| WORLD'S OLDEST PROFESSION |
| Prostitution or Politics, many of the comments are the same? |
| The question at hand is whether or not to make it legal? During November, 2003, in Phoenix, a round up of prostitution netted a number of prominent members of the community. One of the things I found to be funny was the way that the captives, when photographed by the press, covered their heads. Do these people actually believe that no one will recognize them? Their names were printed in the newspaper, talk about wasting the 15 minutes of fame. The Arizona Republic in the following Sunday edition decided to run editorials on the pros and cons of making prostitution legal. One of the first comments I heard was, "Why not, everything else has been made legal." Someone else said the benefits outweigh the negatives. Public health could be addressed, taxes could be collected, the criminal element could be eliminated, and the safety of the participants could be controlled. Consider the impact this change would have on the zoning commission. There are several questions that need to be addressed: 1) Exactly what is prostitution? 2) Is this a crime? 3) What can be considered acceptable versus the extremes that always seem to sprout? What is prostitution may be that hardest part of any discussion. If the definition is simply the performing of sexual intercourse for monetary compensation then, as simple as it sounds, the next definition must be monetary compensation and then, after that, what exactly is the definition of sexual intercourse. Using the simple approach of man gives woman (or woman gives man or man gives man or woman gives woman) money for intercourse, then the definitions become simple, however, there are a multitude of ways around these restrictions. What about the approach of man feeds woman, gives woman gifts, intercourse follows? In many mindsets, this is dating. Where is the line drawn between being given money and the concept of providing something of value? In the puritanical mindset, the sexual relations between a man and a woman were restricted to the covenant of marriage. Anything outside of marriage resulted in an improper relationship. Which brings us back to the basis of the law being Biblical in origin. This leads to the next question of crime. Is prostitution a crime? Prostitution is often regarded as a 'victimless crime'. Maybe the question of crime requires that society explain why this is a crime other than it says so on the books. If the victim in the crime is the moral fabric of the country then there are lots of other actions that require criminal classification. If the victim is the parties associated with the buyer of services, i.e. spouse, family, etc, then wouldn't this be more of a civil violation instead of crime? If the victim is the lack of social value created by the act and the associated exchange of value, then, once again, there are other actions that deserve criminal classification. If the victim is the seller of the service then there is a need to explain under what conditions the performance of personal services crosses the line from criminal to non-criminal. Is the intent of the services the issue? Many crimes can be reduced to a single common factor, the infliction of loss on another party. Look at the big ones - murder, rape, larceny, burglary, assault, extortion, fraud, etc. In each case, one party causes (either intentionally or unintentionally) another party to suffer a loss. So, back to the original question, is this a crime? Look at another 'crime' that is a direct reflection of puritanical mindset, public drunkenness. Unless the drunk is driving a car or bothering other people or being rowdy or being a nuisance, where is the crime? Just a side note, remember that Bill Clinton believed, per the Bible, that oral sex was not intercourse, it was more of a, what? Lastly, acceptable behavior versus extremes. In every scenario, there is always someone that wants to go beyond the norm, experience the extreme and where would the line be drawn between acceptable acts of prostitution and unacceptable acts of violence. Conclusion: The laws against prostitution are religious in origin. For everyone that has read the "Scarlet Letter", it is easy to see where the laws started. But the question is, are the laws really needed. Religious people believe that the concept is repugnant, but consider how many things are permitted in today's society that are religiously repugnant. Strictly religious people cringe at the latest fashion trends, not to speak of public alcoholism, public nudity, profanity, pornography, movies, violence, etc... A discussion of the separation of church and state is another discussion, however, do the religious desire the laws to protect or prevent? I believe that the religous are more seeking prevention measures (as much for themselves as others) instead of protection measures, i.e. if it is illegal then people won't do the stuff that we don't think they should do. I suppose the problem is that the behavior that is illegal isn't confined to the seedy neon lit sidewalks on the other side of the tracks. In all it's alternate names, prostitution occurs in the high-rise offices, highclass hotels and convention centers and the far reaching suburbs. The behavior will exist wherever there is a demand, perhaps not in the conditions that are best for society, but there nonetheless. |