, unable to free themselves from lives of true misery. I'd hope that every one of us here would condemn such prostitution. But, today, we've almost come full circle. In some cases, instead of downtrodden women, we've created young men who make so much money so quickly that they sometimes become true snobs. When clients hire these young men at sometimes truly exhorbitant rates, is there something evil in that? And, if so, who's the victim?

 

There have been guys who posted here who had very sad stories to tell, often of addiction to escorts, sometimes with dire consequences. Even though they hired escorts of their own will, they themselves ended up the worse for it, sometimes at very great financial detriment.

 

So where's the truth here? Is prostitution inherently bad or just unpopular? Does the fact that most people reject it strongly make it bad or evil, or is there a basis for rejecting that rejection? In the kind of escort/client relations that are discussed here every day, is there a victim? If so, is there one victim? Or are there two? And, since it's illegal pretty much everywhere, is there a real, logical, ethical basis on which to reject those laws?

 

BG

[duke37]

I thank Boston Guy for expanding upon and amplifying my, what I thought was a, simple question. In my original post I was asking woodlawn to clarify if possible the distinction between the two legal doctrines he cited. I'm not a lawyer and was curious if there existed somewhere an objective standard or criteria to distinguish between clearly bad acts and those that are only found objectionable.

 

As BG points out its not a simple question at all but all of us here however have answered it one way or another. For those of us who have hired we chose to flout the opinion (and laws) of the majority. Whether we have thought of the implications by hiring we certainly have taken a stand on the question. But then again we flout the majority just by who we are attracted to.

 

I would add to the discussion the idea that prostitution hasn't been illegal all that long in human history. Perhaps there is social science research out there on why it was made illegal and why opposition grew to it from the mainstream.

 

Jeff

[eastbayguy]

Here's a thought: Would respect for the law increase if fewer things were illegal and penalties harsher for those things still criminalized?

 

Or, are there costs that society ends up paying due to victimless crimes? Instead of criminalizing these actions, should they be legalized and taxed?

 

Is it as simple as popularity? Here in Scottsdale, a major, current crime wave is based on *gasp* skateboarding. Also, our city council just passed legislation banning these very noisy motorized scooter gizmos. Recently, not one but TWO Scottsdale PD units pulled over some kid on an illegal motor scooter just up the street.

 

Something tells me that if older men actively engaged in either of these activities, neither would be illegal.

 

--EBG

 

P. S. I never saw anyone riding one of the motorized scooter dealies without a helmet.

[Guest alanm]

I would try to talk a good friend or relative out of escorting unless he was very centered and sure of whom he is as a person. For a good escort, the money can come very quickly and perhaps too fast.

 

More problematic over the long term is the necessity of being nice to a wide variety of people, some of whom you like, some of whom you do not like. We all do that every day of the week especially at work and some in our private lives. But, we do not also have to have sex with those whom we dislike. To survive, escorts have to close at least a part of themselves off. That must take a toll on some escorts in their private lives, probably the ones who were a little shakey to begin with. But, nearly all escorts must have some problems with this. On the other hand, I know several escorts who have done just fine with the ups and downs of escorting, maintaining long term relationship with relative ease.

 

Finally, there is the social aspect, resulting from a large part of society's disapproval of prostitution. What do you tell friends and family members you do for a living and why you have so much disposable money? Most of all, what do you tell a guy whom you are dating who has no idea what you really do for a loving? Eventually you tell him the truth and hope that he is okay with it.

 

I am not sure exactly what Boston Guy was looking for, but I have no intention of rehashing the thread on hapless clients and predatory escorts.

[Boston Guy]

>Most of all, what do you

>tell a guy whom you are dating who has no idea what you really

>do for a loving?

 

That's a great slip. :-)

 

 

>I am not sure exactly what Boston Guy was looking for, but I

>have no intention of rehashing the thread on hapless clients

>and predatory escorts.

 

Well, I guess Duke's question got me to thinking about the act of prostitution itself and how it is located in our society, legally, ethically and morally -- and how we clients and escorts view it and think about it, possibly compared to how the rest of the world sees it.

 

Just a simple question. :-)

 

BG

[Guest Gringo]

Ethics is never an easy issue. :+

[+ Charlie]

I think you have muddied the waters slightly by bringing in the examples of speeding or talking on cell phones while driving. Most of us understand that speeding and talking on cell phones while driving are crimes for a good reason: they seriously endanger innocent bystanders. Nevertheless, we break those laws because we feel certain that WE can engage in those activities without endangering anyone (we are, of course, often fooling ourselves, but it's a good rationalization for doing what we want to do). Prostitution, however, doesn't normally endanger anyone but the two people involved, although one can argue that there are also indirect damages to society (but one can argue that there are indirect damages to society from a lot of perfectly legal activities).

