Joanna Schroeder has some questions about how the apparent lack of discipline against the U.S. Military members involved in the Colombian sex scandal reflects America’s view of prostitution.
A Reuters story from Sunday centered around the case of the U.S. Secret Service members who hired Colombian prostitutes while on a presidential visit to the country, but it also pointed out that U.S. Military personnel were involved in the scandal as well, though they’re getting less media attention. And while the Secret Service members were immediately sent home and disciplined with a speed we Americans aren’t used to seeing from our government, officials from the military are reacting differently:
[T]he involvement of U.S. military personnel and Secret Service agents in a raucous April outing with prostitutes in Cartagena, Colombia, has underscored the gaps between the written policies and real-life experiences at military assignments around the world.
While the Secret Service has acted promptly and openly, even announcing Friday new ethics training and policies for traveling agents, the military has stayed mostly mum about how it is addressing possible violations of its prostitution rules.
Reuters goes on to explain that it’s not as if the U.S. Military takes no stance on prostitution or the hiring of prostitutes. For personnel violating the policies against engaging in prostitution (even in countries where paying for sex is legal), penalties include a year in jail and dishonorable discharge. Reuters continues,
They also face country-specific instructions at bases like the U.S. installation in South Korea, where the policy describes prostitution as “cruel and demeaning.”
Senator John McCain criticized the Pentagon for not being more open about the proceedings in the case of these officers, and another U.S. Senator, Lindsay Graham (R), who serves on the Armed Services Committee admitted that he believes the military does not strictly enforce the seven year-old Department of Defense policy.
When asked, Senator McCain insisted that paying for sex is not an innate part of being in the military and cited his quarter-century of being a member of our armed forces as an example of an exception.
All of this cannot help but raise a few questions, and they are similar to the questions raised domestically for civilians in regards to sex work. First, what is the point of an anti-prostitution law or policy if nobody upholds them or enforces them? Is it simply to save face?
Second, do anti-prostitution laws actually protect prostitutes or put them in greater danger?
Third, is paying for sex something so innate to humanity that even when faced with the possibility of dishonorable discharge and a year in jail, members of the military still engage in it?
Fourth, would we feel differently about this scandal were the prostitutes American women?
Finally, is prostitution, as the U.S. Forces of South Korea puts it, “cruel and demeaning”? And if so—or even if not—who are we non-sex-workers to decide whether it is?
What do you think?
Apart from whether or not you think prostitution should be legal or allowed by the U.S. Military, given that this policy is in place, what actions should be taken against the members of the military who were involved in the Colombia prostitution scandal?
Photo: AP
About Joanna Schroeder
I think the prostitution business can be cruel and demeaning to women especially when women are trafficked and abused. I do not have a problem if women are engaged in it voluntarily, but I’ve read so many articles about the tragedies of young women forced into prostitution, especially in the 3rd world, although it also happens in the U.S. That’s one argument in favor of legalization/regulation, but I fear it could also fuel demand that will simply increase the involvement of international organized crime and could actually increase trafficking and abuse of women (as well as male and female children). People will always try to get around the rules if profit is involved, and regulators can only do so much.
If Prohibition in the 1920s taught us anything, it’s that making a ‘vice’ illegal only creates a bigger criminal environment around that ‘vice.’
The rule against prostitution is only 7 years old. I think having the rule against prostitution was to placate the women’s lobby. Top military brass either thought it was senseless or counter-productive so they ignore it. I’d rather take the honest approach and either enforce or repeal it.
As for prostitution being cruel or demeaning, it depends on your view of reality. I’ve noticed that in many disagreements I’ve had with feminists, it boils down to how you interpret context. Many MRAs would just look at the act. Two consenting adults, there is no problem. It doesn’t bother us that one consents for money. Many feminists will say that the reality is that the majority women who engage in prostitution either are coerced by pimps and have no free will or because of societal bias toward women are forced into prostitution or the sex industry and so can’t really consent. Of course, there are many men and boys forced to sell their bodies to survive as well.
