There's been a lot of distressing talk in the comment threads here about the fact that paid sex between consenting adults should not be a crime in the first place, and that we should not care if our public policy makers indulge in such an activity in their private lives. This meme has extended throughout much of the liberal blogosphere, and has cast laws against prostitution stemming either from conservative moralizing crusaders or overzealous women's rights activists (see Slate's take or
Salon's take. "Liberals" who have an "enlightened" view of the personal freedom of adults argue vociferously that the state should keep out of acting against the personal moral decisions of individuals.
This is very, very wrong.
The argument that in industrialized countries, legalizing prostitution neither increases human trafficking while allowing the women who practice it to conduct their business in a safe way is inherently specious.
- Human trafficking is a true scourge that industrialized countries should be taking active measures to combat. This is a core human rights issue that we need clear moral standing in order to fight. The argument is often made in liberal circles that it is difficult for us to combat nuclear proliferation or attacks on civilians in international circles precisely because we have no moral standing. Legalizing prostitution would have the same effect, and regardless of the effects on human trafficking in our own country, we have to consider the effect it would have on women around the world if we could not fight for laws against prostitution in other countries.
- The argument that women in high-priced "escort services" are essentially more consensual is disgusting. It may be the case that they have competitive advantage over other sex workers because, as Spitzer's service so nicely points out, they are "well-educated and accomplished success in her own right." In other words, men of high social class will solicit sex from women of an appropriately similar social class (and by inference, race). Are these "liberals" seriously advocating for laws based on the social standing and upbringing of the women in question?
In short, the argument that legalizing prostitution between adults - or for a certain class of "responsible" adults does not belong in a progressive forum. It belongs in a libertarian one, where you don't care what effect your "personal freedoms" have on other people. It certainly should not be used to defend the actions of Eliot Spitzer.
Update: For the many people who cite Amsterdam as working out, I cite a
Dec 2007 Reuters article:
"While legalisation was supposed to turn prostitutes into self-employed taxpayers who did not need pimps for protection, the city said the industry is still dominated by criminals attracted by the 370 euros each woman can earn a day."
As a further update after reading many of the comments, I want to make clear that policies aimed at legalization for "harm reduction" are fine with me - reasonable people can make different decisions about what the consequences of any given policy are and whether it will help or hurt the citizens those policies target. What I don't appreciate is the sentiment that legalizing prostitution would be victimless and has its moral roots in complete personal freedom.