Why Not America?

Nicholas Kristof says he used to be for legalizing prostitution, but changed his mind after learning more about conditions in the Netherlands, and now favors something more like Sweden's approach. I underwent a similar trajectory myself, but it's occurred to me more recently that rather than looking at the Netherlands as a model, we should probably look at Nevada which is, after all, right here in the USA. Unfortunately, I don't actually know anything about the subject, but I thought I'd toss it out there.

Meanwhile, it's striking to me reading various takes on this that absolutely nobody -- including The Atlantic's resident moralizing social conservative -- seems to think the actual status quo policy of targeting hookers (rather than their clients) for primary legal sanction makes sense. The main impact of the current policy is, it seems to me, to make it easy for cops to rape prostitutes but hard for prostitutes to get out of bad situations.

Comments

To the second paragraph: Yes, yes, yes. I didn't realize this was the case until a couple days ago, and I can't understand why it still is the case. It makes *no* sense to target the victims. If there's a crime here, it's exploitation -- and it's the johns who are perpetrating it.

The problem would appear to be that there's no pressure group with an interest in getting this changed.

Posted by Ted | March 14, 2008 9:02 AM

You might want to check out Brad Plumer on this.

Posted by Christmas | March 14, 2008 9:03 AM

The cops are raping the prostitutes? Huh? Is that metaphorical or is there a rash of prostitute-raping cops out there? Strange sentence at the very least.

Posted by What? | March 14, 2008 9:07 AM

A properly-regulated professional service that is ubiquitous and minimizes opportunity for organized crime eliminates "the Netherlands Effect".

However until something is legalized everyone is in fact a criminal. Including the ones who are offering the criminal act.

Giving a pass to one half of the criminal act is simply taking the easy way out, avoiding the issue that it is the lack of effective legal oversight that creates the environment of abuses.

Posted by Observer | March 14, 2008 9:16 AM

It's more correct, I think, to say that in Nevada it's not _prostitution_ that's legal (in some counties) but rather _pimping_ since in no county in NV can you work as a "free agent", rather, one can get a permit to run a brothel. It hardly seems like a good model to me. Apparently it has also increased the amount of trafficing as well. I know that the whole point of blogs is just to spew out whatever comes in to your head, but I do think it would be good for your reputation to do at least a minimal amount of research before you spew. "Here are some poorly digested thoughts" really isn't a very edifying mode of discourse.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | March 14, 2008 9:20 AM

What? must be living a very sheltered life. You think cops getting coerced "freebies" (rape would be a more apt adjective) from prostitutes is rare? BJs in a patrol car are more frequent than donut stops in some precincts.

Posted by steve duncan | March 14, 2008 9:20 AM

But isn't this in line with how other vices are prosectued? Drug dealers are targeted while users are sent to treatement facilities? I'm not saying it's the correct way to deal with prostitution, but it is consistent with how other vices are dealt with.

Posted by Kurzbein | March 14, 2008 9:20 AM

nobody....seems to think the actual status quo policy of targeting hookers (rather than their clients) for primary legal sanction makes sense.

Well, it makes sense in the same way that targeting doctors who perform abortions, or dealers who sell drugs, or undocumented workers, or bootleggers, makes sense. The basic assumption is that it's "morally correct" for society to punish the provider of a supposed "moral wrong" in the hopes that consumers of said "wrongness" will be deterred from engaging in it.

In practice, however, this kind of approach never seems to work very well.

Posted by James Gary | March 14, 2008 9:21 AM

What? -- from the Brad Plumer link posted by Christmas:

One recent study by Steven Levitt and Sudhir Venkatesh found that many police officers rape prostitutes on a fairly regular basis, holding the threat of arrest over their heads (as do gang members offering "protection").

(Fair warning: I don't know anything about Levitt and Venkatesh's methodology, and some doubt their study of Chicago drug gangs.)

Posted by Matt Weiner | March 14, 2008 9:29 AM

Anti-prostitution feminists in the US, in a strange coalition with religious conservatives, have vastly oversold the merits of the Swedish approach, which Swedish sex workers themselves find onerous. If the objective is to increase the welfare of prostitutes, an approach that's designed to reduce their income, that has the effect of driving them underground, & that has a number of repressive measures attached, is a puzzling way to proceed.

Posted by H | March 14, 2008 9:40 AM

Matt W., I would be terrifically surprised if it didn't happen-- think of the corruption and bribery that happens as a result of the drug trade. A quick blowjob, in contrast, is much easier to hide. Not to say that all cops, or even most cops, would do it, but when you give someone power over their freedom, there's always a temptation to abuse it, and prostitutes aren't in a position to get a badge number and file a complaint.

Posted by Persia | March 14, 2008 9:43 AM

It's pretty hard to have an intelligent discussion of alternative policies without saying something about goals. Precisely what are the social ends that regulation in this area is supposed to serve?