 

The difference between selling one's sexual services, or "selling one's body", and selling other services and possessions is not really rational but emotional. Most people, in most cultures, believe that there is something special about sexual activity, that is connected with the spiritual value of a human being, even if that specialness is hard to define objectively. Those who treat their bodies or their sexual favors as no different from any other objects of commerce are regarded with unease even by those who are fairly liberal in most other respects. Escorts and clients who share that feeling are likely to be uncomfortable with what they do, no matter how much they may feel that that they are engaged in a "victimless crime". Whether that discomfort justifies criminalization of the activity is the question that is really being asked here, and I don't think there is a completely satisfactory answer. From a rational standpoint, I don't think there is any social justification for criminalizing prostitution per se, but laws are not based solely on reason, otherwise we would legalize euthanasia for those who can contribute nothing to society, or mandate sterilization of single women who can't support their children, and ignore our beliefs about human dignity and individual rights. There are certain values within any society that can't withstand critical analysis, yet are essential to the moral and spiritual certainties of that society, and that therefore receive official recognition (Jefferson blithely claimed that Americans had "inalienable rights", although he could point to no legal or rational basis for them, and then just as blithely denied them to non-whites).

 

I think prostitution is one of those areas that has been undergoing serious re-evaluation in western society for a good many years, and the issue of whether it should be decriminalized still hasn't been resolved in America's fairly religious society. In places like the Netherlands, however, where the legal approach is intensely rational, it has been decriminalized (although rigidly controlled, the usual response to decriminalization of an activity with strong emotional overtones), and I suspect that eventually the same thing may happen here, though probably not while I'm still capable of enjoying it.

[trilingual]

Another Americo-centric discussion. In fact, prostitution isn't illegal just about everywhere. It's perfectly legal in many, many countries around the world. The queasiness in the English-speaking countries about everything having to do with sex is a nasty hangover from the hypocritical Victorian era. However, the folks who brought us Victorianism have moved on. Prostitution is no longer illegal in England and Australia (and in a number of other English-speaking countries, I believe). Somehow, the U.S. has been unable to get over it.

 

It should be obvious that where prostitution isn't illegal, there's no crime involved, period. So there are also no criminals or victims, and no philosophical discussion to be had about the subject.

 

There were lots of reasons for laws against prostitution that had nothing to do with morality, like public nuisance and public health concerns, wiping out white slavery, eliminating third-party profiteering, exploitation and abuse, etc. That's why laws against brothels, pimping, street solicitation, etc. remain on the books in many countries (like Brazil) where prostitution is otherwise legal (i.e., as long as the business deal is directly between the prostitute and the client, doesn't benefit a third-party and takes place in a private place).

 

The discussion is analogous to whether or not we were criminals or victims when we engaged in criminal sodomy in the U.S. before the Supreme Court finally ruled such laws unconstitutional. I never felt like a criminal or a crime victim during all the long years when I was breaking those laws. I sure as hell felt persecuted, though, by my supposedly liberty-loving homeland during the years my love was illegal just about everywhere.

[Bilbo]

This discussion about whether or not prostitution is victimless seems to revolve, as most of our discussions on the subject do, around whether the client or the escort is a victim.

And please bear in mind that I feel that if it is done properly this certainly is a victimless happening.

However, if it is not done properly there exist two possible victim groups which we by and large ignore.

There have been four busts in as many weeks on street prostitution in one section of Houston. And, quite rightly so, IMHO. According to many of the reports I have read, it has gotten to the point where customers of a fast food franchise cannot walk from their cars into the burger joint without being accosted for a possible sale. Really! What is that old line about not caring what you do so long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses?

And one must remember the spouses. This thread has already mentioned the possibility of bothering the spouse of the escort, but has basically ignored, once again, the spouse of the client. IMHO, if the client is in a closed relationship, whether gay or not, then he has no business hiring an escort. Note, I am not necessarily talking about marriage here. It is quite possible to be married and have your spouse's permission to play around. It is quite possible to be legally singlel and not have your spouse's permission to play around. It says right on the first page of my web site, if you are in a closed relationship, please do not hire me. I strongly suspect that some of my clients either lie or just plain do not mention this aspect, and it is OK with me if they do, because that puts all blame squarely on them. They are misusing my services. I am not a party to hurting someone knowingly. And, I have told some clients who insist on talking about their spouse to reassure me immediately that it is an open relationship. If they cannot and will not do so, I simply tell them not to hire me again. When I have brought up this subject in the past, I have been roundly criticised on these boards. You may check the archives. Sorry to bring it up again, but I do feel passionately about it. Sorry in advance if you attempt to box my ears this time and I just ignore you. I know that's rude, but....

