In Different Area Codes

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/a-call-girls-view-of-the-spitzer-affair/

Most everyone’s been keeping track of the Elliot Spitzer affair – funny, I guarantee not one person I know, myself included, could have named the governor of New York or what he’s done as recently as two weeks ago, but once there’s a Ho involved, well, scandal.

I’m as guilty as anyone of being glued to the news by Spitzer’s downfall, but I can’t help wondering in another sense what all of the hoopla is about, other than people’s hunger for stories about dramatic, sudden falls from grace. From a societal perspective, anyway, can anyone explain to me why it is that prostitution is still illegal?

You’ve probably heard the relevant Carlin quote here: “Sex is the only thing that is legal to give away, but illegal to sell.” It’s hard for me not to be struck by the logic of that, because it seems to me that the only real objection to the legalization of the industry is a moral one, and that happens to be an opinion I just can’t share. I understand – selling sex isn’t romantic, and it likely contributes to the destruction of marriages – but the problem is that I don’t care, and I believe the issue should be squarely the responsibility of each individual involved. It is not my duty – nor is it society’s – to legislate sexual morality, unless there’s a situation where physical harm may be involved. Rape, assault – those aren’t open to any degree of debate, but if we’re talking about consenting adults in a business transaction, where’s the harm? How does it harm me or rest of the population if somebody wants to pay a few hundred dollars to get laid?

I think one of the arguments is that the business transaction in question here has a tendency to put prostitutes in more potentially harmful situations – I don’t dispute that. But doesn’t the very presence of that sort of danger make it even more logical to legalize and thus regulate the industry? Doesn’t it seem much more dangerous to have women (and men, I’m sure) out on their own with no one ensuring their welfare?

Say you put together some sort of legalization process, as countries like the UK, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Australia, and New Zealand have. You can institute all sorts of safeguards; there could be a union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Union_of_Sex_Workers there is one of these, though I can’t speak to its legitimacy) to improve wages, safety standards, age requirements, implementation of more widespread std-testing requirements, etc., etc. That’d create jobs, too – administration jobs within the unions and companies that’d spring up, security personnel, regulatory, policing agencies, and so on.

How does anyone lose from that? Those who do want to buy sex (and most importantly, no one is saying that anyone has to buy sex – isn’t free will and choice great?) can, and they can do it without fear of discovery, with less fear for their safety, less fear of disease (ideally), and eventually with less of a social stigma (again, ideally). The prostitutes can ensure their own safety, more legitimately safeguard their wages, and hell, might even begin to consider things that lots of other people take for granted, like retirement funds and health benefits. Again, can someone tell me the harm?

Maybe the concern is that we’re proposing the legitimization of the criminal element – financially rewarding drug dealers and pimps, the mob and sex traffickers. I have a hard time ascribing to that thinking, because doesn’t legalization remove them from the equation? You can legislate who gets what profits from what transactions, and the pimps and mobsters won’t be profiting nearly as much off of prostitutes who currently can’t fend for themselves. Take the dependency element out of the equation and make prostitutes fully reliable on themselves and accountable, like the rest of the world, to the company they work for instead of to an unregulated crazy person. Aren’t we just talking about
legalizing an industry for the general improvement of its workers’ quality of living? How is that bad?

Here’s what I’m left with – if you legalized prostitution, you’d be adding an element of physical, financial, and likely emotional safety and stability to both those who sell and those who buy. We’re talking about ensuring the welfare of citizens here. They’re going to do it anyway, so why not take a progressive step and make sure that they’re not killing  themselves in the process? There is, as far as I can see, no legitimate argument based in any sort of operational complaint; the benefits for everyone involved seem pretty obvious.

If the only objection, then, is one grounded in morality, then the entire argument doesn’t make sense. Why force people to adhere to an arbitrary social code that they don’t follow in the first place? To say nothing of my own lack of interest or concern about whom other people fuck and for what price, doesn’t it seem stunningly pointless and naive to try and institute any degree of conservative, family-oriented social norms on people who fuck strangers for a living? Why not just try and switch crackheads to chocolate milk while we’re at it?

And another thing: why isn’t porn considered prostitution? Isn’t that paying a stranger(s) for sex? Is there a buffer because there’s a company and filming involved? Does that mean that, provided you film the encounter and carry around some permits, you could screw for money as much as you want?

I won’t pretend to pardon Spitzer’s infidelity, as part of the issue with him is really a hypocrisy sort of deal, which is particularly sensitive for people in power. And this shouldn’t be confused with an endorsement of hookers and prostitution for a living – but who am I, and who is anyone to tell someone what to do with their lives if they’re not harming anyone else?