The Case for Pimps

Kerry Howley reads Venkatesh & Leavitt, "An Empirical Analysis of Street-Level Prostitution" and observes "Pimps pay better than the market wage and keep you safe and keep the police from demanding freebies. Who wouldn't want a pimp?" Meanwhile, it seems that pimp-inflicted beatings cancel out the reduction in customer-inflicted beatings that come with working with a pimp.

This all via Radley Balko who focuses on the deplorable conduct of the police. I think this blog takes a legalize-and-regulate line on prostitution, believing that this would give hookers legal recourse against maltreatment and improve their situation.

UPDATE: And, yes, in this context it would seem that "by 'police ... demanding freebies' we mean police committing rape."

Comments

I'm confused --are we still talking about the Democratic primaries, campaign financing and Hillary Clinton?

Posted by Don Williams | January 14, 2008 10:08 AM

Is this analogous to Bill Clinton being Hillary's pimp?

Posted by Gred Jenkins | January 14, 2008 10:17 AM

Kerry Howley is usually entertaining on Fox's Red Eye, but writing about street-level prostitution today is like writing about typewriters. The vast majority of prostitution, I'd bet, is pimp-less: escort services, women freelancing via Craig's List and specialized sites, etc.

Posted by Fred | January 14, 2008 10:19 AM

street level prostitution is probably the last vestige of legal slavery. Hookers are owned by their pimps, at times traded for other hookers, beaten and contrary to Miss Howley's conclusion, they are not compensated for their hooking. I favor legalizing and regulating prostitution in the hopes of smashing the illicit compulsory sex trade.

Posted by ELi Lake | January 14, 2008 10:26 AM

How, exactly, do you leave Pimp Inc. when you've squirreled away your better wages? Short answer: You don't. You get "pimped out" until you are less profitable and THEN your pimp has you walk the street. Many prostitutes with pimps are also the equivalent of indentured servants who have their contract enforced by violence. That's some arrangement for a libertarian to be promoting! Having an agent or secretary that handles your affairs for a reasonable fee makes sense in many professions. Having a pimp in the sense that Howley is talking about makes sense...uhh...never.

Posted by joejoejoe | January 14, 2008 10:31 AM

It's hard out there for a pimp.

Posted by jim | January 14, 2008 10:32 AM

Street-level prostitution may never disappear entirely, but I think this a business that has been pretty fundamentally altered by the internet.

Posted by mpowell | January 14, 2008 10:39 AM

Of course by "police ... demanding freebies" we mean police committing rape.

Posted by rufustfyrfly | January 14, 2008 10:45 AM

Don't we technically mean "police committing blackmail"? I'd expect the deal they generally offer to be "sex or you're busted", although I could be being optimistic about levels of corruption vs brutality in the police force.

Posted by john b | January 14, 2008 11:12 AM

jim, it's much harder out there for a prostitute. I wouldn't spit on a pimp if he was on fire.

john B, isn't all coercive sex rape? Is "sex or you're busted" much better than "sex or I'll beat you?" Threat of discretionary imprisonment is not just blackmail. For that matter, do you really think police officers never beat up prostitutes? (no, not all cops, not very many cops at all, I hope, but one evil cop can ruin your whole day)

Posted by Ian | January 14, 2008 11:23 AM

What Eli Lake said. A lot of street level pimps control their prostitutes through drug addiction and violence- "keep them safe" seems like a dubious asertation.

Posted by DNS | January 14, 2008 11:25 AM

Good link, quick correction: Levitt, not Leavitt.

Posted by Andy | January 14, 2008 11:47 AM

What is the incidence of street-level prostitution these days? Can we not drive it down to the point where it is almost completely underground? I know in Boston and Chicago, it went from being pretty common to see prostitutes in certain areas near downtown to being pretty rare. I think the same may be true for much of Manhattan.

"I think this blog takes a legalize-and-regulate line on prostitution, believing that this would give hookers legal recourse against maltreatment and improve their situation."

Haven't surveys shown that an extremely high % of prostitutes have been sexually abused in the past? It seems like some serious mental health issues are involved.