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 14, 2008 9:46 AM

""Here are some poorly digested thoughts" really isn't a very edifying mode of discourse.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | March 14, 2008 9:20 AM"

It's actually one of the things I like about blogs, as long as the blogger admits they are just putting out ideas without knowing enough to test them. One of the problems I've found with academia and think tanks is that to advance one's career, you have to get certain theories attached to your name. However, once that idea is out there, if the theory gets universally panned as stupid, your reputation suffers even if overall you are smarter than your critics and just had one bad idea. I would guess this leads to fewer educated people in a public forum to throw out ideas about things they aren't an expert in (and may thus come to the issue with fresh eyes). In a blog, you can throw out "what if we did x," a blogger with expertise in that area can go "Ghana tried that and it did / didn't work" all the while one's reputation doesn't suffer that much for throwing out the idea.

I'm guessing the current arrangement, which punishes prostitutes but benefits johns, rapist cops and pimps, is little more of a way to punish lower-class women while rewarding the men who take advantage of them, all the while allowing rich johns to maintain their reputation as long as discretion is practiced. I wonder if race plays a part, but I don't know if there is a way to get a racial breakdown of prostitutes, pimps, johns, etc. in the US.

Posted by Reality Man | March 14, 2008 9:49 AM

"What? must be living a very sheltered life. You think cops getting coerced "freebies" (rape would be a more apt adjective) from prostitutes is rare? BJs in a patrol car are more frequent than donut stops in some precincts."

Is this "rape" though? Cops are often given free coffee too; is that "theft"?

Posted by Fred | March 14, 2008 9:50 AM

Dear 'What?',
Not metaphorical in the slightest. Studies have found that, like other people who are in violation of the law, and in particular people whose crime can in the instance be overlooked, prostitutes often find themselves at the mercy of the police. The police often abuse the situation to extract money and 'professional services'. Sex under duress is rape.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 14, 2008 9:50 AM

Fred, I'd like to think that we could hold you to a higher standard of trollishness. Since I assume that you are smarter than your comment would suggest, I would ask you to have a bit more self-respect. Surely you can see the difference?

Posted by Warren Terra | March 14, 2008 9:54 AM

Meanwhile, it's striking to me reading various takes on this that absolutely nobody -- including The Atlantic's resident moralizing social conservative -- seems to think the actual status quo policy of targeting hookers (rather than their clients) for primary legal sanction makes sense.

I dunno about that. There certainly has been one high profile person who thought that targeting clients, rather than hookers, made sense.

That person was... Eliot Spitzer.

Just last year, he pushed a law through the NY legislature that included social help for the prostitutes, but increased the penalties on their clients from a maximum of 3 months to a maximum of a year. So Spitzer, for one, certainly seemed to think that law enforcement ought to be harder on clients and less hard on the prostitutes.

Posted by Al | March 14, 2008 9:55 AM

A couple of days ago on CNN Alan Dershowitz was saying he was perfectly OK to prosecute prostitutes but not johns, likening it to prosecuting drug dealers but not users. He was also, rightly, being called an ass for it. The problem with this line of thought it that it forgets or distorts the notion of victimhood. Not to say that prostitutes are all necessarily victims, but the parallel to dealers and users just doesn't work.

It's not exactly unbiased, but if you're interested in how a Nevada brothel works, you can watch HBO's "Cathouse: The Series." It's also worth noting that prostitution is illegal in Clark County (Las Vegas), Washoe County (Reno), and Carson City.

Posted by Adam Villani | March 14, 2008 9:55 AM

"Is this "rape" though? Cops are often given free coffee too; is that "theft"?

Posted by Fred | March 14, 2008 9:50 AM"

A lot of the time it's done under the arrangement of "I fuck you or I arrest you." That's coercion, not consent, and therefore a form of rape.

"It's pretty hard to have an intelligent discussion of alternative policies without saying something about goals. Precisely what are the social ends that regulation in this area is supposed to serve?

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 14, 2008 9:46 AM"

I'm guessing we're all aiming at something that would protect the prostitutes: allowing them to work in a way that makes sure they aren't forced into the trade by pimps, can go to the police if they need to, have rights, can ensure they get paid, can ensure protection from STD's, can have a way to get out if they so choose, etc., pretty much something that ends with fewer prostitutes being raped, beaten, murdered or forced into the trade.

Posted by Reality Man | March 14, 2008 9:55 AM

Fred, are the police officers threatening to arrest the convenience store employee if he/her doesn't give them free coffee?

Holding the threat of arrest over someone's head for sexual purposes is most certainly rape.

Posted by Rusty | March 14, 2008 10:02 AM

Most sex under duress certainly qualifies as rape, but when sex is being sold as a service, the nature of the sex act changes as does the nature of the coersion. Cops getting free blowjobs from prostitutes in exchange for not arresting them seems to me to be more akin to bribery than rape. Cops getting free blowjobs from prostitutes in exchange for not beating the hell out of them would be much closer to rape.

