-
Website
http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle -
Original page
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/12/if-you-own-it-you-can-sell-it/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Cf. Nietzsche's remark: "The Christian resolve to find the world evil and ugly has made the world evil and ugly." (I would substitute the more ecumenical "moralist's" for "Christian.")
It's at least worth considering that a personal (non-commercial) sexual life may be a natural right.
This line of thought begs the question. How is the sale of sexual services any more like slavery than the sale of any other kind of service?
My guess is that you think sex is different. But that is because sex is treated like it is different, not because it ought to be.
A non-commercial sexual life is indeed a natural right, as is a commercial sexual life.
I also do not see how one can see a difference between services sexual or otherwise. It must, then, be dependent upon cultural stigmas.
I do think there is a difference between prostitution and lettuce-picking, but I have to go on fuzzy psychological (or cultural) ground here, and say that having to sell sex as a service makes it far more difficult to have personal relationships that include sex. Maybe in a society with different norms this wouldn't be true, but here and now a prostitute has to forgo a (nearly) universal part of a complete human life. That's not true of other workers, even those who work for long hours and low pay.
I'm sure that there are many professions that make a normal sex life difficult. But, that's not a reason to remove them as options.
As long as the people maintain the ability to exit the profession when they think they have better options, I don't see how having the option to engage in the profession impinges on any natural rights.
I wish that were universally true. It's true for many of us, but there are quite a few people who see merit in "arguments" like Leon Kass's "Wisdom of repugnance."
You said, "There is simply nothing wrong with selling or buying sexual services." But that seems to be a rather sweeping assertion.
I tend to agree that the degradation associated with some prostitution is primarily the result of cultural marginalization, but that doesn't mean that prostitution might not (often) be degrading and dehumanizing even it enjoyed cultural approbation.
The problem is that sex is different from other activities. It is similar to lettuce picking and brick laying only if and when its practice is commercialized. But there are (or, at the very least, there may be) psychological and physiological reasons to treat sex differently from other, more necessarily mundane, activities.
Does that mean that prostitution should be illegal? Of course not. But the argument to decriminalize prostitution does not rest a question of whether or not it is healthy or moral to sell sex, but on whether that decision should be properly made by the individual or the state.
Could the relevant difference between male and female sexuality be (1) women are supposed to be pure and (2) we think they are more fragile than men and too weak to look after themselves?
Of course, there are circumstances in which it would be wrong to buy or sell sexual services, but there are circumstances in which it would be wrong to buy or sell a television.
The "sex is different" line is almost complete bluster. It is different mostly because even otherwise rational people are fiercely determined to treat it differently. But we know that people can behave very promiscuously FOR FREE and come out the other side glad they did it. Why is sex for money categorically different? What's the evidence? Our intuitions, conditioned by the social stigma, simply beg the question. So tell me exactly how and why selling sex is more damaging than giving it away. What are these "psychological and physiological reasons"?
I don't think the difference between male sexuality and female sexuality is as trite as you want to make it. Whatever difference there may be between male sexuality and female sexuality need not be large, or even universal, to have significant cultural effect. Significant statistical variances exist between men and women in many respects: physical, emotional, and intellectual. I see no reason to assume that there can not be some significant, biological variance in sexual mores as well.
You say, "But we know that people can behave very promiscuously FOR FREE and come out the other side glad they did it. Why is sex for money categorically different?"
And we also know that promiscuity can result in severe psychological damage. As can "virtue" or celibacy for that matter. The point is not that sex ~for money~ is categorically different, it's that ~sex~ itself may be categorically different.
Sexual activity (type, frequency, quality, manner, etc...) is more often intimately tied to an individual's sense of self than other activities. To be sure, that's not ~always~ the case, but I think it's fair to say--at the least--that it is often the case that a person's sexual identity is significantly more essential to their personal identity and psychological health than their work or hobbies.
I didn't ever argue that selling sex is necessarily more damaging than "giving it away." I think that sexual decisions are often crucially important decisions--and those decisions need to be left to the individual, not the state. It may be the case that many people could prostitute themselves for fun and profit with little negative consequence. But it also seems likely that a larger number of people would discover that prostitution, however financially rewarding, is ultimately a psychologically damaging profession.
I think it's important that when we advocate the decriminalization of "vice" that we don't dismiss the very real risk that vice can pose to individuals.
In response to alisa, you said, "My guess is that you think sex is different. But that is because sex is treated like it is different, not because it ought to be." My point is that there are good reasons to suspect that sex ~is~ different for many people, regardless of whether you or I think it ~ought~ to be.
As to sex being different, I wouldn't write that off entirely. I can go to work on days that I don't want to be there, go through the motions, and get paid, no worse for the wear. However, regular emotional detachment from sex acts I think could become a problem, were prostitutes (male or female) to do so on a regular basis. The answer to long term psychological risks for prostitution clearly isn't jail, so I wouldn't write off legalization entirely. I'm just not as optimistic about how harmless it would be if society was more accepting.
I do not deny that there are differences in tendency between men and women. But you do realize, don't you, that the argument based on difference has historically been deployed to justify almost every restriction of women's liberty. It is not "trite" to be skeptical of the force of these arguments, which constantly evolve as social attitudes evolve. Rather, such skepticism is a large part of what it means to take women's freedom seriously.
I honestly don't know, and I don't think you do either, that sexuality is more intimately linked to a sense of identity than many other aspects of a human life. I am sure that the centrality of sexuality to our personhood is a part of modern ideology, but I don't know that this is a biological fact about us.