From what I've heard about Amsterdam, it hasn't worked out so well, as a large black/gray market still exists, and people smuggling/involuntary servitude may actually have gone up, but might be a useful topic for MY to explore further. Didn't he just go to Amsterdam a few months ago?

Posted by bob | January 14, 2008 11:52 AM

Actually, street prostition is not the last vestige of legal slavery, because in most locales, it is not legal.

Posted by Adam Villani | January 14, 2008 12:02 PM

Bob,

Those people who make the 'legalize and tolerate' case do so because they don't think there is anything wrong with prostitution to begin with. It's natural that they should want it legalized. But they should realize that those of us who do believe that prostitution is a great evil will not share their view, and will do our best to ensure it continues to be illegal (even if that will take the form of perhaps cracking down on customers more than on the prostitutes).

Posted by Hector | January 14, 2008 12:04 PM

Is "sex or you're busted" much better than "sex or I'll beat you?" Threat of discretionary imprisonment is not just blackmail.

It's not discretionary imprisonment though, is it? Under the insane laws you (and we, me being UK-ish) have at the moment, the only legally correct thing for the policeman to do would be to arrest the woman for soliciting.

Offering her sex in exchange for not being arrested leaves her with *more* not *fewer* options than if the cop was honest - and in that context, it's difficult to class his actions as rape.

Posted by john b | January 14, 2008 12:05 PM

it's difficult to class his actions as rape

No, it's really not. If we're already granting that the cop is taking liberties with his mandated duty, than he is just as free to let her go and not extort sex as he is to extort it.

Posted by erm | January 14, 2008 12:19 PM

Those people who make the 'legalize and tolerate' case do so because they don't think there is anything wrong with prostitution to begin with.

Uh, not necessarily. The solution to evils is not always to make them illegal. One could, for example, think that drugs that are currently illegal are, in fact, very bad for society, but that the war on drugs has consequences that are worse. Making some evil illegal only makes sense when it can be prosecuted in a way that is reliable and just. Making something illegal does not automatically banish it. It can sometimes have the opposite effect.

It's a lot more comfortable to imagine that the law works perfectly and that all crimes are met with just punishment. But that is not the world we live in.

To be clear, I think prostitution is awful. But I don't think legal prostitution is any more awful than a system in which prostitutes, by virtue of being criminals, are subject to being raped by cops and are unlikely to receive justice for any crimes done against them.

Posted by alex | January 14, 2008 12:21 PM

john B, isn't all coercive sex rape?

If a male employer says to a female employee, "Sleep with me or you're fired," and then the woman sleeps with him, is that "rape?" Illegal and sick, maybe, but not "rape." Your definition of "rape" is over-broad.

If a male cop says to a hooker, "Sleep with me or go to jail," how is that "rape?"

Rape is physically forcing someone to have sex with you against their will. In both cases above, presumably no one is being physically forced to do anything and the victim is offered a choice. Of course, it is a terrible choice, but it is a choice.

Yes, it is a grey area. A question of degree. If the cop said, "Sleep with me or I'll burn you with a hot poker," that is also a "choice." I'm not saying it is black and white. However, going to jail for breaking the law (hooking) is not exactly getting burned with a hot poker, anymore than losing your job is.

And, no, I'm not defending cops who demand freebies or employers who employ sexual blackmail. But get your terms straight.

Posted by jim | January 14, 2008 12:21 PM

Rape is physically forcing someone to have sex with you against their will.

I'm not sure that's technically true. In any case, "Sleep with me or I'll kill you" and "Sleep with me or I'll kill your kid" also offer choices, but I'm still pretty comfortable classifying them as rape.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 14, 2008 12:25 PM

Jim, your terms are are overly narrow. Physical compulsion is neither a legally nor morally necessary element of rape.

Note "other duress."

Posted by erm | January 14, 2008 12:28 PM

I agree with SomeCallMeTim that Jim's definitions of rape is too narrow - however, just IMO, the 'policeman offering to not enforce the law in exchange for sex' example seems more like the sleazy boss than the hot poker guy or the child-killer.

