Friday, March 14, 2008

A Dissenting Lady

Thanks Stuart for a link to Kerry Howley

Why is it that dissenting views or contrarian views so often lead to such silly responses? Do people really think this adds to their argument?

I’ve gotten a number of responses–one from someone at the Department of Homeland Security writing at 9am on a workday–saying, in effect: “If you don’t think prostitution is wrong, why are you not a prostitute?” This is too silly to merit reply, but…is this part of the fear? That if we legalize orgasm delivery, all women will become professional orgasm deliverers? Weird.
The response does seem bizarre, BUT... if it is totally destigmatized, Prostitution does become a very attractive carreer choice from a financial perspective. By all accounts, the girls working at Teazers (though not prostitution) make a hell of a lot of money.

Most jobs have barriers to entry. You can't just become a brick layer, it is actually a semi-skilled job. It pays reasonably well but you have to do some training to do it well. I can't think of many barriers to entry when it comes to sex work, and it becomes a relatively easy way to make a lot of money. Maybe prices would be driven down and it would become less attractive?

Something in my gut tells me that I would feel awful about my (hypothetical) 18 year old daughter going to Amsterdam to do her `gap year'. I would also feel awful about my son doing it, so I am not sure this is sexist.

BUT if there is NOTHING wrong with it... then why should I have a problem with it. Why should I encourage them to rather accept a lower paying job... like photostating or making coffee?

When you aren't a professional or haven't invested a lot in a carreer, presumably you do any job that pays the most given your low level of qualifications.

Something doesn't sit right for me.

13 comments:

mutt said...

Prostitution does pay well, and if the stigma could be successfully removed, I guess more people would become prostitutes. But peoplw with few skills make this kind of trade off all the time, jobs that are unpleasant or dangerous pay more, and they choose according to taste. My guess is that even without stigma, most women would find it an unpleasant job and choose not to do it.

Dads worry about what their kids get up to sexually even when it comes to stuff that isn't heavily stigmatised, so even in this imagined scenario it would be natural to worry about your daughter's gap year.

Anonymous said...

hey Trev did you know that prostituion is considered a dangerous career choice. Prostitutes generally feel abused,and often report that they have low self esteem - OH Yes girl. Many women choose prostitution because they need to survive, not because they necessarily enjoy it.

Trevor Black said...

Yes, I agree that it is a dangerous career choice. I would imagine most illegal jobs are dangerous... along with drug dealing etc.

I would think legalising it would make it a less dangerous career choice and offer legal protection to those who do. It is quite difficult for prostitutes to press assault charges if they themselves fear arrest. You also end up with abuse from cops who don't hastle them if they get the occasional freebee on the side.

(For those who don't know, the reference to OH YES! Girl is a painting I did (see side bar) in 1996 depicting a murdered prostitute)

I would think a lot of protitutes don't enjoy their jobs. I also think a lot of secretaries, manual labourers, domestic workers etc. don't enjoy their jobs.

In fact, I think most of us work to survive mostly rather than because we enjoy our jobs.

As for low self-esteem... there is a HUGE stigma against that type of work. It is a job they would not feel like they are able to admit to doing... that is bound to lead to low self esteem. If they could just pop it into conversation without being frowned upon/arrested, I am sure they would feel less self esteem problems. Not none, less.

There are prostitutes who enjoy their jobs as well (or so I have read).

Don't get me wrong, I still feel VERY uneasy about prostitution. Especially when the bargaining power of the two individuals isn't even (Economically, Legally, Socially).

The fact is prostitution is wide spread. I think the best way to protect the rights of the purveyors of this work is to legalise it.

But that certainly doesn't mean I am going to be rushing out to spend my money on that!

mutt said...

yes, many/most people don't enjoy their jobs, but that doesn't mean that that girls will become prostitutes, even without the stigma. more will, sure, maybe that would be good, we'd have the right number of prostitutes!

Greg Torr said...