Posted by dry_fish | March 14, 2008 10:08 AM

"A lot of the time it's done under the arrangement of "I fuck you or I arrest you." That's coercion, not consent, and therefore a form of rape.

If it happens under such coercion, then yes, it would be rape. But I wouldn't assume there is coercion without evidence of it. It's equally possible that in many (or most) cases, prostitutes perform favors for cops for the same reason coffee shop owners give them free coffee: in the hopes that the cops will pay extra attention to their safety.

Posted by Fred | March 14, 2008 10:11 AM

"Fred, are the police officers threatening to arrest the convenience store employee if he/her doesn't give them free coffee?"

Having represented a number of cops, I think the deal is: If I get free food, not only will criminals see my squad car parked outside when I'm here, but I'll make an extra effort to cruise your parking lot a couple of times as I make my patrol, thus providing a deterrent effect

Posted by Jose Padilla | March 14, 2008 10:14 AM

Good lord.

Most sex under duress certainly qualifies as rape, but when sex is being sold as a service, the nature of the sex act changes as does the nature of the coersion.

The prostitue (assuming she's not working for a pimp/in a brothel/for a service, in which case kick it up a level of decision making and the point still holds) maintains, like any other person out there providing a good or service, the right to refuse a customer. We have a word for what happens when a person is coerced into having sex she otherwise would not choose to have. That the coercion is not (the threat of) immediate physical violence but rather imprisonment doesn't change that; threatening to lock someone away in a cell is still a form of force.

Posted by Quarterican | March 14, 2008 10:15 AM

Are you people kidding me? Drug dealers punished but not users? Have you ever heard of 'possession of a controlled substance'?

Users are punished all the time.

Posted by tamalecoma | March 14, 2008 10:16 AM

Well, dry_fish and Fred, it's great that you have your opinions (you do remember what opinions are like, becasue everyone has one, don't you?). But, as Matt Weiner linked to above, this isn't really about opinions. It's about research. Apparently, this often isn't about prostitutes ingratiating themselves to Officer Friendly with a freebie; it really is about extortion.

Also, while I will admit to not having experienced it myself, I am informed that even a civilized and peaceful passage into and through the criminal justice system - which benign treatment they are by no means guaranteed - is no picnic.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 14, 2008 10:17 AM

Is this "rape" though? Cops are often given free coffee too; is that "theft"?

This from the people who screamed that Bill Clinton's free, non-coerced, not under threat of arrest or firing affair with the perfectly consenting adult Monica Lewinsky was the most horridest abuse of Presidential power & authority over a helpless and vulnerable intern since the Earth's surface cooled down from a molten state.

Posted by El Cid | March 14, 2008 10:27 AM

Also, as "Jose Padilla" points out above, convenience stores and delis give freebies to cops because they want the cops hanging out and swinging by in the middle of the night. I'd imagine the prostitutes are not similarly seeking that the cops hang out with them and check up on them throughout the night. Not a great parallel, even if invoking it didn't ignore the evidence of coercion.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 14, 2008 10:31 AM

I'm guessing we're all aiming at something that would protect the prostitutes: allowing them to work in a way that makes sure they aren't forced into the trade by pimps, can go to the police if they need to, have rights, can ensure they get paid, can ensure protection from STD's, can have a way to get out if they so choose, etc., pretty much something that ends with fewer prostitutes being raped, beaten, murdered or forced into the trade.

Posted by Reality Man | March 14, 2008 9:55 AM

Right. Prostitution is going to happen no matter what, so we may as well make it as healthy a situation for the practitioners as possible.

Posted by Kurzbein | March 14, 2008 10:32 AM

Well Fred and others who don't think threatening a prostitute with jail time is enough of a threat to rise to the level of coercion probably have the same outlook as many people in this country ( i.e. hookers ain't people like you and me ) so whatever rules that apply to you and me can be stretched in dealing with women who "sell" their bodies. This is something akin to thinking that married women cannot be raped by their husbands ( I do not argue the Fred etc. believe that at all by the way ).

Posted by blank_stare | March 14, 2008 10:33 AM

"But, as Matt Weiner linked to above, this isn't really about opinions. It's about research."

It's your opinion (you do remember what opinions are like, because everyone has one, don't you?) that this particular study is valid. It's not as if Steven Levitt's methodology has never been called into question, and even Matt Weiner expresses his doubts in his comment above.

A higher standard of trollishness from you next time, please.

Posted by Fred | March 14, 2008 10:34 AM

It always amazes me that this is a tough question. If I wrote the SATs you guys would so not be in college.

People want sex, so somebody wants to control how you can get sex, because if they can do that, they can control you. Everything that follows is pretty much "Well, what are the details in the specific case?" Normally, people collude in the control mechanisms- wives work with the Church and the mob bosses to control their husbands, for example. (In case this is not clear, mob bosses usually support the church so their product will remain black market, i.e., free from legitimate competition.)