Posted by john b | January 14, 2008 12:29 PM

In any case, "Sleep with me or I'll kill you" and "Sleep with me or I'll kill your kid" also offer choices,

So your argument is that losing your job or going to jail is the same as being killed or having your children killed?

How about someone says to a desperately poor woman, "Have sex with me or I won't give you a million dollars?" If she does it, is that rape?

My point was that there are degrees of "coercion," and rape is usually defined as forcing someone to have sex against their will. You are conflating sexual blackmail with rape.

Posted by jim | January 14, 2008 12:32 PM

As pointed out above, the relevant question is whether there is sufficient duress to negate consent. Usually threat of imprisonment would be sufficient duress.

Posted by Al | January 14, 2008 12:43 PM

Usually threat of imprisonment would be sufficient duress.

Scenario 1: A cop shows up at your door and says, "Have sex with me or I'll put you in jail."

Scenario 2: You break the law. You are arrested. The cop says to you, "Have sex with me and I won't punish you for breaking the law?"

Are those two instances of "duress" equal?

Let's say a woman gets pulled over for speeding and the cop says, "Have sex with me and I won't arrest you." If the woman opts for sex over jail, is the cop "raping" her? I would say no. It seems like some of you would say yes. I'd like to hear your logic.

Posted by jim | January 14, 2008 1:07 PM

jim and john b, I agree that there is a continuum of coercion. I think we can also agree that all coercive sex, regardless of what you'd like to call it, is wrong.

Defining rape: as erm pointed out, "other duress" is rape under the law. I would consider the threat of being locked up in jail to be a very serious threat, wouldn't you? Not to mention the fact that the cop is threatening to handcuff her and force her into his car if she won't immediately have sex with him. Isn't that threat of force? As soon as he demanded sex he stopped being on the side of the law.

If you think this is less bad than threats with hot pokers, let's put it this way: torture-murder is worse than murder, but we nevertheless lock murderers away for life.

Two cases you suggested:

1) the boss who threatens to fire an employee unless she sleeps with him. Here there is at least some possibility of legal recourse for the woman and some chance of finding another job. The power of a boss over an employee is not as absolute as that of a crooked cop over a prostitute.

2) not giving a poor woman a million dollars. Again, there are degrees - is the woman in danger of starving to death, etc. In general, though, threatening not to help someone is less bad than threatening to harm them.

So yes, I consider the sex or jail threat to be quite a bit worse than either of those cases. It's rape.

Posted by Ian | January 14, 2008 1:30 PM

Ian,

I think the key here -- whether in the case of the prostitute or the woman pulled over for speeding -- is that the "default" case is that she would get arrested and go to jail anyway. The cop is offering her a way out of this default case. If she chooses not to have sex, nothing "worse" is going to happen to her than was supposed to happen to her for breaking the law in the first place. This is why I made the distinction between a cop just showing up at your door and giving you a choice of sex or jail. In that case, there is a significant degree of coercion.

Also, why doesn't the woman have legal recourse with the cop? She could sue the city just as easily (or with just as much difficulty) as she could sue an employer.

Posted by jim | January 14, 2008 1:47 PM

jim, it's much harder out there for a prostitute. I wouldn't spit on a pimp if he was on fire.

Someone here hasn't heard of the Three-Six Mafia. Excuse me, the Oscar winning Three-Six Mafia.

But they should realize that those of us who do believe that prostitution is a great evil will not share their view, and will do our best to ensure it continues to be illegal (even if that will take the form of perhaps cracking down on customers more than on the prostitutes).

This is very similar to how conservatives approach abortion. When it is pointed out that liberals can reduce the abortion rate while keeping it legal, they don't care. They WANT it illegal, because they'd rather make the STATEMENT about what they think is wrong and what is right. Of course, the police power of the state is not supposed to be about making such statements.

There are obvious ways to reduce the instance of prostitution and also make conditions better for sex workers. But conservatives don't want that, because they'd prefer the law making a statement that exchanging money for sex is wrong even if it completely fouled up our society.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 14, 2008 1:48 PM

I have to give the Clintons credit, I believe they coined the term "sex worker." So, in all sincerity why not be concerned about the plight of sex workers "agents?" After all, don't they walk the walk too?