What do we owe other people? Is it enough that I’m not coercing someone into sex or do I need to be certain that they aren’t being coerced into sex with me by someone else? Is taking economic advantage of someone wrong? I think it is, but how do you define it? Not paying a fair price for services rendered or paying for sex from an economically vulnerable person. I’ve heard some high end call girls say they’d rather spend 30 minutes with a guy they didn’t like than 40 hours at a job they didn’t like. Is there a difference? How do you tell the difference?
My initial thoughts, I’ll try to work through them and formulate an opinion.
Some MRAs see it as sexual and financial subjugation. There is no value in pussy. Propitiating the idea only furthers male oppression.
Again I’m sure I’ll get ripped to shreds for this but in my opinion there is nothing intrinsically wrong with prostitution. Of course, like almost every other industry on the planet, there is the potential for slavery. But it is the slavery that is wrong, not the exchange of sex for money between two consenting adults.
And here Jimmy, is where we agree completely. I’m for making prostitution legal…just also regulating it to make sure it’s safe and the women (and men) have good working conditions.
Yep, I’m on board with humans being able to control their bodies and legal avenues for sex workers.
How effective will regulation be at protecting sex workers? That’s what I wonder. We do SUCH a great job regulating other industrues.
Even not-perfect regulation is better than nothing.
NZ and Aus have regulated sex work. From all reports Ive read, it works very well. Theres probably a youtube documentary or wiki page on it, for cliff noting
It depends on how you define “regulation.”
We’re actually very good at regulating a lot of things. One example is gambling. Prior to legalized gambling in Nevada, organized crime controlled most of the casinos because no other organization would take a risk on an investment that might be illegal, organized criminals alone took such risks.
However, once gambling was made legal, it turned out that crime syndicates are actually very bad at running legitimate businesses, and they were out-competed by the likes of Hilton and Hyatt, who are very good at running legitimate businesses.
Meanwhile, the Nevada gaming commission ensured that violence and intimidation were not used as a substitute for business acumen, this was successful and is why all of the major casinos are now run by large corporations. The flip side is that compulsive gambling is totally ignored as a problem, and there is little incentive to help problem gamblers.
Looking at prostitution, it’s easy to imagine that legalization would put the pimps out of business very quickly (probably bad at running a legitimate business). The same could be said for most traffickers. It’s also likely that health care standards would increase as this could be a point of advertising.
But the aspects of prostitution that are not market-dependent won’t change. It will still be an easy profession to enter, meaning that those with substance abuse problems will inevitably use it to fuel a habit. It might encourage school drop outs (as construction work can be shown to encourage male school drop outs), and there’s probably no way to stop underage prostitution as people will always lie about their age to get jobs.
It seems like legalization would take care of the bigger problems (pimps, trafficking) pretty quickly, but it’s never going to be a glamorous life.
Obviously prostitution CAN be cruel and demeaning. I’d go so far as to say that in practice it could be more likely to result in cruel and demeaning treatment than consensual sex without money exchanged. I don’t think it is inherently and in all ways cruel and demeaning to the prostitutes involved, as long as the sex workers have options and are able to consent. (This is often not the case, of course.)
I had no idea that the military had such penalties for service personnel hiring prostitutes. I find it hard to believe that the Pentagon has discharged very many people for violating this policy, much less put them in prison for a year. The enforcement of this policy off-base would be very difficult, especially if the local police are not very interested in stopping prostitution. The MP’s may not have much authority off-base in such cases. In any case, the Navy would lose a lot of crewmen if they had to be locked up after visiting prostitutes – they’d lose more men to shore leave in Southeast Asia than they ever lost to fighting in the South Pacific.
I suspect that the anti-prostitution policy is a public-relations move for the domestic audience and a diplomatic move for the rest of the world. The people of Okinawa, for example, would welcome any stricter rules for the behavior of American sailors and Marines on the island.
I also suspect that the loopholes in this anti-prostitution policy are enormous for all these government personnel. There are probably more covert ways for the Secret Service to hire prostitutes but in this case they were probably too lazy or too careless to follow the usual procedures. It would have been perfectly legal to officially “hire” these women for all sorts of perfectly above-board activities when in fact, wink wink, they were actually being hired for sex work. Plenty of options to hire someone for a massage, or a language lesson, or for a fashion consultation. (“She’s not a prostitute. She’s a lingerie model!”) Let’s not be so naïve as to think there is a clear firewall between consensual sex with payment and without payment.