Naturally, there is a corollary, that people with money or power are free from the constraints on the average person. (Insert your own examples here.)

This in turn leads to another corollary or conclusion- enforcement of laws about sex is almost always based on class, and function as a sort of morality play to keep the easily cowed in line. This is where those of us with low sex drives clap and cheer because hey!, we're better than somebody. That's a feeling most people want more than almost anything else, so if you can get on the selling side of that equation, you pretty much don't need to toil for a living any more.

As for how you help women and make sure they're not coerced, the answer is simple- if a woman wants food, shelter, health care, education, or spending money, give it to her. If that were done, only people who wanted to be prostitutes would be, and we could stop the costly enforcement efforts, probably saving enough money to pay for the welfare program.

It always surprises me that people who think they are interested in philosophy and economics never seem to dip more than a toe in this particular pool.

Posted by serial catowner | March 14, 2008 10:36 AM

Hey Matt. Maybe you can get the Atlantic to pay for a little research trip to Nevada.

Posted by Grogor | March 14, 2008 10:37 AM

I'd imagine the prostitutes are not similarly seeking that the cops hang out with them and check up on them throughout the night. Not a great parallel, even if invoking it didn't ignore the evidence of coercion.

In fact, they sometimes might be doing just this in some cases. Or their agency might be arranging for this kind of protection. Of course, it's illegal for the police to offer this protection of an illegal activity in exchange for sexual or financial favors. It would be much better if they were required to swing by as part of their actual jobs.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 14, 2008 10:38 AM

"I'd imagine the prostitutes are not similarly seeking that the cops hang out with them and check up on them throughout the night."

Right, because, unlike convenience store proprietors, prostitutes aren't in danger of getting robbed, beaten, or killed in the middle of the night. Maybe next time you ought to think for a moment before you start typing.

Posted by Fred | March 14, 2008 10:41 AM

Fred writes:

It's your opinion (you do remember what opinions are like, because everyone has one, don't you?) that this particular study is valid.

And it's your opinion that this particular study is not valid. And it's my opinion that your opinon is wrong. And it's your opinion that my opinion is wrong. Whee! Good stuff.

Posted by Barbar | March 14, 2008 10:45 AM

"As for how you help women and make sure they're not coerced, the answer is simple- if a woman wants food, shelter, health care, education, or spending money, give it to her."

What if she wants a $3500 per month luxury apartment in Chelsea, like Spitzer's call girl? Would you give that to her under your welfare program? What about ugly women who are no threat to become prostitutes -- would they be eligible as well?

Posted by Juan | March 14, 2008 10:49 AM

"Is this "rape" though? Cops are often given free coffee too; is that "theft"?

God you're sick.

Posted by Mark | March 14, 2008 10:49 AM

"And it's your opinion that this particular study is not valid."

I never said it wasn't valid, Barbar. I just raised the possibility that it might not be. But you are right that whatever any of us says about the merits of a particularly study is our opinion; that is precisely the point I was attempting to make to Warren Terra.

Posted by Fred | March 14, 2008 10:54 AM

But you are right that whatever any of us says about the merits of a particularly study is our opinion; that is precisely the point I was attempting to make to Warren Terra.

That's just your opinion, Fred. I see no reason to give it any credence.

Posted by Barbar | March 14, 2008 10:59 AM

It's interesting Fred that you're skeptical of an academic study that been put up for review but absolutely certain that Gov. Paterson bombed his LSATs. That's really interesting.

Posted by Mark | March 14, 2008 11:11 AM

Serial catowner,

I thought your post was spot on until I stumbled over your utopian solution:
As for how you help women and make sure they're not coerced, the answer is simple- if a woman wants food, shelter, health care, education, or spending money, give it to her. If that were done, only people who wanted to be prostitutes would be, and we could stop the costly enforcement efforts, probably saving enough money to pay for the welfare program.

Even if we were to bring to a screeching halt tomorrow the law enforcement resources spent/wasted on enforcing prostitution laws, that scarcely seems like enough to cover the food, shelter, health care, education and . . . spending money (you get bonus points for factoring in that piece of realism) of all people who become prostitutes (why only cover women?). Heck, let's throw in the much bigger savings if we were to shut down the black hole that is the "war on drugs" -- I suspect that even the billions saved there still wouldn't be enough to cover your welfare net. This is especially true if we factor in providng such benefits to all people in need, not just prostitutes. And of course, even if we could somehow balance the books (and not be faced with Federal deficits and debt as far as the eye can see) that doesn't even begin to address the feasibility of such a program in the political and cultural context of the US.

Posted by Bragan | March 14, 2008 11:18 AM

"It's interesting Fred that you're skeptical of an academic study that been put up for review but absolutely certain that Gov. Paterson bombed his LSATs. That's really interesting."

"Absolutely certain" is putting it too strongly, but I have yet to hear a more likely explanation for why someone would go from an Ivy League undergrad institution to a third-tier law school.