“Hillary Clinton – A Lifetime of Walking the Walk.” Unfortunately political advisor Sidney Blumenthal wasn’t so lucky. At 12:30 am. Monday morning, one day before the New Hampshire state primary, Nashua police observed Mr. Blumenthal’s rental car careen through Greeley Park at speeds in excess of 70-mph., in a 30-mph. zone, and apprehended Sidney. (Funny we didn't hear about it, in a quirk of irony maybe that’s why Hillary teared-up and won NH.) Sid failed to walk the walk – failed the field sobriety test, got arrested - handcuffed.

Kind of like Dee Dee Myers does every so often. Sidney Blumenthal, longtime friend and senior adviser to presidential candidate Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., was inebriated. Free the Chicago 7, free Bobby Seale; Attica, Attica, screamed Blumenthal, before being tossed into the slammer for four hours. Police offered to free Mr. Seale on condition that Mr. Blumenthal take the Breathalyzer, but in the absence of a sworn affidavit or even a pinky-swear from police, Sidney declined the test, and was booked for Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated, DWI: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | January 14, 2008 1:49 PM

"As soon as he demanded sex he stopped being on the side of the law".

This is certainly true - in the UK he's guilty of perverting [yes, very funny] the course of justice and of gross misconduct in a public office, both of which carry substantial prison sentences.

"I would consider the threat of being locked up in jail to be a very serious threat, wouldn't you?"

See, this is where I think your argument falls down. If someone says they'll lock me in jail for something I haven't done, that is a very serious threat. If someone says they'll lock me in jail because I've broken the law, that isn't really a threat so much as a thing that's supposed to happen. Even if that person is also a despicable bastard who takes bribes, and even if that person first offered me the chance to bribe him to not lock me in jail.

Posted by john b | January 14, 2008 1:51 PM

Well, Ok, but please note that the comment was tongue-in-cheek given the deplorable pimp-induced violence I then go on to the describe. And the post comes to the same conclusion as Matt does--ideally sex workers would be able to call upon the protection of the police, but instead they are vulnerable to abuse by the same.

Posted by Kerry Howley | January 14, 2008 2:11 PM

Re: Of course, the police power of the state is not supposed to be about making such statements.

Uh, actually, the police power of the state _is_ supposed to be about making such statements. The purpose of the state is to encourage the physical, social and moral well being of its inhabitants. Part of that includes trying to instil virtue in its citizens, which necessitates making statements about what the state holds to be of value. I'm not sure what you think the purposes of the state are, but evidently pursuing the common good is not one of them.

Society should not tolerate even by tacit consent the idea of exchanging sex for money.

Posted by Hector | January 14, 2008 2:16 PM

The purpose of the state is to encourage the physical, social and moral well being of its inhabitants.

That's your opinion. I feel my right to self-determination trumps your desire for a state-sanctioned morality.

Posted by dob | January 14, 2008 2:45 PM

Society should not tolerate even by tacit consent the idea of exchanging sex for money.

I'll remember that when I'm trying to convince my date to go dutch on the dinner check.

Posted by daveNYC | January 14, 2008 3:19 PM

john b and jim,

First, thanks. I've enjoyed debating this with you.

True -- getting arrested and sent to jail is the default under current law. However, the prospect of getting handcuffed and taken away by someone who has declared his desire to have sex with you against your will must be absolutely terrifying. Should the prostitute assume that a cop like is really going to drive her straight to the police station? Being put in this situation is not part of the lawful punishment for her crime.

Legal recourse: who do you think wins a he-said-she-said between a cop and a prostitute?

Posted by Ian | January 14, 2008 3:43 PM

Yes, a cop extorting sex from a prostitute is rape.

Yes, a boss extorting sex by threatening to fire someone is rape.

Yes, if you are going to give someone money, and then you tell them that you won't if they don't fuck you, that is rape. If you are simply offering to give them money to fuck you, that is soliciting prostitution, and it is reprehensible. Arguably, it is also, in fact, rape, especially if the person in question is very much in need of the money (or drugs, or safe place to sleep, or whatever other piece of shit disposable commodity you deign to offer a desperate person only if they'll let you fuck them.)