I view anti-prostitution policies in the military the same way I do “blue laws” in state government–leftovers from a more puritanical time. They’re seldom repealed, but also seldom enforced. Nobody would stick their neck out to propose actually removing such rules (“Think of the children!”), but if nobody plans to enforce them, I’m cool with that as an interim situation until society finishes growing up.
“Is prostitution cruel and demeaning?” It can be, but it usually costs extra for that.
It might be there because of child prostitution. The military might want the option of prosecuting, but don’t intend to exercise that option frequently.
“Second, do anti-prostitution laws actually protect prostitutes or put them in greater danger?”
There is an interesting episode of Penn & Teller’s Bullshit! in which they discuss prostitution. They interview a prostitute from a state where it’s illegal, and she actually talks about how she feels less safe because it’s illegal. For one thing, she has to worry about being arrested. For another, she feels like she has no support system if a customer does get violent. There’s no place for her to report him to, she can’t really file a police report without admitting to being a prostitute.
“First, what is the point of an anti-prostitution law or policy if nobody upholds them or enforces them? Is it simply to save face?”
There isn’t one. Any law that’s partially enforced is wide open to abuse.
“Second, do anti-prostitution laws actually protect prostitutes or put them in greater danger?”
Greater danger.
“Third, is paying for sex something so innate to humanity that even when faced with the possibility of dishonorable discharge and a year in jail, members of the military still engage in it?”
I think they’d be less inclined to if the law were enforced with any kind of regularity, but it’s the same with under 21 year olds who drink, or anyone smoking weed: unless john law is right there with their arrest warrent nothing’s likely to happen.
“Fourth, would we feel differently about this scandal were the prostitutes American women?”
Can’t speak for americans, but I think the reaction would probably have been different. Not necessarily harsher or more lenient though.
“Finally, is prostitution, as the U.S. Forces of South Korea puts it, “cruel and demeaning”? And if so—or even if not—who are we non-sex-workers to decide whether it is?”
It can, very easily, be cruel and demeaning, but it’s for sex workers themselves to decide whether they think it is or not. Obviously sexual slavery creates conditions where sex workers can’t make this choice, but in situations where they have the option of social welfare or sex work, and they choose sex work, then their choice should be respected.
You know what’s cruel and demeaning?
Being told that paying for sex is wrong.
So I’m just curious, typically when we talk about the problems of prostitution we frame the issue around the sellers -wondering if anyone has studied the buyers and the impact on their health and well being? Do these guys really like being used for their money, or do they simply acquiesce and cry themselves to sleep every night? Having to compensate someone for physical intimacy just can’t reinforce a sense of self-worth.
I can’t oppose what two *consenting* adults agree to do together, But the fact that prostitution is a gendered issue, in the main men as buyers and women as sellers, will always raise the question of free choice.
What is this heresy?
No one gives two bits of anything (insert your favourite word here) about the buyers. The buyers are men and are scum and can all go straight to heck for all anyone cares.
Who dares ask such questions?
As for the whole free choice business, well, why the heck does anyone get married? I don’t get that one myself. But anyways…
The Wet One
For a time I worked as a Taxi driver in Queensland, one of the states in Australia where prostitution is legal. I soon got to know the locations of the brothels (among other things). By far the clients who rode in my taxi were young men, under 30 by my estimation, and simply wanted sex. They had money, they knew the women would trade sex for cash. They usually had plans for the night, Sex, movie, nightclub and sleep in the next day. It was simply a part of their night out. On the flip side, in the early mornings my clients were often the women heading home from the brothels. They were also under 30 by my estimation and seemed cheerful and quite satisfied with their job. They got paid a lot more than a checkout chick and worked 2-3 nights a week. Both client and provider tipped well. No-one appeared to be hurt by the exchange.
More women, yet again, parting there legs for money. So what. It’s not like there is anything sacred about their vagina’s. Women stuff all manner of odd looking things into them whenever they feel the need to pleasure them selfs anyway.