Posted by Fred | March 14, 2008 11:23 AM

Ha ha, "ugly women who are no threat to become prostitutes". Let's all give it up to Juan for really being a guy who has never cruised the street.

Juan, that's exactly the point- women who want $3500 apartments would be free to prostitute themselves to get that. Society could rest easy knowing that nobody was selling their body to get a basic roof over their head.

With covert trade it's not always easy to figure out who the outliers are, but in this case it's real easy to figure out what the goal is- remove need as a force that drives powerless women to sell their bodies. Most of the women selling sex on the street are doing so because they can't figure out some other way to get by. Some of the women selling sex are doing so out of choice, and it should be a choice they're allowed to make.

Y'know, "A woman's body is her own" etc etc

Posted by serial catowner | March 14, 2008 11:26 AM

"a more likely"

You see, that's an improvement over "most logical" [sic] but still baseless. Again, it's interesting
that an academic study concerned with known facts warrants greater skepticism than conjecture based on two data points (three actually: Paterson's black).

"Agnew's beginnings were not much--forty undistinguished years...Agnew's father was a hardworking immigrant, a restaurateur in Boston, Schenectady, New York, Baltimor. Early in the Depression he lost his Baltimor place, but started it again, and scraped up enough money to put his son in Baltimore's most expensive school, the John Hopkins University. The Hopkins is in the city but not of it. Those with local ambitions, wanting old-school ties in the grappling chumminess of city politics, did better to attend provincial Loyola College and the University of Maryland's law school."

--Garry Wills, Nixon Agonistes

Agnew dropped out of JH.

Posted by Mark | March 14, 2008 11:40 AM

On the legalize it hand, prostitution's obviously not going anywhere and all of the con's of legal prostitution I can think of exist for illegal, plus a lot more.

On the other hand, if there's a safe and clean and legal and taxed and regulated prostitution market, there'll probably still be an illegal racket for people who want it unclean, untaxed or unregulated.

Posted by aleks | March 14, 2008 11:44 AM

It's also worth noting that prostitution is illegal in Clark County (Las Vegas), Washoe County (Reno), and Carson City.

Which is to say, prostitution is legal in Nevada everywhere except where there are people. (Acknowledgment to Finley Peter Dunne.)

From what I know about Las Vegas (about the last place on earth I want to visit), I suspect that prostitution is (1) exceptionally common there and (2) important to the health of the region's dominant industry. Why those in power choose to keep it illegal is an interesting question.

Posted by roac | March 14, 2008 11:56 AM

Bragan tangentially hits the crux of the matter. What is coming at us with way more than the force of a locomotive is global warming. Definitely one of those "Everything you thought you knew was wrong" moments. A problem that definitely won't be solved by our drug policies, which have already left us with higher rates of drug use than countries which legalize. The $40 billion we spend each year on the drug wars could build eight 100-mile transit systems each year in America, and that's the kind of thing we need to be doing.

90% of the hookers are people who in some way were robbed. There's nothing natural about people being dirt poor in a country that spends $450 billion on weapons every year. The economics which say there is something natural about this are simply outmoded and wrong.

And all of those hookers who were robbed are also vastly underperforming economic units. It wasn't some clever economy that robbed them, some shrewd form of thrift that pays off in the long run by minimizing "moral hazard" or some other sophistry. It was just robbery, someone figuring out how to take something from society and leave society holding the bag.

Well, guess what, the people who did the taking aren't going to come back now and say "Well, I can see we're facing a real crisis so I'm going to give back what I took". They are so outa here, and the problem is for us to solve.

You won't be providing that housing, education, and spending money forever- most people want to be doing something, and most of the women you helped would be working and paying taxes pretty soon. This, in fact, is why we rehabilitate people with physical problems- most people want to do something, and society makes money in the long run if you make it possible for them to do that.

Look at WW II. The problem wasn't getting women to work in the factories, the problem came after the war trying to get them out of the factories, because the economics the rich people could agree on didn't think the economy could support full employment. Well, it's time to discard rich people economics and find some that allow people to learn a trade and work at a job.

An almost insurmountable task for America as we have known it.

Posted by serial catowner | March 14, 2008 11:57 AM

Quarterican & Warren Terra:

I'm simply trying to do two things: (1)to understand if and how society's source of outrage at sex coerced from a prostitute might be different from it's source of outrage at sex coerced from, say, a teenager on a date or jogger running through a public park; and (2) to respect prostitutes as self-controlling agents using sex as a vehicle for empowerment, not fundamentally different from any other entrepreneur. I take this last view only because I've known some prostitutes (socially, platonically) and they saw themselves as somewhat empowered and not as victims.

Semantically, I fully accept the statement that "forced sex"=rape, and I apologize for seeming to minimize or obscure that. I do think that our horror at more classic forms of rape (date rape, being attacked by a stranger) tends to arise from our sense that sex is being used as a mask for what is really an act of violence. Obviously, normally we see sex as an act of affection, and so to draw some line of moral distinction and to prevent thugs from using as an excuse the technicality of sex to obscure the truth of the violence surrounding and central to it.