If you think that buying dinner for a date is a tacit exchange of money for sex, then you have a moral obligation to make this clear to your date when you ask her out. After all, she has the right to know what it is she's getting into.

Posted by bitchphd | January 14, 2008 4:00 PM

Dave,

So your girlfriend is the moral equivalent of a prostitute? I think you should suggest that to her. See what she says.

A cop trying to extort sex from a prostitute is, of course, immoral. But I would not consider it rape by any stretch of the term. The cop _ought_ to be carting the prostitute off to jail. It's what she merits under the law, and is the default situation. The cop is not threatening her with anything that she has not already merited. In fact, he is offering an extralegal favor in exchange for sex. That is corrupt, and immoral, but it isn't rape.

Yes, the prostitute could get raped by the cop, but she could get raped by her clients too, and that happens quite a lot. I would imagine that hardly any cops would ever rape someone- she's probably safer in the cop's car than in a brothel. None of us- not you, me, or the prostitute- has the right to complain about the cops arresting us when we commit a crime. That's what they're there for, to have the monopoly of force in society.

Posted by Hector | January 14, 2008 4:09 PM

Yes, if you are going to give someone money, and then you tell them that you won't if they don't fuck you, that is rape.

You'll have to take me through that one. If I offer a woman $10 on the condition that she has sex with me, and then she accepts this proposal, I am guilty of rape?

Actually, bitchphd, you didn't make any arguments at all. You just asserted "yes, this is rape. yes, that is rape." Try an argument rather than an assertion.

Posted by jim | January 14, 2008 4:17 PM

I would add, when I said a crime, I meant a moral crime as well as a legal one. Not protesting outside the Pentagon or something like that- rather, things that _should_ be crimes. In conditions of extreme poverty, yes, then those would be extenuating circumstances. But America today, thank God, is not the kind of place where anyone has to choose between starving and prostitution.

Posted by Hector | January 14, 2008 4:20 PM

I think that the legal definition of rape involves penetration. Otherwise, the crime is sodomy or something. Since the authors don't state precisely what forms of sexual favors the police are demanding in exchange for lax law enforcement, I don't think we can conclude that the cops are rapists. They might simply be sodomists.

Posted by Kelly | January 14, 2008 4:28 PM

Re Hector's comment "But America today, thank God, is not the kind of place where anyone has to choose between starving and prostitution."
-----------
Unless they work in politics.

Posted by Don Williams | January 14, 2008 5:35 PM

Uh, actually, the police power of the state _is_ supposed to be about making such statements. The purpose of the state is to encourage the physical, social and moral well being of its inhabitants. Part of that includes trying to instil virtue in its citizens, which necessitates making statements about what the state holds to be of value. I'm not sure what you think the purposes of the state are, but evidently pursuing the common good is not one of them.

Society should not tolerate even by tacit consent the idea of exchanging sex for money

Hector, this is as wrong as any statement in the history of the blogosphere.

First, consider the implications of your last statement. Let's suppose the only way to prevent a nuclear war would be to allow someone to purchase sex for money. Would you allow it? Of course you would! (Or at least, if you wouldn't, nobody should ever listen to you on a matter of public policy.)

And the reason any rational person would allow it is because the SYMBOLISM of prohibiting sex for money, even if one believes that prostitution is immoral, is simply not worth killing a bunch of people in a nuclear holocaust.

Now, obviously, I am not claiming that a nuclear holocaust will occur if we don't allow prostitution. But what I am claiming is that the criminalization of prostitution leads to all sorts of bad effects, empowering pimps, enslaving women, reducing condom usage, increasing the trafficking of women across borders, reducing tax revenue, funneling money to organized crime, etc.

And the difference between the social conservatives and liberals is that we liberals-- even if we think prostitution is wrong-- don't think that mere symbolic disapproval justifies a law where the law actually does harm to society. Social conservatives, in contrast, would rather have a society where prostitution is illegal and all sorts of bad things happen, then where prostitution is legal and those bad things don't happen, because they think-- as Hector articulates above-- that the law's job is to reflect moral disapproval for things that social conservatives think are bad.

