In Colorado, a bill that would decriminalize prostitution statewide is moving through the legislature. Its sponsor, member of the Party of Terrible Ideas (at least lately) Sen. Nick Hinrichsen, argues that the measure “would improve safety and health outcomes for sex workers.” More about that presently.
Senate Bill 26-097 would eliminate criminal penalties for consensual commercial sexual activity between adults, repealing existing laws against prostitution, soliciting for prostitution, keeping a place of prostitution and patronizing a prostitute. Pimping would remain illegal.
Commenter JutGory flagged the story for me and the commentariate with a post on yesterday’s Friday Open Forum, where it sparked some lively and thoughtful responses. I decided that the issue was complex and contentious enough to move the discussion here, under its own banner via an ethics quiz.
I recognize that quizzing on this topic is a departure for Ethics Alarms. Ethics quizzes are usually prompted by ethics close calls, dilemmas and conflicts where I lack my usual certitude about their ethical standing. That’s not the case with legalized prostitution. Way back in 2009, I began a post,
“A stimulating ethics alarm drill surfaced over at Freakonomics, where Stephen Dubner challenged the site’s readers to help him compile a list of goods, services and activities that one can legally give away or perform gratis, but that when money changes hands, the transactions become illegal. It is a provocative exercise, especially when one ponders why the addition of money should change the nature of the act from benign to objectionable in the view of culture, society, or government. It is even more revealing to expand the list to include uses of money that may not create illegality, but which change an act from ethical to unethical.
Sometimes commerce turns the act wrongful only for the individual do the paying. Sometimes only the individual accepting the cash becomes unethical. Money doesn’t corrupt these transactions for the same reasons in all cases. I see three distinct categories:
1.Abuses of economic power: situations where an individual or organization uses money to coerce or induce people to do something that is bad for them, those to whom they have duties, or society, such as prostitution…“
I stated thatwith prostitution, both the payer and the payee were engaging in unethical conduct. And they are.
Ethics Alarms 
I have nothing else of substance to add beyond my contributions on the Open Forum regarding this subject. So I’ll just respond with a resounding, “No. No. No.”
I agree with this response.
”It is a provocative exercise, especially when one ponders why the addition of money should change the nature of the act from benign to objectionable in the view of culture, society, or government.”
I pondered this a great deal when I ended up using blackjack to help my children learn simple addition. Many would call it objectionable to teach young children a game of chance, and yet… you can not discount the educational assist you get from this simple card game.
This reminds me of philosophy class.
I don’t believe in legalized prostitution, and I think porn should be illegal by blocking all sites (addiction and the industry have hurt many). However, from a libertarian perspective, here’s what I may argue:
Consenting adults do a lot of things that are harmful to themselves and others. Promiscuity (non-paid, consensual) is bad for society and people. STDs run rampant when people have a high number of sexual partners. It’s also pretty bad for everyone to shovel down junk food all the time, but that’s also legal. Think “sin tax” type behavior.
The “harm” to someone else concept is limiting though. Adultery used to be illegal, but now its not, even if some laws exist on paper. The current political zeitgeist seems to have a really hard time defining harm. Human dignity is kind of there, but where’s the limit?
What about violating a dead body? Say the person could do it without being caught. Most people find it repugnant, but from a freedom/utilitarian calculus, what’s the real harm? Utilitarianism has a really hard time handling conduct that’s undignified but only harms the person doing it, which is why I cannot call myself a utilitarian, even if I do see value in utilitarian analysis.
So, a lot of “sins” are allowed, and promiscuity is one of those sins, even though promiscuity has produced a host of social problems, such as STDS, unwanted pregnancies (leading to an increase in abortion and absent parents), broken hearts, and just overall bad decisions. If people limited partners to those they were dating and trusted (at minimum), you wouldn’t have many drunken nights where memories get fuzzy. If a baby does come about, it’s not between two strangers.
It seems like the best argument for prosttiutiion is that we allow a lot of sexual vices already, so adding money into the mix really isnt’t that big of a deal. More like an arbitrary disctinction because it “feels” different without actually being so.