In the highly-particular case of a prostitute being forced into sex by a police officer to avoid arrest, yes, it is rape. However, it is also different. If a police officer is just threatening to wantonly arrest a prostitute without proof, then he's in the same category as the overpowering boyfriend, the thug in the dark alley, or the jerk boss lusting after his secretary. A police officer who has has proof is like any other police officer with cause to arrest anyone for anything: making the arrest is exactly what he should be doing. The officer even has a public endorsement to use violence, if necessary (clearly an important qualification), to make the arrest happen. So, the just and legitimate act would be for the police officer to arrest the prostitute. If a police officer barters with a prostitute "not being arrested" for that prostitute's sex, it's a negotiation between two people who in that specific context are empowered: one person with a governmental service (non-arrest) to offer and the other with a commercial service. And, forgetting the power relationship momentarily, it's ultimately about what happens when the person being asked for sex says "no": in the case of the cop and the prostitute, the prostitute simply is arrested, a completely legitimate act (assuming standards of proof are met), while in the case of the back-alley thug or the boyfriend, if the victim says "no" she is subject to fundamentally under-all-circumstances illegitimate violence.

So, I'm saying that it is not immediately apparent to me that we should be equating a police officer's threat of arrest of someone known to be committing a crime with the threat of violence implicit in more classic occurrences of rape. That said, it still qualifies as rape. What's the difference? If I'm on a jury, the difference is the difference between a 3-year sentence and a 15-year sentence.

Posted by dry_fish | March 14, 2008 12:02 PM

@ roac, "Why those in power choose to keep it illegal is an interesting question."

The reason is that the Las Vegas economy has changed significantly. It's tried to become more family-and-show oriented in addition to the gambling. Parents take their kids there. So making prostitution illegal is a way to reassure that the City of Sin is not that sinful.

Posted by guyminuslife | March 14, 2008 12:16 PM

Mark,

David Patterson got his start in politics working for David Dinkins when Dinkins was Manhattan borough president. He then went on to represent parts of Upper Manhattan in the state senate. Do you really want to argue that Patterson could have gotten into a tier-1 law school in Manhattan but chose Hofstra University, out in Hempstead, Long Island, because it would give him an edge in Manhattan politics?

Posted by Fred | March 14, 2008 12:20 PM

It is an outrage that the soon-to-be Governor of New York only went to Hofstra law school. How dare he?

Posted by El Cid | March 14, 2008 12:26 PM

I'd imagine the prostitutes are not similarly seeking that the cops hang out with them and check up on them throughout the night."

Right, because, unlike convenience store proprietors, prostitutes aren't in danger of getting robbed, beaten, or killed in the middle of the night. Maybe next time you ought to think for a moment before you start typing.

Oh, please. The difference between the prostitute and the convenience store is that the convenience store's customers won't make make themselves scarce if they see a police car in the parking lot.

Posted by roac | March 14, 2008 12:31 PM

1) Who says society doesn't go after johns?

That's a rhetorical question. The answer is the kind of American feminists whose ignorant comments are being cited.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE3D61E3BF930A15755C0A9639C8B63&fta=y

And that's just an extreme example. There are constant busts with police arresting johns.

There seems to be a real difference in tiers, with streetwalkers and their usually poorer (Hugh Grant excepted) clients getting the worst of it while the upper-end guys and gals and services (organized crime related or not) are spared. This might not be entirely outrageous. Spitzer and his MySpace singer in a ritzy hotel room doesn't really hurt others. But poor and working-class neighborhoods don't like dealing with hookers on the street, johns cruising by and discarded condoms in the morning. Then there's the whole "broken windows" aspect of having almost-naked women on the street plying their trade.

Of course in New York City Giuliani got rid of moany of the hookers on the street while allowing prostitution to continue indoors out of the way of the public. This might not be unreasonable in some regards. But it fails in others -- the issue of "sex trafficking" with women from other countries being the great possible horror.

2) If prostitution is legalized the incentive will be for many "boyfriends" to push their women into it. In an economically disadvantaged area where guys and gals are just hanging out starting to develop drug problems . . . oh, once prostitution is legal a lot more guys are going to push their "girlfriends" into it. A lot more. This would've been the case even before popular culture began to glorify MackDaddy pimps in music.

Right now in much of the country the job for poorly educated young women is stripper. Especially single moms in the heartland. And the requirements for youth and looks aren't needed for prostitution.

I personally would probably favor legalization, but it would be nice to see this in a context of better jobs. Much, much better jobs -- for the less skilled, educated or able.

Still, it's hard not too see how some women (less intelligent or poorly educated or fleeing their abusive childhood homes or on drugs or . . . etc., etc.) aren't going to end up exploited. And there are a lot of these women. Much more than libertarians or even, oddly enough, many feminists want to admit. Better just to guilt upper-middle-class men with rants about the patriarchy. That or fall back on a "Go after the men! Go after the men!" mantra.