In fact, Hector, and trust me on this-- I'm a lawyer-- the law NEVER does a good job of reflecting morality or instilling virtue. It isn't designed for it. As an obvious case in point, even those people who think that same-sex sexual relations are sinful should concede that sodomy statutes with 20 year prison sentences attached to them weren't a particularly effective means of expressing that moral condemnation.

The only EFFECTIVE purpose of laws is NOT to express moral condemnation, but to ensure compliance when compliance is necessary. Laws that don't work aren't worth having, and laws that do work but are too costly or difficult to enforce or cause all sorts of secondary or unintended consequences aren't worth it.

The operative questions with respect to a prostitution statute-- assuming one condemns prostitution-- are does it deter the activity and is the level of deterrence achieved worth all the other costs of the law?

But keeping it illegal even if the law doesn't work well just for the symbolism is stupid. If you want moral symbolism, go to church and leave the legal system out of it.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 14, 2008 7:05 PM

Most hookers are independent these days. The consensus of overheard conversations of black males in the joint indicated to me that there are no "pimps" any more, at least not in the classic sense of one guy running several women.

There may well be a man involved somewhere with a black or white hooker, but I think he tends not to be a pimp but more of a guy leeching off his woman, so most hookers today are not pimped in the classic sense.

The interesting thing about San Francisco is that most of the street prostitutes I've seen around my neighborhood are actually transsexuals of Asian or South Pacific origin. Many of them (but definitely not all) are better looking than your average white female prostitute. They almost certainly are not being pimped.

The other general group are ugly crack whores who are doing it solely for drug money. I can't imagine - and don't want to - who their customers might be or why they even have customers.

Prostitution should be totally legalized. It wouldn't even need "regulation" - I'm not sure how you'd regulate it, other than maybe requiring health checks to make sure disease wasn't being spread. I suspect the latter is unlikely anyway, as most prostitutes I've dealt with are very careful about that sort of thing. They're more likely to get AIDS from a needle than from a john. The crack whores are probably the most likely to be passing disease along.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 14, 2008 11:55 PM

Re: But what I am claiming is that the criminalization of prostitution leads to all sorts of bad effects, empowering pimps, enslaving women, reducing condom usage, increasing the trafficking of women across borders, reducing tax revenue, funneling money to organized crime, etc.

Dilan,

Did any of that happen when the Vietnamese shut down the Saigon brothels in 1975? I didn't think so.

Posted by Hector | January 15, 2008 12:15 AM

That's one seriously bizarre comment, Hector.

We're now supposed to run things like the Vietnamese Communist government did in 1975?

Besides which, do you have ANY evidence that what you just said was either true or had no negative effects on the prostitutes? Or what other efforts the Vietnamese government took to offset those possible effects?

I didn't think so.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 15, 2008 1:19 AM

"Yes, a cop extorting sex from a prostitute is rape.

Yes, a boss extorting sex by threatening to fire someone is rape.

Yes, if you are going to give someone money, and then you tell them that you won't if they don't fuck you, that is rape."

Yes, if you have sex with a drunk woman, that is rape.

Yes, if you beg your girlfriend for sex with sad puppy dog eyes, that is rape.

Yes, if you lie about your job status/income/identity to obtain sexual compliance, that is rape.

Yes, if you forget to tip the lap-dancer at the strip club, that is rape.

Am I missing anything? I would hate to cast a vote for oppression by failing to include anything in any possible grey area outside of the common sense understanding of rape.

Posted by Ebling Bellhooks | January 15, 2008 1:26 AM

If something strikes us as unethical or even criminal it can't be classified as something different or novel, with it's own set of new but related punishments and judgments to be developed. That would be much too complicated and burdensome. It must be awkwardly shoehorned into more potent and established concepts to piggyback the full weight of their politically desirable semantic and legal significance.