On my end, I ascribe to human dignity arguments, and that humans have ends that are good for us, such as sex being used to bond those together who love each other and trust each other. When those ends are misused, it’s bad for all parties. The more important the ends, the more likely the law should get involved (such as ruining the end of someone living by killing them). Sex creates life and bonds people together, so there is a state interest in regulating sex. Legalized prostitution should be a gross misuse of the end of human sexualty.
“Furthermore, the payer is using money to persuade someone to do something they would not otherwise choose to so, and something that is degrading and submissive.”
Man: Would you sleep with me?”
Woman: No.
Man: What if I offered you 1 million dollars?
Woman: (thinks about it), Okay.
Man: How about 10 dollars?
Woman: What kind of woman do you think I am?
Man: We’ve already established what kind of woman you are, now were just negotiating over price.
Joke aside, there is no value Prostitutions brings to the table, except maybe more taxes for the government to collect.
“Furthermore, the payer is using money to persuade someone to do something they would not otherwise choose to so, and something that is degrading and submissive.”
it continues to amaze me how often the single sentence commenter choose to quote is the one contain a typo. I proofed this post three times! “Choose to DO,” bot “so”! (Fixed.)
Judging from the video below I have some questions about the strength of your argument here. The lady below is a registered escort and influencer in Australia, using YouTube, OF, and other social media to inform people on legal sex work. The phrase “the payer is using money to persuade someone to do something they would not otherwise choose to so” definitely does not apply to her as she does not need to be persuaded, as she approaches her profession as a calling. She would definitely not agree with the judgement that prostitution is degrading. There are indeed women who cheerfully, proudly and unapologetically practice world’s oldest profession.
The trouble with this discussion at EA is that we have only men participating, mostly boomer and trending conservative. Do we have any women who can comment? Or any sex worker?
The issue of prostitution can be approached from a number of moral, ethical, wisdom, cultural, and legal angles. I will split this up in more comments.
I will start with the moral angle. The key passage in the Bible is 1 Corinthians 6: 12-20 which
12 I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.
The basic issue here is sexual morality. In the world of the Bible sex is exclusive to a marriage between one man and one woman, and marriage is a covenant that can only be dissolved by death. The Bible has a high view of the human body (temple of the Holy Spirit), and departs from the dualistic views of the Romans and the Greeks that elevated the soul over the body. In the Roman Empire there was sacred prostitution in temples, which is a weird mixture of sex and religion.
Key passages in the Old Testament on sexual morality are Leviticus 18 and 20. These passages condemn a whole lot of sexual practices from a holiness perspective, complete with death penalties for infractions, including incest and homosexuality. Interestingly enough prostitution is not mentioned here. Prostitution is mentioned in other parts of the Old Testament, namely in Genesis 38 (Judah and Tamar), Joshua 2 (Rahab), Judges 16 (Simson in Gaza), and the prophecy of Hosea (marriage of Hosea with Gomer). There is no death penalty in the Old Testament for prostitution; there are death penalties for adultery, incest, and homosexuality. Prostitution is never addressed in a positive way.
So we may reach a tentative conclusion that in the world of the Old Testament adultery (sex with somebody’s wife) is a more serious sin than mere prostitution.
The laws in the United States on marriage and sexuality as they were in the 1950s breath the influence of the culture and morals of that time, which was heavily influenced by Christianity. There were laws against adultery, fornication, sodomy, pornography, birth control, divorce; in the 1950s we even had coverture laws that established the husband as legal head of the family, and laws that established the husband as breadwinner. The existing laws against prostitution need to be understood in this moral and cultural framework. Marriage and the nuclear family were regarded as cornerstone of the society, worthy of many legal protections.
Since the the culture has been secularized. Birth control separated sex from procreation. The sexual revolution separated sex from marriage. Unilateral no-fault divorce became the norm, starting with California under Gov. Ronald Reagan. Gender equality became the norm thanks to feminism, and both husband and wife now need to provide. Abortion became constitutionally protected, and gays now marry. Almost all laws against sexual immorality fell by the wayside, with laws against prostitution being the exception. The legal and cultural changes since the 1950s have significantly altered the nature of marriage as an institute.