I suspect there is no good answer.

3) A group that greatly benefits (however inadvertently) from prostitution being both criminalized and stigmatized (they don't always go together: marijuana is the first but not the second, buying porn in the second but not the first) is middle-class women. Single women especially. If guys could just go get sex for a nominal price it would change a lot of dynamics.

Many old school American feminists would rather see Mike Huckabee elected president than confont the biological and sociological aspects of this rudimentary fact. (Ditto the intelligent, yuppie, liberal women who write the 'XX Factor' on Slate.)

A vulgar thought but one with a great deal of validity.

4) Finally . . . Reality Man, I get a big kick out of your posts. You're a bit of an asskisser and not too bright but you always deliver your ignorant pronouncements with a great Harumph! that's rather endearing. Keep it up.

Posted by James Worthy (see 1990 Lakers & bust in Houston) | March 14, 2008 1:06 PM

1) Who says society doesn't go after johns?

That's a rhetorical question. The answer is the kind of American feminists whose ignorant comments are being cited.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE3D61E3BF930A15755C0A9639C8B63&fta=y

And that's just an extreme example. There are constant busts with police arresting johns.

There seems to be a real difference in tiers, with streetwalkers and their usually poorer (Hugh Grant excepted) clients getting the worst of it while the upper-end guys and gals and services (organized crime related or not) are spared. This might not be entirely outrageous. Spitzer and his MySpace singer in a ritzy hotel room doesn't really hurt others. But poor and working-class neighborhoods don't like dealing with hookers on the street, johns cruising by and discarded condoms in the morning. Then there's the whole "broken windows" aspect of having almost-naked women on the street plying their trade.

Of course in New York City Giuliani got rid of moany of the hookers on the street while allowing prostitution to continue indoors out of the way of the public. This might not be unreasonable in some regards. But it fails in others -- the issue of "sex trafficking" with women from other countries being the great possible horror.

2) If prostitution is legalized the incentive will be for many "boyfriends" to push their women into it. In an economically disadvantaged area where guys and gals are just hanging out starting to develop drug problems . . . oh, once prostitution is legal a lot more guys are going to push their "girlfriends" into it. A lot more. This would've been the case even before popular culture began to glorify MackDaddy pimps in music.

Right now in much of the country the job for poorly educated young women is stripper. Especially single moms in the heartland. And the requirements for youth and looks aren't needed for prostitution.

I personally would probably favor legalization, but it would be nice to see this in a context of better jobs. Much, much better jobs -- for the less skilled, educated or able.

Still, it's hard not too see how some women (less intelligent or poorly educated or fleeing their abusive childhood homes or on drugs or . . . etc., etc.) aren't going to end up exploited. And there are a lot of these women. Much more than libertarians or even, oddly enough, many feminists want to admit. Better just to guilt upper-middle-class men with rants about the patriarchy. That or fall back on a "Go after the men! Go after the men!" mantra.

I suspect there is no good answer.

3) A group that greatly benefits (however inadvertently) from prostitution being both criminalized and stigmatized (they don't always go together: marijuana is the first but not the second, buying porn in the second but not the first) is middle-class women. Single women especially. If guys could just go get sex for a nominal price it would change a lot of dynamics.

Many old school American feminists would rather see Mike Huckabee elected president than confont the biological and sociological aspects of this rudimentary fact. (Ditto the intelligent, yuppie, liberal women who write the 'XX Factor' on Slate.)

A vulgar thought but one with a great deal of validity.

4) Finally . . . Reality Man, I get a big kick out of your posts. You're a bit of an asskisser and not too bright but you always deliver your ignorant pronouncements with a great Harumph! that's rather endearing. Keep it up.

Posted by James Worthy (see 1990 Lakers & bust in Houston) | March 14, 2008 1:09 PM

"Is this "rape" though? Cops are often given free coffee too; is that "theft"?"

This from the people who screamed that Bill Clinton's free, non-coerced, not under threat of arrest or firing affair with the perfectly consenting adult Monica Lewinsky was the most horridest abuse of Presidential power & authority over a helpless and vulnerable intern since the Earth's surface cooled down from a molten state.

Posted by El Cid | March 14, 2008 10:27 AM

Conservatism is a sorry thing. It's a set of prejudices backed up by force.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | March 14, 2008 1:10 PM

Fred do you really want to argue that the Harlem political machine contains more Ivy league law graduates than second and third tier (and again, calling Hofstra third-tier, which is a crucial category for you, based on latter day USNEWs surveys is anachronistic)? Are you aware of the issues Barack Obama had establishing his credibility among inner-city Chicago blacks?