In fact the crime formally known as 'rape' should now just be called 'murder' and lumped in with 'murder'. The word 'rape' has just become much too crowded what with all these other definitions - like failing to pay a prostitute - that have been forced into the definition. We've exceeded the Maximum Occupancy of the word.

Posted by Ebling Bellhooks | January 15, 2008 1:42 AM

Did any of that happen when the Vietnamese shut down the Saigon brothels in 1975? I didn't think so.

I wouldn't compare what the US government can accomplish-- consistent with its constitutional conceptions of individual liberty and limited government-- and what Ho Chi Minh's authoritarian communist dictatorship can accomplish, Hector.

You are trying to duck away from your earlier argument, which was that it is worth it to ban prostitution for the symbolic moral statement that it makes, even if it screws society up to do so.

In any event, I quite prefer America-- or numerous other countries with quasi-legal or partially legal prostitution, such as the Netherlands or the rest of Western Europe-- to Ho's Republic of Vietnam. If you don't, you have a seriously fouled up notion of what constitutes a good government.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 15, 2008 1:54 AM

Dilan,

I think your version of good government, where everyone is 'free' to maximize their number of toys and orgasms, is the one that is fouled up. And no, I don't particularly have any love for liberal society, or for the modern United States and its allies.

The purpose for my snarky comment was to show you that you are betraying a very old tradition on the Left which is to abhor prostitution. Prostitution was traditionally seen as the ultimate expression of the commercial mentality and of the alienation that capitalism imposes on people. Not only is the prostitute alienated from her labor, but from her own sexuality and capacity for intimacy. Other things that the Left was critical of, like capitalism or imperialism, were often compared to prostitution as a kind of metaphor--really, Dilan, you should know all this. Why don't you read the stance that the Chinese, or the Cubans, or the Vietnamese had about prostitution. It's not only the authoritarian socialisms too...Sweden abolished prostitution just a couple of years ago. Clearly we can do it too, if we want to.

Posted by Hector | January 15, 2008 10:05 AM

to restate:

Saigon was infamous throughout the world, in the late 1960s and early 1970s for its culture of corruption, decadence, and prostitution. The brothels of Saigon were emblematic, for a whole generation of people in the Third World, of the relationship between the third world and the West. The Vietnamese Communists ended that culture just as they ended the Cambodian Killing Fields four years later, and I think that whatever your stance on the Vietnamese government in general, any decent person ought to applaud that. But that's just me.

Parenthetically, I'm not sure why 'overheard conversations' with 'black males' (WTF?!) in 'the joint' should be taken as an authoritative comment on the state of the modern sex industry- or why that individual expects us to believe his dubious first person testimony that prostitutes are 'very careful' about spreading disease.

Posted by Hector | January 15, 2008 10:12 AM

The purpose for my snarky comment was to show you that you are betraying a very old tradition on the Left which is to abhor prostitution. Prostitution was traditionally seen as the ultimate expression of the commercial mentality and of the alienation that capitalism imposes on people. Not only is the prostitute alienated from her labor, but from her own sexuality and capacity for intimacy.

Hector, you don't need to educate me about the left-wing case against prostitution. I don't really buy it though, I am not a socialist.

I do, however, think there is a lot of validity to the feminist case against prostitution, which holds that-- at least when we are not talking about $500 an hour upscale escorts-- prostitution results in trafficking of women, violence against women, etc.

But you are totally missing the point, which is that WHATEVER you think about prostitution, there is no evidence that a free society-- unlike a brutal Commmunist dictatorship-- can successfully ban it. So, at best, laws against prostitution are a symbolic means of expressing societal disapproval. On the other hand, criminalizing the activity brings out its worst aspects, because you get more trafficking, more pimps, more violence, etc.