Let’s call marriage in the 1950s Marriage 1.0 and marriage as it stands today as Marriage 2.0. I am aware that I am borrowing manosphere terminology here. I do that deliberately as many manosphere influencers (e.g. Rollo Tomassi in the Rational Male, and Dalrock) have argued that Marriage 2.0 is fundamentally different than Marriage 1.0. Marriage 1.0 gave a husband authority, respect, loyalty, and recognition. Marriage 2.0 carries the same responsibilities for a husband, but with reduced benefits and elevated divorce risk. The low marriage rates of today reflect that reality; many men have decided that it is better to stay single as they calculate that the rewards of Marriage 2.0 do not weigh up against the risks and the costs. (There are many other reasons why people do not marry or even date, but I will not go into that).
If I understand our host, and many commenters at the Open Forum, laws against prostitution are still needed to protect Marriage 2.0. This is a typical traditional conservative argument, and I believe that this is a losing argument. Traditional conservatives have lost the culture war on marriage and sexuality. The toothpaste is out of the tube. Divorce rates are at 50 percent. The divorce rate among Southern Baptists (a conservative denomination) is not radically different than the USA at large. One third of all children are raised by a single parent. You want to marry a virgin? You are searching for a unicorn! Sexual immorality is rampant, even at conservative events like CPAC. Marriage 2.0 is like a house with the roof blown off, and full of black mold.
It is hardly conceivable that the state of marriage as it stands today can be worsened by laws legalizing prostitution. The biggest legal threat to marriage are the existing divorce laws. plus the family court system handling custody, alimony, and child support. But even traditional conservatives are unwilling to touch these laws with a ten foot pole; they would rather make child support laws more punitive for divorced dads alienated from their children by their exes, while publicly grandstanding about “deadbeat dads”. The traditional conservative argument against legal prostitution is a rearguard fight and a last stand. There is not much worth left to protect in Marriage 2.0.
And as somebody who is happily single, and have been single all my life, why should I give a rats ass about Marriage 2.0 and the traditional conservative view?
There are many other arguments against the legalization of prostitution, e.g. those related to sex trafficking and the role of cartels and organized crime. But that will be another comment.
Men want sex and are unhappy when they cannot have sex. Many men cannot find willing sex partners without paying for them. I do not believe that the only ethical choice for such men is to remain celibate until they go to the grave.
Many men cannot find willing sex partners without paying for them.
1. They need to try harder.
2. Seems like the same rationalization used to justify stealing.
this was my justification.
some people can’t try harder
young dumb I experienced kids
widower octogenarians who miss physical intimacy
overly obese or unattractive people
sometimes “trying harder” makes no sense
-Jut
Greg, assuming that prostitution was legal, would you recommend somebody who is involuntary celibate and highly frustrated to engage with a sex worker?
What are the other two categorites
Anyway, a difference I see between prostitution and other vice trades are that prostitution more directly involves human beings. Instead of selling a product, you ARE the product. This lends itself to dehumanization and abuse. The linked article cites a study that reported rape in the Netherlands dropped 30% after legalizing prostitution. How many rapes or other abuses at brothels go unreported in these scenarios? From the article Legalizing Pimping:
Here’s why I believe it’s too difficult to untangle prostitution from coercion and other issues. As a religious conservative, but who is still a man with normal heterosexual urges, the hookers in “Hey Big Spender” have no attraction for me. I find myself far more attracted to gorgeous female movie stars and fashion models. Indeed I don’t know how anyone can be attracted to the stereotypical smoking, drinking hooker past her physical prime who is only in it to make a buck. With that in mind, I would think that legalizing prostitution increases the demand, but not the supply of quality “merchandise”. Guys rush out to the red-light district, looking to fulfill their wildest fantasies, only to find that the girls who would fulfill those fantasies have already been snatched up by the fashion and showbiz industries. Hence brothels are incentivized to try any dirty trick they can get away with to find and retain young, attractive girls. Those that try to do it “ethically” get outcompeted by those who can provide the goods that customers want most.
Abortion: anti-abortion vs pro-life
Prostitution: anti-prostitution vs pro-nuclearFamilyMarriageSexualMores
I have grown fatigued championing illegalization of behavior on the basis of spiritual morality. The better approach is simply to fully aid good behavior.