[trilingual]

Where prostitution is legal, it can be regulated. In England, for example, soliciting on the streets is banned. Ditto in Germany and Holland. Zoning regulations can be applied. Health exams can be required, license fees charged, etc. If prostitution were legal in the U.S. similar regulation could apply, which would eliminate the problem around a hamburger stand that Bilbo described.

 

Granted, even in countries where prostitution is legal and regulated there will be prostitutes who don't follow the rules and continue trying to solicit on the streets, for example. But at least they have the CHOICE of being able to carry on their business legally, which sex workers in the U.S. don't unless they're in Nevada.

[+ Charlie]

The U.S. is an anomaly in the English-speaking world mainly because of the Puritans, who dominated early American intellectual life and therefore set many of our cultural standards. That dominance is obvious in the fact that most schoolchildren have the impression that American history started with the landing at Plymouth Rock, because popular history gives short shrift to the earlier non-Puritan English settlements in the South, and totally ignores the Hispanic settlement in the Southwest--the Spanish settled Santa Fe more than a decade before the Pilgrims landed (in fact, the Puritans even appropriated the Pilgrims, who were not actually Puritans). Puritan sexual mores have become accepted as American sexual mores in the standard culture, even if not actually practiced by most people, just as Republican politicians insist on the sanctity of marriage, yet divorce as frequently as anyone else. It is only when Puritan standards can be convincingly shown to conflict with some equally compelling American moral standard, such as the individual's right to freedom, that the majority of Americans will support a change in the laws.

[Paul Revere]

Good news for those of us who like to go Norht of the Border. It is perfectly legal in Quebec to bring a young dancer back to your room and to pay him for sex or whatever you engage in. It is illegal if you go to HIS PLACE. Then he is running a baudy house, which is illegal. So for all of those of us who regularly visit Montreal. we are legal as long as we use our hotel room for it's god-given purpose.

[Guest endoman31]

The USA has tried to regulate other moral issues.

 

Booze used to be illegal, only too many people wanted it.

 

Smoking tobacco is legal, despite all the inherent health problem. But substitute something else in the cigarette, and you get into trouble.

 

The greatest addiction is to coffee. Lovely drug. Does all kind of things to your health and longevity.

 

There would be a reversal on prostitution if more people engaged in it. Poor market, few takers, too many sellers, at least in NY. The price is still high on an hourly basis.

[Juan Vancouver]

Hey guys,

I have been taking a holiday in posting, but when I read this tread I knew I had to speak up. Fortunately Trilingual in his bright and diplomatic (non-united-states-of-americanly-centered) style responded and made clear that prostitution is only a cryme in a few countries that were created based on old-fashioned Victorian puritanism. In other civilized countries, prostituion laws only revolve around exploitation, bawdy houses, public indecency, and so on.

We are very used to get confused when making a difference between ethics and aesthetics... Not because protestant aesthetics think that sodomy is wrong, it necessarily means that it is ethically incorrect. (I want to believe that we all agree on that one.) And the same applies to many many other issues.

 

The thing that nobody has adressed and had me laughing my head off, is to read that "perhaps prostitution is wrong, because it gives a lot of money to young guys and that in itself might be a problem...." (Did I miss something?) Or because the client himself might be a victim... (Err... Have you ever tried to rent a car and had to deal with lousy service, surprise overcharges, filthy cars and so on?) Does that mean that we have to ban professions such as fashion design, jewellery, stock trade and other ocupations in which young people can become wealthy without having a lot of previous experience handling wealth, nor a serious trainning?

Should we begin to think of closing Mac Donald's, and thrifty rentals cars, and every single business field that might provide a lousy service now and then, just to prevent the victimization of possible clients?

 

Or is it better to regulate, homogenize and promote safety ways to ensure a good service always, or full refund? Create a legal environment that will allow both clients to thrive, grown and mutually benefit from a healthy service providing transaction?

 

To me, (and to many other civilized countries), the choice is very clear. Adult people have the right to choose what is right and wrong FOR THEMSELVES as long as they dont trespass other people's boundaries. And all we have to do, as bystanders, is nod, smile and respect the wide range of ways of living, loving and thinking.

 

Isn't the world a beautiful place to live in, when we are looking at it with open eyes? :9

[woodlawn]

>To me, (and to many other civilized countries), the choice is

>very clear. Adult people have the right to choose what is

>right and wrong FOR THEMSELVES as long as they dont trespass

>other people's boundaries. And all we have to do, as

>bystanders, is nod, smile and respect the wide range of ways

>of living, loving and thinking.

 

So you would agree that a civililzed country should permit religious or quasi-religious (i.e., hazing) rituals in which people are killed or maimed so long as those killed or maimed are consenting adults? How about "extreme fighting" contests in which the contestants fight to the death? Those are all examples of situations in which "people choose what is right and wrong for themselves" and "don't trespass other people's boundaries," so they are okay with you, right?