So, U.S. military personnel and Secret Service agents? I’m picking it’s no problem for these women at all. Heck, they get paid and possibly pleasured. Thats has to be a win win for a whore.
To answer your questions:
1) “what is the point of an anti-prostitution law or policy if nobody upholds them or enforces them?”.
The point is, that it’s all about control. In this case, controlling mens natural behavior. Well… attempting to control said behavior. It’s never going to fly though. Fact is, men looove sex. And that is regardless of any silly laws to deny men this. Hey, the more stressed I am, the more I want it. I like feeling good. Especially after a stressful day. Yum.
2) “Is it simply to save face?”.
Governments know no shame. So, thats not it.
3) “do anti-prostitution laws actually protect prostitutes or put them in greater danger?”.
I’m going to say, the latter. If you don’t eat you die.
4) “is paying for sex something so innate to humanity that even when faced with the possibility of dishonorable discharge and a year in jail, members of the military still engage in it?”.
No. Sex is though.
5) “would we feel differently about this scandal were the prostitutes American women?”.
I wouldn’t. But then, I have many important endeavors to accomplish, so… i wouldn’t have time to anyway. I’d be thinking, meh, a womens body, a womens choice.
6) “is prostitution, as the U.S. Forces of South Korea puts it, “cruel and demeaning”? And if so—or even if not—who are we non-sex-workers to decide whether it is?”.
Again, “a womens body, a womens choice”. That said, it take two to tango. Know what I mean?
I really don’t have any problem with adults acting as such, but then, I’m not ideological Bent.
This is a complicated question because we can’t divorce this discussion from the reality that U.S. culture has presumed prostitution an inherent evil for hundreds of years. Also, lets not forget that for all of the money (legal & illegal) that we spend on sex in the U.S., and all of the healthy kink that exists now, we are still a very sexually repressed culture as compared with most other modern Western countries. I just wanted to premise what follows by saying that I recognize that what is logical and sensible in theory isn’t necessarily easily implemented in a culture as f’d up as ours is in our sexual hang-ups and practices.
That said, I’ve come to believe that prostitution should be well regulated & legal. My reasoning is as follows:
1) I think that the current laws against prostitution harm prostitutes to a far greater degree than they do their customers. Even if the “johns” are arrested, they’re far more likely to have the money to mitigate the damage of the arrest.
2) We should have power over our own bodies. Why is it that adults can negotiate contracts between each other in just about every realm, except money for sex. If I’m a coal miner I can establish a contract with a corporation where I subject my body to horrible risk and long-term damage in exchange for money. Certainly, people talk about better regulations surrounding coal mines, but nobody talks about making people who mine coal for money criminals. People should have power over their own bodies, unless there is some fundamental harm to others or society. Is regulated & legal prostitution more potentially harmful than mining coal, building sky scrapers, being in the infantry, deep-sea oil drilling, long-haul fishing, etc.? Government should not be telling me what I can and cannot do with my own body, period!
3) Yes, there will be people who are born into circumstances that seemingly leave them few choices as readily available and feasible beyond prostitution, but can’t the same thing be said of a young boy growing up in a poor West Virginian coal mining family?
4) I think the roots of illegal prostitution in the U.S. are tied to our puritan origins. Those origins try to impose centuries-old beliefs that somehow sex is legitimate only within the confines of marriage. We somehow can’t let go of the idea that sex, marriage, and family are explicitly linked. Our reality is extremely different. Sex in modern America is almost entirely discrete. There is love, there is family, there is marriage, and there is sex. They can overlap, but for almost every American sex is, at some point, independent of most if not all of those factors.
5) America has a strain of sexual deviance that needs to be brought out into the light of day and dealt with. We can’t keep subverting sex as a legitimate public discussion. Reality is that prostitution already exists to a massive degree. Maybe admitting that and forcing it into the public realm will be a first step to dealing with sexuality in a positive way at the national and cultural level.
6) Prostitution is legal in Las Vegas and all indications are that prostitutes there are much better off than everywhere else in this country. Not to mention, isn’t the entire porn industry effectively legalized prostitution? Why is it different if a 3rd party pays two people to have sex in order to make money than if two people agree to exchange money for sex? If prostitution is so horrid, why do sex workers in the porn industry seem to be generally pretty happy with their gig?
