Legalize Oldest Profession

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

The language that abolitionists use in expressing their opposition to prostitution is, in many respects, very similar to the language used during the “white slavery” panic. Most significantly, abolitionists now, like anti-prostitution activists during “white slavery,” do not distinguish between two essentially different groups of people: those who are forced to, what can only be described as, slavery, and those who voluntarily choose a profession that is perceived deviant by some. There is no doubt that sexual slavery, like any other form of slavery, is ethically indefensible and John Stuart Mill’s harm principle clearly establishes its moral bankruptcy. However, since criminalizing prostitution deprives sex workers their liberty, there is room to review whether there is any ethical basis for this deprivation of liberty.

There are usually two different types of argument in opposition to legalizing prostitution. There are those who believe prostitution is simply unethical and against religious beliefs. They take an oppositional stance in regards to this decriminalization. The first and foremost response to this argument is that the deep sense of freedom of religion provided by the First Amendment means that a secular society should not simply put people’s version of “sin” into penal statutes unless, they fall under broadly accepted mala-in-se [1] offenses.

If the First Amendment is not reason enough (which apparently for some is not), there are many acts which are considered unethical and still, those who practice them are not held criminally liable. For example most people believe adultery is immoral, but those who cheat on their spouses don’t (or at least no longer) suffer legal consequences. The reason for this is while society considers infidelity immoral; it has decided it is a private matter that should not be interfered with by the government. Another interesting act that is considered unethical, yet legal in many states, is acting in pornographic movies. The natural question that is raised from comparing the legal status of prostitution and pornography in the U. S. is: while having sex for money in front of a camera is legal, why should it be illegal without a camera?

Another point raised against those who oppose legalizing prostitution on ethical bases is that everyone trades something about their body to make a living. Why should there bee any difference between a typist who uses his/her hand to make a living and a sex worker who uses his/her sexual organ to do so? Anti-prostitution activists argue that there is something unique and exceptional about sex and sexual organs; and that one’s sexual organs should be treated with more dignity. However, this argument can be used for other human qualities as well, such as mind and talent. People’s minds and thoughts are unique and in many respects exceptional. CEOs, lawyers, and other professionals use their talent every day in order to make a living and help others with their needs. Why should prostitution be any different?

There are still those who argue against prostitution because they believe people shouldn’t have to sell their bodies to make a living. This group argues there is no such thing as prostitution by choice. Diane Post who is a feminist and an attorney, believes “all choices open to women are circumscribed by the oppression under we live” (1999: 8. She continues by saying: “yes, I choose to be an attorney working on issues of violence against women. But if I truly had a choice, I would not need to do this profession or this topic because there would be no violence against women and I would not need to do this work” (Ibid.).

There is no doubt that there are some people who become sex workers because they don’t have better options. Without a doubt, government and society have a responsibility to attempt to provide people with enough opportunities so they would have more options to choose from. It is certainly true that no one should be forced to sell her/his body in order to make a living. At the same time, it is also true that no one should be forced to join the military and risk his/her life because it is the best option available. However, we have not made voluntarily military enlistment illegal because some might join due to their social position.

Furthermore, establishing that some people choose a profession due to lack of better opportunities, does not mean anyone who chooses that profession does not have other options. There are people who choose to become prostitutes. Sex workers such as Veronica Monet (who is also a member of COYOTE: Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics), emphasize that the truth for “many sex workers ... is that we chose sex work for money, independence, freedom and dignity” (1994).

Another major claim that people use against decriminalizing prostitution is based on health issues. Opponents argue that prostitution facilitates a more rapid spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STD). Yet, the emphases should be that criminalized and unregulated prostitution spread diseases. In State-Sanctioned Sex, authors Brents and Hausbeck point out that in 1988, Nevada -- the only state in the U.S. were prostitution is decriminalized -- had about 5,000 cases of gonorrhea and only 9 of these were from legal brothels (2001). The authors also point out that from the 7,000 tests that were conducted between 1982 and 1989 on 246 prostitutes, there were only 2 cases of syphilis and 19 cases of gonorrhea, all of which were reportedly contracted before the implementation of Nevada’s mandatory condom law (Ibid.). The case study of brothels in Nevada clearly demonstrates that if anything legalized and regulated prostitution prevents the spread of STDs.

“In 1985 the Nevada Administrative Code imposed stringent health testing on working prostitutes to control sexually transmitted diseases ... The code mandates that each person applying for employment as a prostitute must submit a blood sample to test for HIV and syphilis and a cervical specimen to test for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Every prostitute must have a state health card certifying that she is disease-free before being hired at a brothel and granted a work card. Once hired, the code mandates weekly PAP smears for gonorrhea and chlamydia and monthly blood tests for syphilis and HIV. Prostitutes are checked weekly, sometimes in-house by a local physician and sometimes by a physician of their choice. If a prostitute tests positive for anything other than HIV, she is unable to work until the treatment cures her and the physician reinstates her health card. If she tests positive for HIV, a 1987 law makes it a felony to continue work as a brothel prostitute ... Brothels are required to post a sign saying condoms must be used. All of the working women we interviewed reported that they support the condom laws. Contracting any STD is detrimental both from a health perspective and from a financial standpoint because the women lose work time while recuperating. As a result of these laws, according to the Nevada Department of Health, not one licensed prostitute has contracted HIV in a Nevada brothel since the testing regime was instituted” (emphases added, Ibid.: 314)

[Rasputin]