With respect to our postulated harms that legalization of prostitution would produce, would it not be a practical middle ground to legalize prostitution while regulating the harms once they manifest much like all other employment and commercial practices?
“The better approach is simply to fully aid good behavior.” (bolds mine)
I’m of the belief that what’s good for us comes in a weak second to who decides what’s good for us.
Might the same be said of who decides which good behavior/s ought be fully aided?
PWS
A woman walks into a nightclub, steps up to the bar, orders a double Jack Daniels on the rocks. Puts her money down. Sips. Her brain feels the stimulus. Her eyes reflect her pleasure.
A Puritan, on a mission, accosts her and says, “It is wrong for you to buy your pleasure, whether from a barman or from anyone else. BEGONE!
The barman says, “I’m trying to make a living here.”
The woman says, “I’m just out to have a good time.”
The Puritan beats both of them senseless. Consensual pleasure? Bad!
Irrelevant to the topic at hand, HJ!
In my previous post I have not explored the ethical side of sex work. Let me reiterate that sex work is morally wrong from a Christian perspective. But according to Ethics Alarms ethics and morals are not the same. Ethical arguments should in that view not primarily have to rely on religious prescripts or rules that are particular to a given culture; I make hereby an assumption that such an approach is possible.
So we should be able to ask questions about sexual ethics. Some questions will be in a comparative style, some in an absolute style, and some are about definitions. I will start with two definitions I found on the internet, with some added notes by me, and then continue with ethics, and finally about the relation between law and ethics.
Question 1: How do we define sex work?
Sex work is the consensual exchange of sexual services, performances, or materials between adults for money, goods, or other forms of compensation. It is regarded by many as a form of labor or economic activity, often distinguished from trafficking by the presence of consent. Sex workers represent a diverse group of individuals who may work in various settings, including escorting, stripping, or camming. (NOTE 1: sex work includes porn work and Only Fans work. NOTE 2: the definition of ex work excludes sex trafficking and situations of slavery, as these situations can be classified as rape.)
Question 2: How do we define adultery?
Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse. (In the Old Testament that would be: sexual intercourse between a married or betrothed woman and a man who is not her (future) spouse. Having a concubine in addition to tor wife is not adultery in the OT.)
Question 3: Is adultery wrong?
Adultery is wrong if if means that marital vows are broken, it involves dishonesty and concealment, or is disagreed upon by the other spouse. E.g. in an open marriage adultery is a moral wrong but not an ethical wrong.
Question 4: Is extramarital sex wrong?
Extramarital sex between consenting adults is not an ethical wrong, unless it involves ethically wrongful adultery.
Question 5: Is withholding sex from your spouse wrong?
Withholding sex from your spouse is a breach of the marital contract, unless otherwise agreed upon by both spouses.
Question 6: Is unilateral divorce wrong?
Unilateral divorce is a breach of the marital contract, unless the other party is at fault due to adultery, abandonment, or cruelty and abuse.
Question 7: Is sex work wrong?
Sex is not wrong and earning money is not wrong. So earning money with sex is not an outright ethical wrong. Sex work involving or leading to adultery creates an unethical situation. Sex work that does not involve adultery is not a perse ethical wrong (e.g. an unmarried man visiting an escort or watching pornography does not commit an outright ethical wrong but deserves criticism for patronizing an ethically flawed industry).
Question 8: Is sex work more wrong than adultery?
No. Adultery is the original wrong. The wrongs committed by the escort and the mistress are ethically comparable.
Question 9: Is adultery more wrong than withholding sex from your spouse?
No. Both are breaches of the marital contact. A sexless marriage helps creating the conditions for adultery.
Question 10: Should sex work be outlawed on ethical grounds?
Multiple arguments against this in the United States:
One of the problems with simple issues is that some refuse to see them as the simple issues they are. From the headline, one might think the ethical issue was legalized prostitution. But, no, raised here, are all manner of issues related to sexual conduct. So, lying, deception, corruption of values, presumed coercion, and more are all leveraged into the argument. Relevant? I guess so. In a way.