7) The crime and violence that exists around the industry of illegal prostitution is a far greater evil than anything I can imagine from the result of legalized prostitution.
All of this said, even though I’m solidly in favor of decriminalizing and ultimately regulating and legalizing prostitution, I do understand that as a man I may not entirely grasp the implications of this type of change from the female perspective. What message does this send to our young women? Will legalization merely move the profits from the pimps to the corporations that will inevitably dominate the industry? Can we effectively regulate and protect sex workers if prostitution is entirely legalized? The questions can go on and on.
Your last question is interesting to me — what does it mean for women to be treated as commodities …. I mean, we are already there to some degree. I’m 45, and I put myself through college and grad school 25 years ago by way of student loans, crappy temp jobs and Top Ramen. If sugardaddy.com had existed then, would I have been tempted? What if I could have sold my 22 year old body to a rich older guy for 2-3 years and graduated free of debt? Wouldn’t it have been nice to get through school with nice clothes and a nice apartment. And if all my friends were living high on the hog, so to speak, in that regard, would I be a chump NOT to?
And what if you are a college guy and every attractive women you know is paying the bills that way? What does that do to your dating prospects? How are you going to compete?
@ Sarah
That was one of the things that were going through my mind. When we discuss abortion rights, someone will argue that if the access was restrictive or if there were no abortion providers in the area, there is no meaningful right to an abortion. If a woman’s economic prospects are so dismal that in order to have a semi-acceptable quality of life they would have to turn to prostitution, would there be actual choice.
Being three classes and an internship away from getting my masters, I know that there was more than an economic sacrifice. Congratulations on your accomplishment.
To your question, if the young attractive women were paying their bills by servicing sugar daddies, how would that change dating prospects? The first thing I’d need to decide is whether her chosen “job” or “profession” is a deal breaker. I would tend to not date prostitutes, but if she essentially only serviced only one guy, I’d need to determine whether her character was something I would be willing to deal with. You chose to save, work hard and invest in your education. That shows something of your character. Although she chose to get an education, the way she paid for it makes me wonder if I’d be financially supporting her for the rest of her life and basically getting just sex in return. If you date someone for money, can you truly be emotionally intimate with them? I’d probably lean towards dating a less physically attractive woman, who to me would actually be more attractive anyway. Competition would be easier as the wealthy guys took the less attractive women.
At least that’s my perspective.
“How are you going to compete?”
Please see the thread about young men playing video games and watching south park.
We do have medium to long-term contracts concerning money for sex, its called marriage. We call short term financial arrangements for sex prostitution and one is supposedly venerated and the other vilified.
While I have no problem with legalized prostitution, that’s and oversimplification. Sure, sex is a part of marriage (a big part), but marriage is also about sharing a home, children (or pets), trusting each other with each others’ finances, long-term companionship, taking care of each other in times of distress, and yes–love (call me old fashioned, but there have been plenty of articles on this site about how and why men love their wives).
Transhuman: The larger point I think you’re trying to make is somewhat legitimate – i.e. that we have very intimate and personal contractual arrangements in our society, and the “contract” of marriage implicitly includes sex. However, your comments imply that the key contractual function of marriage is money for sex, and that’s just not the case. Prostitution is explicitly about money for sex. And, a key point is that people are not compelled contractually to have sex on demand within the institution of marriage. Like I said, I think that there’s a small, but legitimate point about contracts that involve interpersonal, intimate, and sexual behavior, but ultimately I think there are more issues with the line of argument than there are benefits.
Some sections of the western world are inconsistent concerning their attitude to sex. I agree, marriage is more than sex but as pointed out, it is also about sex. Marriage is supported, respected, sought out, promoted by governments. Marriage includes an acknowledged component of sex and an exchange of resources. yet two adults who only want sex and exchange money is presented as deviant or harmful. Harm can come in marriage, and few people suggest it is the process of marriage that is to blame, it is acknowledged the harm comes the people who are engaged in the marriage in question. Yet with prostitution, some harm that may occur is because of prostitution, not the people engaged in it.