The difference between a social conservative and a liberal is that social conservatives think that the moral condemnation aspect of the law outweighs whether the law actually works or not. Liberals don't.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 15, 2008 11:46 AM

The Vietnamese Communists ended that culture

As someone who spent 5 years living in Asia (mostly China, but I spent time in Vietnam), I can say without hesitation that you are smoking crack. Prostitution throughout Asia is ten times more prevalent (and socially acceptable) than it is in the West. The idea that the Communists eliminated brothels is hilarious. Yes, for a brief period it was publicly suppressed to a degree (just as it was in China during the Cultural Revolution), but prostitution is far more widespread there than in the US -- not even close. I wouldn't even know where to get a prostitute in the US and I know NO Americans who go to prostitutes (of course, a tiny fraction do, I'm just pointing out that it is not common). In Asia, on the other hand, you can't even check into a hotel without getting a late night call asking if you want 3 hookers sent up to your room.

Posted by jim | January 15, 2008 11:59 AM

Saigon was infamous throughout the world, in the late 1960s and early 1970s for its culture of corruption, decadence, and prostitution.

It should also be pointed out that you are talking about a war zone. Also, I didn't notice the words "corruption" and "decadence" in there -- you are honestly claiming that the Vietnamese Communists ended the "culture of corruption, decadence, and prostitution?" It would only be possible to say this with a striaght face if you knew absoultely nothing about communist Vietnam.

Posted by jim | January 15, 2008 12:11 PM

Yes, if you are going to give someone money, and then you tell them that you won't if they don't fuck you, that is rape.

You'll have to take me through that one. If I offer a woman $10 on the condition that she has sex with me, and then she accepts this proposal, I am guilty of rape?

No. As I said immediately after the sentence you quoted, that is soliciting prostitution. You *may* be guilty of rape if she is doing so because, say, her pimp will beat the crap out of her if she says no, or because she desperately needs drugs and is taking the $10 for that reason. Because you are fucking someone, against their will, through extortion.

What I was saying in the bit you quoted--look again, I re-quoted it myself in that first paragraph up top--is that if you are going to give the woman $10, and *then* you say, "oh, but actually, no; you have to fuck me first" you are, yes, extorting sex from her. Which is rape.

I would hate to cast a vote for oppression by failing to include anything in any possible grey area outside of the common sense understanding of rape.

Please consider the possibility that "the common sense understanding of rape"--as demonstrated by this very thread!!--excuses a lot of things that are, in fact, rape. Both legally (threats count, even *if* you don't beat her up!!) and morally (a prostitute is *not fucking you because she wants to*. She is, at best, *letting you fuck her* because she wants whatever it is you're willing to give her to coerce her cooperation and non-resistance. In short, she is not consenting to sex, she is consenting to letting you do things to her.)

Posted by bitchphd | January 15, 2008 1:12 PM

is that if you are going to give the woman $10, and *then* you say, "oh, but actually, no; you have to fuck me first" you are, yes, extorting sex from her. Which is rape.

Hard to argue with that logic, since there is no logic to it at all. But leaving that aside for the moment...

Extortion is rape? How about bribery? How about a poor woman dates a rich man because she likes rich men? Is she raping him or is he raping her? You seem to have a pretty low opinion of the will power of women. If a woman can't resist the lure of $10 for sex, that makes the man a "rapist."

I'm wondering if there is ever a case of a man and a woman having sex in which they haven't signed a contract first that wouldn't constitute rape in your book.

The other day my wife told me to take out the garbage with the clear implication that she would not give me sex if I didn't. She said we were going to have sex, and *then* said, "No, take the garbage out first." I now realize that I was raped. She was extorting sex from me, which is rape. I am considering pressing charges.

Posted by jim | January 15, 2008 2:27 PM

Let's try this again. Rape is forcing someone to have sex with you. If you tell someone that they have to have sex with you or something terrible will happen to them, that's rape.

bitchPhD is right in saying that extorting sex by threatening someone's livelihood is rape.

jim, you talked about a poor woman marrying a rich man. Is she marrying him because she loves him, or because she wants to be rich, or because she is desperately poor? The third option is pretty skeevy. Suppose, for example, the rich man has gone trolling through the slums looking for a pretty woman whose ailing grandmother needs expensive medicine. I don't think the law would prosecute it, but that doesn't sound at all like rape to you?

People have consensual sex all the time, jim. If your lover could just walk away without fear of repercussions but chooses to have sex with you instead, you are not a rapist.

Posted by Ian | January 16, 2008 9:44 PM