Nothing is ever simple. I do not understand why a society that winks on adultery and allows no-fault divorce condemns prostitution. Does not add up for me, especially using traditionalist conservative pro-marriage arguments. Maybe we need a feminist perspective on this topic?
In previous post I established that I am not in favor of prohibition on traditional conservative grounds protecting the sanctity of marriage and standing athwart moral decay. Being single and trending libertarian I have no truck with this type of reasoning.
Morally I am not too perturbed by single men with no other sexual options visiting a prostitute. I would rather have Barnacle Bill the Sailor have fun in a brothel than engaging in date rape. I am not using this as an ethics rationalization, but as a lesser than two evils approach. Sex work was often to be found in areas where you could find groups of unattached men, such as ports, military bases, frontiers (Wild West), mining towns, oil fields. The justification for legalizing or condoning sex work was to prevent rape, and social disorder.
There are still other arguments to be made related to legalization of prostitution, some pro and some contra. I will try to approach this from a pragmatic utilitarian perspective.
The big issue is the like between crime and prostitution. Besides the legal brothels in Nevada organized crime is all over prostitution. Sex trafficking is a major source of income for cartels, and one of the drivers for illegal immigration. Organized crime thrives on things being criminal. So legalization / decriminalization poses challenges for criminal organizations, So any sensible legislation should make sure that the influence of organized crime goes down. As the experience in Amsterdam show, this is easier said than done, as criminals are good in using legit looking businesses for money laundering, and also good in concealing situations of sex trafficking and bonded labor.
The next issue is streetwalking. Often these are drugged out hookers controlled by a pimp. This has all sorts of negative externalities such as STDs, attracting crime and squalor, and making a neighborhood unlivable and dangerous. This situation can of course not be tolerated.
Too me that indicates that given the current situation in the USA it would be unwise to open the gates wide by simply striking laws against prostitution; it would involve a lot of regulation to make should that sex workers are not trafficked or pimped, health compliant, tax compliant, finances are transparent etc. Zoning is also important, as most people in the USA are willing to encounter this type of activity.
This is my post from yesterday:
If you are as cynical as I, you see legalization of prostitution as yet another leftist strategy to undermine the nuclear family, fracture community cohesion and sweep up more power for the radical cause. Even if you take religious principles out of the discussion, Mother Nature provides evidence of the profound nature of sexual interaction: without readily available effective birth control methods and powerful antibiotics, the result of widespread promiscuity, free or transactional, is ill-timed or unwanted pregnancies and rampant disease. Modern medicine allows profligate lifestyles on many levels that are not necessarily healthy for individuals or society – doesn’t mean we should embrace them.
Having travelled more than once to Amsterdam I have a first-hand experience in the Red Light District. It is not as clean as the rest of the city, primarily because of the abundance of sex tourists. Walking by one of the Windows, my eyes met the woman who was perched on a stool, dressed in stereotypical sexy clothing. We exchanged a slight smile as Danny and I walked past, but I didn’t leave the area marveling at the empowerment of these women. It was profoundly sad to me that this, most intimate activity is reduced to a transaction.
Today’s quick research indicates that Amsterdam has about 20,000 sex workers. Cartels, sex trafficking, violence and abuse have not diminished, but increased over the last 20 or so years. The original goals to reduce crime have not been attained. Furthermore, local sex workers have been crowded out by foreigners who flocked to the city, making it more difficult to earn a living.
On another trip, this time to Ecuador, our tour included a talk with a local sex worker. She revealed that to make a decent living she needed to see at least 10 men each day. In her mid 40s, she didn’t know how much longer she would even be able to make ends meet, since men preferred younger, prettier ladies, and she spoke of a colleague in her 60s who is barely surviving.
You asked for a woman’s opinion, but I am at odds. My Libertarian leaning suggests that consenting adults should be able to tangle up, with or without money changing hands, and without others’ approval or consent. It’s nobody’s business but theirs.
On the other hand, most of the time women are disadvantaged, exploited, abused and debased by prostitution. Bottom line, even if it is ’empowering’, I don’t want any of my five granddaughters to choose the oldest profession. I want each of them to be madly, passionately in love with a man who adores them, and that’s the only kind of terrific sex they have. Not an ethical conclusion – visceral. Old school.