I believe some men and many women make a bigger deal out of sex than is warranted. It is a biological function, an intimate one certainly but no more terrible than eating lunch with a friend. Its time we left our Victorian age prudery behind.
I agree with your framing here, and I completely agree that we need to put our sexual prudery behind us. It ultimately ends in unhealthy and deviant behaviors.
“And what if you are a college guy and every attractive women you know is paying the bills that way? What does that do to your dating prospects? How are you going to compete?”
I think the men would just end up getting used it. A woman can have a sugar daddy who pays for stuff on one side in exchange for sex and surface companionship (or be another type of sex worker), and a real boyfriend on the other. It’s not really a competition thing when you think about it. They would occupy very different niches.
If you think most guys would be ok with their girlfriend fucking an old man for money, then you know nothing about men.
Based on your other comments, you seem to be all for legalized prostitution…I’m confused.
I have to agree with Jimmy, I don’t think most guys would be happy about their girlfriends having sex with older guys for money . Just as I would not be too happy if I found out my boyfriend was visiting prostitutes. Maybe in a perfect world, no one is ever jealous or insecure, or, well, simply skeeved out by the idea…. I remember a movie (“Clerks”?) where a guy found out his girlfriend had given blow jobs to 35 different guys, or something like that, and he said, “Every time I kiss you, it’s like kissing 35 dicks”.
Rachel Lloyd’s book, “Girls Like Us”, busts many myths about prostitution/sex trafficking…pimping, coercion, and manipulation is about human rights violation..and sickening when you see how so many young girls get ensnared into its web…We need to protect our daughters from falling into the trap…
But, I think there are still a few legitimate questions, even if you would prefer that nobody chose to be a prostitute and nobody chose to use prostitutes. Your comment presumes that marginalized people who opt for prostitution are more harmed by legal prostitution than illegal prostitution. This is hard to say for sure, but if we look at modern, wealthy countries where prostitution is legal, it seems as if legal prostitution is much healthier for all involved.
Do you feel like the young people born into poor, drug ridden neighborhoods are better off if they go into an illegal drug trade, or if the practice of selling drugs was legal? Imagine how much crime in those neighborhoods would drop if the drug trade were legal. No longer would there be an incentive for drug dealers to recruit young children to avoid long jail sentences if they are arrested.
Keeping prostitution illegal merely prevents us from looking at the underbelly of our society and implementing countermeasures to address the worst aspects of it. Sex trafficking exists and is booming. Underage girls are involved, because the industry is run by criminals. Those who frequent prostitutes are less likely to treat them legitimately and respectfully because they are committing a crime by being there and the society they live in sees them as criminals and less-than. Also, it’s not as if a prostitute can call the police if a john becomes violent or leaves without paying. Granted the industry resorts to pimps in answer to this problem, but are illegal prostitutes really better off with pimps than having the law on their side?
I think that the legal porn industry is effectively legalized prostitution right here in the U.S. and those sex workers are clearly living much better lives than illegal prostitutes on the street.
Keeping prostitution legal has massive and horrible downsides. On balance, it seems to me that having a healthy, regulated, legal prostitution industry would be a pretty significant net gain for prostitutes, johns, and society as a whole.
At the end of my previous comment I meant to say, “Keeping prostitution ILLEGAL has…”
Americans, especially those in power, seem woefully unable to understand the simple human rights principle called NAUWU, “Nothing About Us Without Us”. What it means is that any minority group, especially a marginalized minority like sex workers, have the right to a leading role in any discussion about laws or regulations which will affect that group. But in the Looking-Glass World of American prostitution law, actually knowing something about the topic, and even more so actual experience in it, is viewed as a disqualification. This is totally insane; in all civilized countries, sex workers have a prominent place in such discussions, with fantastic results: the decriminalized sex industries in New Zealand and New South Wales are the healthiest in the world, and exploitation and “trafficking” practically nonexistent. But as in the “War on Drugs”, American leaders aren’t interested in what keeps women safe and healthy; they’re interested in “sending a message” about their agenda, even if that “message” is fatal to large numbers of citizens and criminally wasteful of scarce economic resources.
