Well... Almost all forms of prostitution are a manifestation of gross inequality. There is a tiny subset of prostitutes who do so because they like it, but the vast majority do so out of economic meccesity combined with a lack of education, and in much of the world, are coerced into prostitution, kidnapped even, quite often. Many are underage. While some prostitutes are independent, many are "owned" by pimps. Almost all prostitutes are female, and almost all clients of prostitutes are male. They apparently have no compunction about using a prostitute for their pleasure with no thought about how she feels or what circumstances have forced her to these ends - it is more important to them that they be sexually serviced without delay in any way they like, without having to go through the effort of being nice to a woman. All that being said - I am not for the remaining illegality of prostitution, because in the twisted misogynistic way our "justice" system has, the one who gets punished most under anti-prostitution laws is the prostitute. I think making it legal and subjecting it to some normal regulations would take away a lot of the abuses associated with it.
I think it should be legalized and regulated. I have really mixed FEELINGS about it, though. I tend to perceive anyone who would go to a prostitute as being skeevy, for the reasons lady babalon talked about above (wanting quick, easy sex without the work of a relationship, and not caring whether the prostitute is doing it because she wants to or if she feels economically pressured to do so, etc.). I know you could make the analogy that I'm skeevy or insensitive because I don't ask the Taco Bell worker whether or not s/he is doing the job because they like it or whether they're doing it out of economic pressure. But there seems to be something fundamentally different about offering up your body as a commodity, not just your services. Jobs like modeling, sports, and other body-related careers are probably a better analogy than the Taco Bell, worker, though.
I think it is a result of the combination of resource scarcity, cultural barriers to economic opportunity for women, and male sense of entitlement to sex on demand. I think too that the way so many societies have punished women for doing it is essentially a way to punish women for being female, because if she does not do it then she is still damned economically -- and censure against men who hire prostitutes has never, ever had the same priority, nor has it ever had the same stigma.
IMO legalizing it would be some improvement, but I have concerns about the model under which it is legal in Nevada; everything I've heard suggests that it is far from "empowering." Legalizing it would also do nothing to change the economic and cultural deck-stacking against women.
I think legalizing would do something to change the deck-stacking, in that by getting such things out in the open, it becomes easier to change. Not easy, but easier, if you catch my drift.
I'm not sure that it would. I would hope that a discussion about legalizing prostitution would lead in turn to some discussion about the motivations of women who've done it, or to give some attention to developing a legalized model that would empower women.
That's what would happen in a sane society, anyway.
But the gist of the pro-legalization arguments I've seen suggest that it would primarily be viewed as an option "freely chosen," when this is not usually the case. More likely, it will be done because it makes sex-on-demand easier for men to acquire.
The model of legalization in Nevada treats prostitutes as centers of pestilence (do the men who hire their services have to undergo frequent medical examinations, I wonder?) and practically imprisons them in the brothel. It doesn't sound like a system intended to serve the needs of the women in it.
You're right that the Nevada brothels are not the shining examples of what legalized prostitution should be. It's what we have, and it should be improved. There should be an overhaul of regulations in the industry. Lots of things are stacked up against the working woman.
I wrote a paper in college about the brothels in Nevada, and I posited that the brothels satisfy the definition of a "total institution" as put forth by Erving Goffman. You would know this as an asylum. A brothel is a sexual asylum. In some respects, this makes sense.
It does at least show that we can have legal prostitution without civilization crashing. But even so, it is so contained that it does not threaten the sexist status-quo. Women might gain some economic freedom thereby, but it's as if they may do so only by submitting their body to another kind of ownership.
The US should legalize it, set regulations, and tax it accordingly. More states should see it as a way to help control disease, generate revenue, and to keep people who don't want to be exploited from being exploited. It will always be around- by ignoring it we're just increasing the problems stemming from it.
So long as there is a need/want for companionship by whatever means, there will always be prostitution. Not only should the practice be legalised and regulated, there should be mandatory education programs so each person in the business is literate and has the skills needed to make a conscious choice about staying in the industry. Too often prostitutes don't have that choice, or at least don't think they do. Conversely, though legalised, the business should not be allowed to draw from the pool of eligible workers; no one should be forced to work for them under threat of losing unemployment insurance if they refuse. [/my two cents]
I don't know if I want the government determining if someone should get a discount on a woman's services. They already want to control so much of a woman's body as it is.
We should be free to do as we like, assuming all parties are consenting. Prostitution can be joyful and free. It also can be coerced and energy-sucking.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-05 02:15 pm (UTC)Almost all forms of prostitution are a manifestation of gross inequality. There is a tiny subset of prostitutes who do so because they like it, but the vast majority do so out of economic meccesity combined with a lack of education, and in much of the world, are coerced into prostitution, kidnapped even, quite often. Many are underage. While some prostitutes are independent, many are "owned" by pimps. Almost all prostitutes are female, and almost all clients of prostitutes are male. They apparently have no compunction about using a prostitute for their pleasure with no thought about how she feels or what circumstances have forced her to these ends - it is more important to them that they be sexually serviced without delay in any way they like, without having to go through the effort of being nice to a woman.
All that being said - I am not for the remaining illegality of prostitution, because in the twisted misogynistic way our "justice" system has, the one who gets punished most under anti-prostitution laws is the prostitute. I think making it legal and subjecting it to some normal regulations would take away a lot of the abuses associated with it.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-05 02:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-05 03:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-07 02:18 am (UTC)You can even buy shares in brothels such as the Daily planet.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-05 02:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-05 02:52 pm (UTC)IMO legalizing it would be some improvement, but I have concerns about the model under which it is legal in Nevada; everything I've heard suggests that it is far from "empowering." Legalizing it would also do nothing to change the economic and cultural deck-stacking against women.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-05 03:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-05 03:25 pm (UTC)That's what would happen in a sane society, anyway.
But the gist of the pro-legalization arguments I've seen suggest that it would primarily be viewed as an option "freely chosen," when this is not usually the case. More likely, it will be done because it makes sex-on-demand easier for men to acquire.
The model of legalization in Nevada treats prostitutes as centers of pestilence (do the men who hire their services have to undergo frequent medical examinations, I wonder?) and practically imprisons them in the brothel. It doesn't sound like a system intended to serve the needs of the women in it.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-05 03:56 pm (UTC)I wrote a paper in college about the brothels in Nevada, and I posited that the brothels satisfy the definition of a "total institution" as put forth by Erving Goffman. You would know this as an asylum. A brothel is a sexual asylum. In some respects, this makes sense.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-05 04:42 pm (UTC)It does at least show that we can have legal prostitution without civilization crashing. But even so, it is so contained that it does not threaten the sexist status-quo. Women might gain some economic freedom thereby, but it's as if they may do so only by submitting their body to another kind of ownership.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-05 03:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-05 03:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-05 03:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-05 04:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-05 04:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-05 06:22 pm (UTC)I don't know if I want the government determining if someone should get a discount on a woman's services. They already want to control so much of a woman's body as it is.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-05 07:14 pm (UTC)Freedom
Date: 2005-07-06 02:16 am (UTC)