I don't think prostitution is nice. I think it is work -- often hard, emotionally exhausting work that is usually undesirable when there are other equally well-paying options. But I don't think this is special, or unusual.
I once worked at a telemarketing place, and I left after a week because the sense I was violating people's privacy and manipulating them in various ways was very hard for me to take. Other people seemed to thrive on badgering grandmothers into signing up for credit cards.
Prostitution is not an especially attractive profession, but it is not especially terrible either, and the people who choose to stay in it are probably the people for whom it seems like the best deal. I don't see the point of making that choice more fraught or emotionally loaded than other similar labor market choices.
I just don't understand why people feel like they have to emphasize that there would be some costs legalizing currently-illegal activities. Of course there are. Nothing is perfect.
The issue isn't whether there would be NO PROBLEMS related to legal prostitution. The issue is whether it better. And I haven't seen or heard any persuasive arguments that it isn't.
Freedom isn't harmless, but it usually beats the alternatives.
I do agree that the "BAN IT" reaction is usually the wrong call (I actually do support organ markets). In the case of prositution, I would like to see more regulation than probably could be realistically enacted, so there would necessarily be unseemliness to the industry, regardless of what the prevailing social norms would come to. I feel the same way about child labor. There isn't anything inherent to "childhood" that entitles someone to a particular expectation of treatment, but I kinda like the societal norms we have that would prevent hard labor for those under the age of 12. My opnion doesn't matter much to people in other countries who are trying to survive on something more concrete than my goodwill. I was arguing more against Will's take that there is nothing beyond societal disapproval that is negative in prostitution. Like you said, the existence of a negative in a legalized endeavor isn't enough to warrant banning it. I just want to be up front about the fact that there would be costs, so we don't get caught up in ideology either way.
This is all fairly idle talk right now, as I don't envision a large enough legalization movement arising around this issue. While we do need to make moral judgements, we also need to consider the enforcement costs and benefits to any given law. One could make a case for the banning of alcohol in light of its known health effects and secondary effects in drunk driving accidents and increased violence. Are we not being moral enough by giving up on prohibition? And your argument implies that there is something to sex that is unique among human activities, its relationship to marriage. I don't know if I want to see that much rigidity in the law. Would that extend to cohabitation prior to marriage? Would there be a limit to the number of sexual partners one could have? I think what it comes down to for people who don't support the practice (which I believe the vast majority of the libertarian bloggers absolutely don't) is whether or not its sufficient to just not participate in the market. But again, I believe this amounts to more of a libertarian exercise than a social movement.
Organ markets, on the other hand...
(Oh, and I've reserved kidneybay.com, just in case.)
Thanks for the reply. I hadn't intended my comment to be aimed at endorsing illegalization. I probably agree with most here that government prohibitions on sexual activity are not a good choice. Mostly, I was responding to the way certain activities are justified such as Will's comment - "I don’t think prostitution is nice. I think it is work — often hard, emotionally exhausting work that is usually undesirable when there are other equally well-paying options. But I don’t think this is special, or unusual." A societal order is not only what the government imposes but what society imposes. I am more concerned with the latter.
In addition, I'm not sure how anyone who has had sex can say that it is not intrinsically different than picking lettuce. Sex is by definition an act that requires another person; it is something that joins them together, both physically and emotionally. And this is not like working with a co-worker. Just because someone CAN treat it as such does not mean that it SHOULD be. Experience should make this plainly obvious.
One more anachronism - sex and reproduction. I suppose there is no such relationship when sex has been reduced to a commodity. Child birth must be treated as some sort of accidental byproduct that happens occasionally and interrupts the flow of work, something like a paperjam.
I hope I'm not petty to argue in terms of aesthetic taste here, Jacob, but you remind me of those people who hate air conditioning. Why do so many people romanticize the deprivations of our ancestors, like sweltering indoor heat and unreliable contraception?
I really do see where you're coming from in all of this. One of the themes in Predictably Irrational (reviewed on this blog earlier) is that once an activity that was regulated by social capital becomes overtly commercial, the expectations change completely. One we as a society go around then bend, we won't be able to just come back. There are a lot of considerations that should be made before action was taken.
Regarding voting, I would say that you don't "own" your vote, in the sense that it illegal to sell (the same way you don't seem to be able to properly say you own your body). Your vote is protected, because you are entitled to solely determmine it (kind've of like your body, to a certain extent, with some very important exceptions), but while it's protected, you don't have full control over it. But you can be persuaded by things that benefit you indirectly.
Aaron
I do think there is a difference between prostitution and lettuce-picking, but I have to go on fuzzy psychological (or cultural) ground here, and say that having to sell sex as a service makes it far more difficult to have personal relationships that include sex. Maybe in a society with different norms this wouldn’t be true, but here and now a prostitute has to forgo a (nearly) universal part of a complete human life. That’s not true of other workers, even those who work for long hours and low pay.
(I apologize if I've misunderstood your argument, but here goes.) You argue that our normative cultural dynamics make it virtually impossible for a prostitute to have a health intimate life. Pardon the Godwin's Law corollary, but analogous arguments have historically been made against mixed-race marriages. The argument that it should be illegal because it would be too socially hard on them as well as on the children that would result from such a marriage are just as invalid as those arguing that a women should be jailed for taking a profession that will cause her social harm.