I’m going to be really honest here. I’m a libertarian and completely support decriminalization, but your rhetoric makes me dislike your cause and sort of wish I disagreed with you.
“Nothing about us without us” isn’t a real thing, it’s clearly made up to support an agenda, and it’s done in an obvious manner.
If you are mostly interested in pushing people away, I guess you should keep it up, you’re doing a great job…
I disagree Mike L. The term “Nothing about us without us” may seem corny to you, but you seem to indicate that Maggie Mcneill is being disingenuous by using it, and I just don’t see any indication of disingenuousness in her comment.
If you get past your issues with the term, the basic principle she’s expressing is the idea that those directly involved in and impacted by laws/regulations should be explicitly part of the discussion.
That just seems like common sense to me.
Thank you, Shawn; as you surmised, there was absolutely disingenuousness in my comment.
Mike L, I am also a libertarian, and in a perfect world it would be enough to say “there should be no laws against private behavior”. But we don’t live in a perfect world, and for the foreseeable future governments are going to keep making laws against private behavior whether we like it or not. Given that, as Shawn points out it is only common sense that the people who will be most impacted by laws should have a major role in designing them. And, I might add, it’s completely nonsensical to reject the input of people who know what they’re talking about in favor of the agenda-driven demands of radical feminists and religious fundamentalists who have never participated in sex work in any capacity whatsoever and therefore know no more about it than the average Biblical fundamentalist knows about biology or geology.
Maggie McNeill,
There are two fundamental problems with your arguments.
First, I was referring to tone as well as content. As an American, I’m not really going to care about a speaker who tells me there are things I’m “woefully unable to understand.” The reality is that this kind of argument is usually used by someone who fails to recognize genuine disagreement – they characterize their opponent as “misunderstanding” rather than “disagreeing.” This is both insulting and an indication that the speaking is not interested in listening to the opposition. Even if the content problems disappear, the rhetoric still makes me want to disagree with you on principle.
Second, I don’t know where “radical feminists” and “religious fundamentalists” came from, you seem to want to have an argument with points I’ve never made. “Nothing about us without us” is preposterous because it suggests that it’s impossible to make objectively good decisions without putting certain parties in “leading positions” which they have not themselves taken on. If we get all the facts, collect all the data, and then analyze it according to established statistical methods, we can always see what’s going on regardless of who is involved. “Nothing about us without us” suggests that this kind of analysis is impossible without getting anecdotal evidence which is probably itself biased.
Could it help to hear from first hand experience? Sure. But that view is as skewed as the next one because it’s held by a person, and people will always have biased views. That’s why we need to focus on measurable goals and logical conclusions; we don’t need to focus on who the actual speakers are because that will simply put an inappropriate weight on underlying biases.
Mike L: I agree with your concerns about solely relying upon personal anecdotal experience to define policy. This type of rhetorical strategy is often employed by those with military experience, as if anyone who hasn’t been to war must necessarily have a less relevant position than anyone who has. So, I agree that we can’t solely rely upon these individuals to guide decisions. However, we must also recognize that even though their experiences don’t give us every perspective on all aspects of the issue, they have crucially relevant experiences that will often allude even the most conscientious researcher. How institutions and policies effect real people can’t be the only concern, but it also can’t be disregarded…which, from your last comment it is clear you weren’t advocating.
People say there are no guarantees in life. BUT, I will give you one now.
Everyone who read this post , I will guarantee you that you know someone who is currently or did work a job they found demeaning and cruel.
YET, those jobs are legal.
The issue is not consent or controlling a vice. The issue here is women in general. If our government says it is okay for a woman to degrade herself, that makes it perfectly okay for men to degrade her as well. Prostitution should not be legal anywhere. If there are regulated ways of continuing it, it will be an excuse for women to be harrassed as well. If the US, as a world leader makes it legal, the rest of the world, too, will see it as acceptable. This will destroy much of the prgress women across the world have made, as well as many of the goals men strive for in this whole gender equality movement. We cannot make it legal to abuse and degrade eachother for sex. Sex is sacred, if not, it is more important than just selling ourselves for money. What does that tell future generations about self-worth? It tells them they are not worth shit, because it is perfectly fine for a woman to sell herself to make an extra buck. What about charities and trying to take women out of impoverished situations where the only income they have may be prostitution? What about the economical aspect? How will she ever get a job after getting back on her feet with her prostitution money? What entrepeneur will hire her? Its out of the the question, prostitution should continue to be outlawed.
