Prostitution, Paternalism

For a long time I had difficulty justifying why I thought prostitution was wrong. It's a victimless crime. It's an adult doing what she or he thinks best about a commodity that belongs entirely to her or him. Prostitutes often say that they feel empowered, not victimized, by what they do (not that I believe this for a second). To step in and regulate can only be moral policing.

And yet I've always felt that this moral policing was a good thing, mostly on account of my feminism. In the long run, the prostitution of some women ends up being demeaning to all women. Two objections to this viewpoint. The first is: there are male prostitutes too, so how can you explain that not all men are demeaned? I guess my answer would be that certain types of men ARE demeaned (like, say, "femme" gay men), and the only reason the damage isn't more extensive is the hegemony; by definition, the hegemonous group can't be stereotyped. The second objection would come from the prostitutes: "You're just jealous that we got it going ON. We do what we do because we like it." To this I would say: crock of bull. There are some sadistic children out there who enjoy getting beaten, but we can't legalize child abuse for their benefit. Prostitution is an economic deadweight, so if nothing else, that alone makes it demeaning in a capitalistic economy.

So one day Yeah I Can Ride a Horse and I came up with the conclusion that we should regulate prostitution because it's bad for society, even if it does happen to be a victimless crime; much like seat belt laws. Then yesterday I thought of another good parallel: organ trafficking. We generally think organ trafficking is wrong because it allows further exploitation of the poor by the rich; and most of us don't have a problem with its illegalization because the commodity in question is a person's life. But the same principle, I think, can be applied to less extreme areas, including prostitution. It must bring up issues of gray area between what is exploitation and what is fair capitalistic practice, but on the whole I think our laws are consistent in striving to stop exploitation where it can be stopped.

So I mention this whole "good of society" principle because it relates to a conversation I had last night with a Republican friend. His position was that he shouldn't have to pay all the highest taxes (apparently he's in the highest tax bracket) because he works hard for his money, and making some allowances for economic disadvantages etc., the rich work a lot harder than the poor. I said, this isn't even about what's just or what's deserved: do you know what would happen if the rich took everything and the poor got nothing? Not only would the poor have to die, but YOU would suffer from it too, like in the form of crime. Look at Rio de Janeiro.

Then the conversation turned into a debate about the cost of war, since I pointed out that 50% of his precious tax money was going to the military anyway. My friend had conceded that he believes in paying for universal healthcare (!) and social security, and that's when I told him that those are but small dents in the tens of thousands of his tax clams, or bones or whatever, at least at this present date. I believe I won that round.