You see Fred, I'm not suggesting that local political ambitions are the "most likely" explanation for why Paterson went to Hofstra. I'm only noting its plausibility. Undeniably it's no less plausible an explanation the notion that he bombed his LSATs, which in turn is no less plausible than the idea that he did decently on his LSATs and "bombed" his coursework,which in turn is as plausible as the idea that he did merely average all around. We don't know the circumstances of his life, his financial situation, his values, his IQ, his youthful inclinations, the impact of his blindness, so to point to one explanation as "most likely" given all that we don't know, is extraordinarliy immature.

And the fact that any moderately educated person understands that leads me to believe that you barely understand yourself. That is to say, you genuinely don't know why it is that you cling to the idea of poor LSAT scores rather than poor grades, that your so blind to your own committment to black inferiority that you fail to see why poor LSAT scores (suggesting low intelligence) has infinitely more resonance with you than the complicated picture of poor grades. It's really interesting: like alot of "racialists" you adopt a kind of dispassionate deductive style, signaling scientific disinterest in the face of emotional outburts. But as this epistmological fiasco indicates, you're as badly biased as the rest of us. Only we know it, while it seems you're quite embarrasingly unaware.

And that's all the time I'm going to waste on this.

Posted by Mark | March 14, 2008 1:12 PM

I don't know anything about it either, but it would appear to me that neither Nevada nor Netherlands are a good model, but not for the obvious reason. Both of these places are known for prostitution, and thus attract a fair number of "sex tourists". So any problem resulting from legal prostitution in either locale will be much more severe than if the United States pursued the same path, for the simple reason that one wouldn't end up with something like 500% of local demand. In other words, there's a sex shop on every corner in the red light district of Amsterdam not to cater to the demand of local Dutch men, but to cater to the demand of tens of thousands of visiting American and European Johns.

Posted by TH | March 14, 2008 1:26 PM

Kristof's column evokes the horrific image of pubescent girls being raped. Twice actually.

The idea that regulated, legalized prostitution in the U.S. would lead to children being sold, raped and enslaved is beyond dubious.

I, too, have no idea what the answer is, but the logic behind the Iraq War was a model of reason compared to Kristof's thinking as regards the situation in America.

Matt should take it a step forward and recognize specious reasoning (no matter how obscene the imagery it conjures up) even when a normally solid writer dishes it out for the NY Times readership.

Posted by Eric | March 14, 2008 1:49 PM

Kristof's column evokes the horrific image of pubescent girls being raped. Twice actually.

The idea that regulated, legalized prostitution in the U.S. would lead to children being sold, raped and enslaved is beyond dubious.

I, too, have no idea what the answer is, but the logic behind the Iraq War was a model of reason compared to Kristof's thinking as regards the situation in America.

Matt should take it a step furhter and recognize specious reasoning (no matter how obscene the imagery it conjures up) even when a normally solid writer dishes it out for the NY Times readership.

Posted by Eric | March 14, 2008 1:52 PM

For some guide of the effects of legalized/regulated prostitution in the U.S. look no farther than the Adult Video Industry a.k.a porn -- it is sex for pay, after all. Producing it is legal (certainly in California), it is regulated (federal record keeping/date of birth verification rules § 2257, California shooting permit requirements, OSHA, etc.) and self regulated (AIM testing for HIV/STD for all performers).

One can look at the results: there is no evidence of trafficking, HIV rates are below those of the public at large and underage performers are so rare that they are likely to become famous because of it (see: Traci Lords).

Clearly it is not a recommended occupation -- for every Vivid contract girl there are a thousand women who stay in the industry a few months or a few years and leave with little to show for it besides the pictures and videos that will live on the Internet forever. But the dire predictions that get made about legalized prostitution (trafficking, etc.) clearly have not come to pass.

BTW, James Worthy excellent post--but: do you have any evidence of a measurable effect of legalized prostitution on the middle class women in Germany or The Netherlands? I have a feeling that once the novelty wears off, most men return to their wives or girlfriends and leave the prostitutes to the tourists.

Posted by Ted T. | March 14, 2008 4:06 PM

"Prostitution is going to happen no matter what, so we may as well make it as healthy a situation for the practitioners as possible." Posted by Kurzbein

RealityMan and Kurzbein are the only two posters to blogs that I have read since Elliot Spitzer took the fall that even mention STDs. And they only mention them in the context of the "practitioners." All these people arguing that prostitution is a "victimless" crime totally ignore the transmission of STDs to their other sex partners, in many cases their unsuspecting wives. Jeez, if getting AIDS or syphilis or human papilloma virus from your husband who has been doing prostitutes doesn't make a wife a victim, what does please? You know, dying from AIDS or cervical cancer is a real possibility for wives or girlfriends or other prostitutes for that matter, from people like Client 9 who apparently asked for “things that, like, you might not think were safe”, which I think we can all assume means sex without condoms. Prostitution is decidedly NOT victimless until all people doing it take maximal precautions to protect themselves and everybody they contact from passing on STDs. And if you want my opinion, it hate gonna happen.

Posted by omar | March 14, 2008 8:14 PM