People, let's just get back to basics here. There is a very simple, two-sentence principle for deciding whether anything should be legal/regulated etc. It was formulated by John Stuart Mill more than 100 years ago. It really does solve all these problems, trust me!

Enough preamble, here it is:
"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self protection; to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."

Trevor Black said...

So... by those sentiments...

you legalise it.

BUT... provide the normal legal protection every other worker gets.

Stuart said...

Ummm... but why is it so necessary to specify that in this case? Shoud we stress that when we allow banks to lend money at interest?

Greg is right. It kind of reminds me of the mohammed cartoons thing, people kept on saying, "of course i support free speech, but..."

Greg Torr said...

Yes, why would there be an exception? what legal protections are you talking about?

By the way, I think the fact that prostitution is still illegal is partcilarly anachronistic. I predict that in 50 years' time we'll look back on it the we now do on women not being able to vote, legal discrimination against homosexuals etc.

Trevor Black said...

Legal Protection:

1) Press Charges if assault
2) Right of enforicng contract, i.e. where people refuse to pay
3) Where pimps involved, the usual employer employee contracting

Perhaps when legal, there will be more established `vendors' e.g. Teazers knock-off Pleazers becoming legal and employing lots of men and women.

The thing is there is that other question neither of you are approaching... even if they are legal, would you use one?

I venture your answer is no (as is mine), but why?

I am single, so I can't use that explanation... but if sex is no different from a massage, getting someone to build your house, or getting someone to cut your hair, why is it exclusive to relationships?

I think this is the thing that distinguishes prostitution from other jobs.

Every other aspect of a relationship can have a substitute. Siblings/Family/Friends can provide you with an income, you can hire a domestic worker, a nanny to raise your children, a teacher to teach them. You can get emotional support from a psychologist, and love and affection from friends.

IF there is nothing wrong with getting sex from a prostitute... and the next stage is legalising the business of `being a stud', or `pregnancy for sale'...

at what point do relationships (with A significant other) become obsolete?

This doesn't sit right.

Greg Torr said...

I find it strange that there is any question about whether ANYBODY shouldn't be entitled to legal protection against assualt.

Yes, obviously normal contracting rules should apply too.

No, I probably wouldn't use prostitutes, but there are plenty of things/services/good that are legal that I choose not to do/buy. But I don't consider it immoral. There are plenty of things that are illegal that I don't consider immoral, and vice versa.

Trevor Black said...

So...

You get things that are:

1) illegal, immoral and you wouldn't do.
2) legal, immoral and you wouldn't do.
3) illegal, not immoral and you wouldn't do.
4) legal, not immoral and you wouldn't do.
5) illegal, immoral and you would do.
6) legal, immoral and you would do.
7) illegal, not immoral and you would do.
8) legal, not immoral and you would do.

You think prostitution should be moved from (3) to (4).

I agree, but what I am interested in is figuring out why...

A solid reason why I think I wouldn't use a prostitute.

A relationship seems to me to be a solid reason. But I am single, and I am still not keen to go down that road.

And the reason I don't want to go down that road (even if it were legal)is not Price, or the fact that I don't think I would enjoy it.

Morality is how we define our personal rules. For me, my personal rules should be there for a valid reason.

I venture that my valid reason is that I doubt my ability to seperate sex from emotion. I also doubt my desire to seperate Sex from emotion.

My feeling is that once you seperate those two, I am not sure you can go back.

Yet, this conflicts with my feeling that a prostitute can (possibly) lead a healthy personal love life seperate from his/her work. Much like a chef can enjoy cooking for their family.

Stuart said...

You don't need to get into paid sex to answer this question, many people choose not to engange in casual sex every chance they get, explain that.

Doctors don't get all chocked up everytime someone dies on them, but they still do for people closer to them.

Your repeated insistence that there be legal protection implies that some people might not agree, where does this belief come from?

mutt said...

Oh, and why no handwringing about your future daughter being a porn star? Whats the difference?