The message you are sending is that it’s okay to for government to make consensual acts between adults that you don’t personally approve of illegal. This idea, today and throughout history, has resulted in horrific injustice and degradation far worse than that what you imagine would happen from the decriminalisation of prostitution. Women’s rights include being able to do what the hell they want to without your permission or approval. Otherwise you set their rights back, and the hard won rights to decriminalise gay sex, the opponents of which used exactly the same arguments about “sending the wrong signal” as you have.
You’re sending a message, one that will be the delight of the religious theocrats everywhere as they, like you, seek to impose their will on everybody.
It never ceases to amaze me how professional killers are venerated and honoured in society while professional happiness makers (sex often = happiness, if only for a short time) are villified.
Can anyone explain this dichotomy to me? Is there something especially wonderful and great about killing people? Planning to killing people en masse? Carrying out the killing of people? I mean, some people have to die (Osama Bin Laden comes to mind), but the guy who put the bullets through his brain, is that what we all aspire to? Really?
Rather than being someone who bring the joy of orgasm and sexual enjoyment to many. I mean, what? Really?
Weird world out there isn’t it? Maybe one day, things will change, but for now, the professional killers carry the day while those in the business of pleasure and happiness are villified. I guess they don’t want us to get soft or something. Even though when the professional killers are on leave, they go see the joy makers, because what the heck else is worth doing during your downtime. Playing world of warcraft?
The Wet One
Another female centric victim based view… yet again. I’m soooo sick of it all.
Look up”Sex Tourism and Male Prostitution: European Women Travel to Africa In Search Of Young African Men For Sex”for full article.
Some quotes:
“Sex tourism is not just “specific” to just “one gender”, yet the Occidental media has always framed this as a male only domain. We all have watched the documentaries about European or North American men traveling to Asia, Africa, or South America in search of young women for sex. Female sex tourism has gone on for decades yet now the mainstream media is finally focusing on the other side of sex tourism”.
“These western women are not wallflowers they know “exactly” what they are doing and they aren’t “victims” either. In fact the European women are the “oppressors” they are taking advantage of poor, innocent, young black men for their own sexual gratification. Some of the men these women are having sex with are minors and teenagers. Some of these European female tourists are pedophiles. The reason white females travel down “south” for sex tourism is the same reason white and black western men do it they think obtaining sex is easier with no strings attached. So why is the public’s knowledge about sex tourism so one-sided?”.
“In the Occident young African, Caribbean, and Afro Latino men are viewed as poor, uneducated, and desperate for money. The young black men are easy victims for racist rich women looking to quick sex.The western women have the “money” and the black men have their “youth” and “beauty”. A transaction takes place this form of sex tourism is basically male prostitution. Yet you won’t read about this going on in many feminist journals that’s for sure”.
To any and all… Women Are Not The Primary Victims On This Planet. Period.
It’s a well-known fact that women can get sex anytime they want. Men generally get sex by impressing women with money; or because they have a certain skill, like the ability to play the guitar; or because they are extremely alpha. Men who aren’t alpha, lacking in skills and money, will rarely, if ever, have the chance to experience something that is inborn in all of us. If anything, I feel as if men are victims. Victims of nature. Men shouldn’t be deprived just because someone has moral hang ups. If a non-trafficked escort wants to take my money and provide me with an hour of sex in return, we both win. She doesn’t have to go spend 40 hours a week waiting tables for thankless patrons, and I don’t have to go through life deprived of something that humans were programmed to do. If women had to spend 1 year in our shoes, they would change their tone about the sex trade, and apologize for berating men.
Well said Mark. I understand though, that Men are a victim of both government laws and feminist ideology. A co-conspiracy. It works out well for both of them… follow the money.