A Hooker Is A Hooker …
March 15, 2008 on 11:40 am | In National, Oddball |I saw this question raised a couple of days ago in a blog about Spitzer, but (for the life of me) I can’t remember where, so I will throw it out here for discussion:
Why is it legal to pay someone to have sex in front of a camera (i.e. the pornography industry) but illegal to pay that same person to have sex with you in the privacy of a hotel room? No rationalizations, please …
10 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
OK, I’ll take the bait, Terry. Moralizing aside, I think it has do with worker safety and the locus of control: the pimp vs the producer, and the john vs the director.
Comment by anonymous — March 15, 2008 #
Caught ya! You said at 10:12 a.m. that you’ve had it with Spitzer stories and will be blogging about local issues. Then…
At 11:40 a.m. you blogged about Spitzer. Shame on you!
Seriously, I know how it is. This story keeps wrapping itself around my leg like a dog I can’t shake off. And the question is a good one re porn and what Kristen does for a living. Maybe one of your faithful readers will let us all know what the deal is.
Comment by Terrence McCarthy — March 15, 2008 #
Probably because there’s a helluva lot more money in pornography than prostitution and, as such, pornographers have been able to whittle away at the legal impediments to plying their trade.
What I don’t understand is why woman in leadership roles don’t work more diligently to reduce prostitution and pornography in our society. One would think that would be on the top of their lists.
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2008 #
In my mind it’s a fair trade (as the embarassment factor of appearing in a porno seems to be sufficient to keep most men from actually trying to use this as a legal “loophole” as Terry seems to be suggesting).
As for “why”, I don’t know (nor care). An awful lot of (maybe most?) rules and laws are pretty darn arbitrary when one examines the details and edge-cases closely.
And Jake, I don’t fault women politicians who don’t actively crusade against prostitution and pornography. The problem won’t be solved by applying more rules, or attempting to impose standards of behavior. Only education (of both men and women) and more open and frank talk about sex (by everyone) will have a chance of making a difference.
Comment by Charlie Derr — March 15, 2008 #
I think you all make good points.
Nice try, Anonymous. Hookers need to organize! Actually, I think you have stumbled onto a good argument for legalization.
If prostitution were legit, then the government would be able to regulate it, tax it and license the people who run the brothels. Then worker safety would improve, right?
If you’re concerned about locus of control and worker safety, legalization is the way to go. I wonder if there is a hookers’ union in Nevada (as there apparently is in Holland) and … gasp … whom they would endorse for president.
Comment by Terry — March 15, 2008 #
I think the answer to Terry’s question comes down to this:
–The porn producer gets Republican gratification (i.e. he makes money off the work other people do, namely the porn actors)
–The john gets Democratic gratification (i.e. he spends money for sexual gratification; occasionally it’s other people’s money)
Fair statement?
Comment by Geoff Brown — March 15, 2008 #
Well, as for whom a prostitutes union would support for President, this reasonably SFW link takes you to Important Moments in Women’s History presented by porn stars, in which one of the presenters gives a shout out to “my girl” Nancy Pelosi…
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/4c3765e48c
I found it on the thoroughly respectable, if left-of-center, History News Networks Cliopatra Blog.
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/48073.html
Comment by Tim Abbott — March 15, 2008 #
Charlie,
I wasn’t trying to suggest legal porn-making was a loophole around illegal prositution. I was merely posing a legal and philosophical question.
As for the embarrassment factor, when I was in college, I had two friends in the theatre department (one male and one female) who acted once or twice in adult films in Montreal.
The female could make almost $10,000 for a week’s work. That went a long way toward blunting any embarrassment she felt.
BTW, the male made less than half that. This is one industry in which women do far better financially. The men are just props in these movies. Sounds like sex discrimination to me.
Geoff,
That is LOL funny. In Spitzer’s case, he may be true to Democratic form. One of the suspicions the feds have is that the governor spent campaign funds on his trysts.
Comment by Terry — March 15, 2008 #
Terry… having had some exposure to the leading flesh pots of the world, I can tell you that licensing prostitution does little to reduce its ill effects. First, the girls who can’t get licensed still go out on the street. At Pataya Beach in Thailand the licensed girls are all in the clubs, and the girls who fail their medical exams are standing on the street corner just outside. No different from the Meat Packing district or the Bois de Boulogne.
At the Naval Base at Subic Bay, the pros were required to have blood tests every week, and had to carry cards to ensure customers that they were up to date (tests and cards provided by the the US Navy, BTW). STDs (and later AIDs) were still a very dangerous problem and the Docs always said the tests and licensing did little to reduce disease.
The Dutch situation is not much better. They get tested regularly, but those houses are full of girls who have been lured west and north from Eastern Europe and Africa by traffickers who tell them they will be movie stars and legitimate dancers. When they arrive they find themselves beholden to their pimps, and they their lives are wrecked.
For everyone who lives in the west and casually says that prostitution is a personal choice… I’d remind them that the vast majority of these girls are either tricked into prostitution, are drug addicts, or have serious emotional issues usually related to sexual abuse. I find it kind of pathetic that liberals and libertarians consider prostitution a victimless crime. I’d challenge any of them to describe how they would feel if their daughter was turning tricks to satisfy a $100 a day heroin diet. In a society where Michelle Obama considers herself victimized, I would think an abused hooker turning tricks for abusive sex addicts would qualify one for victim’s status.
There is really only one way to get rid of prostitution, and that is to reduce demand for it. And the only way to do that is to come down hard on the Johns. So as far as I’m concerned, anyone who thinks it’s OK to wink at guys who lure desperate women with money is (on some level) complicit in the John’s crime.
Frankly, I’d like to see Spitzer do a couple of years, just to send the kind of “message” he’s so famous for.
Comment by Jake — March 15, 2008 #
Prostitution….
Politics…..
Ah, there but for a few letters
The world’s oldest profession, and the worlds second oldest profession…together again!
Comment by Marshall Miles — March 16, 2008 #