Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"We don't want to be known as the only state in the nation that has legal prostitution."
The Boston Globe has an interesting article on the efforts to criminalize prostitution in Rhode Island, where the practice is legal so long as it doesn't take place in public view. As the story notes:
Rhode Island began tacitly allowing prostitution after a 1970s lawsuit spurred legislators to rewrite old laws covering a variety of sexual behavior. The new law banned prostitutes from selling themselves on the streets but was silent about sex for money in private. That exclusion went largely unnoticed until 1998, when the state Supreme Court said the Legislature had intended to bar only prostitution in public.
After that, prosecutors sought to crack down on prostitution using other laws. They brought charges against alleged brothels for performing unlicensed massages, but the alleged brothels soon changed the names of their services to table showers and body rubs, which are not regulated activities, [Citizens Against Trafficking co-founder Donna] Hughes said. Thwarted, local authorities tried to force brothels out of business districts, saying that its workers were living in the businesses in violation of the zoning codes. But the alleged brothels moved to residential areas, Hughes said.
Rest here.
Meanwhile in Reason: Kerry Howley discusses legalizing prostitution with former sex worker Tracy Quon, Joanne McNeil explains how anti-prostitution activists have equated sex work with slavery for over a century, and Nick Gillespie argues that legalizing paid sex acts would bring in millions in new tax revenue.
|8.13.09 @ 12:28PM|#
Nevada, dumbass.
It's only illegal there at the county level, and not in every
county.
Janet|8.13.09 @ 12:40PM|#
This is disgusting, they need to pass a law IMMEDIATELY to protect women and girls from this degrading lifestyle. This is so wrong, it is offensive to all women.
mark|8.13.09 @ 12:48PM|#
Unlicensed massages?
This is apparently the kind of thing legislators enjoy working
on:
temperatures of water levels for various types of procedures shall be maintained at
comfortable levels in accordance with acceptable practices as follows:
i. not to exceed 105°F for water baths of any type;
ii. not to exceed 165°F for dry heat cabinet or room bath temperatures; and
iii. not to exceed 110°F for steam cabinet or room bath temperatures;
I, for one, am glad that our wise lawmakers are there to tell me
how hot is too hot.
|8.13.09 @ 12:49PM|#
it is offensive to all women.
...except for the ones who engage in sex for money of their own
free will and without coercion. But, whatever.
barbara|8.13.09 @ 12:53PM|#
"...it is offensive to all women."
Please do not speak for me. I am a woman, and I do not find
prostitution offensive.
"...except for the ones who engage in sex for money of their own
free will and without coercion."
Nor do I fit into that category. But whatever...
|8.13.09 @ 12:54PM|#
It's always about the tax revenues with you guys. You're all in
the pay of BIG TAXMAN.
also, I prefer to solicit sex from stangers in public restrooms,
thank you very much.
|8.13.09 @ 12:56PM|#
Even if something is legal, shitbag prosecutors will try and screw with it if it has any kind of disapproval from the public. Just another reason the drug war and gambling bans have gone on so long too.
Abdul|8.13.09 @ 12:56PM|#
I think "Janet" is pulling your leg with by spoofing knee-jerk
reactionaries.
Hmmm, knee-jerk could be another useful euphemism for Rhode Island
bordellos.
Xeones|8.13.09 @ 12:58PM|#
also, I prefer to solicit sex from stangers in public
restrooms, thank you very much.
Eww, i didn't know there were Congressmen commenting here.
Abdul|8.13.09 @ 1:02PM|#
Also, check out this National Review article aimed at the
libertarian argument about Rhode Island hooking
being a victimless crime.
Long story short: NR says that RI proseuctors can't go after real
baddies, like sex trafficers and coercive pimps, because they can't
arrest on the underlying offense of prostitution.
I find that suspect because my law school buddy interned for the
Philly building code enforcement section. The cops and DA dumped
all the bordello cases on the building code people because proving
money changed hands was ususally too difficult without either a
wire or a sting operation, both of which were too costly to justify
very often.
|8.13.09 @ 1:05PM|#
You people have no idea how this works.
First prostitution is legalized.
Next... sex with your life (or somewhat more temporary) partner
will be taxed.
Wickard v. Filburn, baby.
You sit there all "libertarian" thinking about this should be legal
and, next thing you know, WHAM. There's a government webcam and jar
on the nightstand.
|8.13.09 @ 1:13PM|#
I'm surprised Florida ("First in Nudity, First in Lap Dances") doesn't have legal prostitution.
Paul|8.13.09 @ 1:16PM|#
Nick Gillespie argues that legalizing paid sex acts would bring in millions in new tax revenue.
Not to get all lonewacko on y'all, but will Reason be
against licensure and heavy-handed regulation of the sex
industry?
Gunboat Diplomacy|8.13.09 @ 1:16PM|#
Having worked for many years with teens exiting prostitution I can tell you first hand it ain't no victimless crime.
|8.13.09 @ 1:26PM|#
SugarFree | August 13, 2009, 12:30pm | #
Rhode Island hookers. [shudder]
Really, Nutrasweet? Did you bother to look at the Rhode Island
craigslist posting for adult services? Because this
hottie is one of those awful RI hookers.
|8.13.09 @ 1:26PM|#
it ain't no victimless crime
It is a victimless crime. It's a poor, dangerous choice
for a young teen and a failure of parenting, but it is the
definition of a victimless crime.
LarryA|8.13.09 @ 1:32PM|#
Having worked for many years with teens exiting prostitution
I can tell you first hand it ain't no victimless crime.
That's to be expected. Prohibition always creates victims. If
prostitution were legal, normal child labor laws would apply.
Nick Gillespie argues that legalizing paid sex acts would bring
in millions in new tax revenue.
Not to get all lonewacko on y'all, but will Reason be against
licensure and heavy-handed regulation of the sex
industry?
If a smart legislature wanted to-uh-get the most buck for the bang,
licensure and regulation would be counterproductive. Legalize
prostitution and watch the ordinary sales taxes roll in.
Paul|8.13.09 @ 1:33PM|#
it ain't no victimless crime
It is a victimless crime. It's a poor, dangerous choice for a young
teen and a failure of parenting, but it is the definition of a
victimless crime.
Prostitution in and of itself is a victimless crime. What we have
here are different issues. Being forced or coereced into
prostitution is not a victimless crime. Using violence or coercion
to force underage girls to have sex is not a victimless crime.
|8.13.09 @ 1:35PM|#
I agree 100%, Paul. I think Gunboat D and I were passing in the night, so to speak.
Michael|8.13.09 @ 1:36PM|#
Having worked for many years with teens exiting prostitution
I can tell you first hand it ain't no victimless crime.
You're absolutely correct. It is not a victimless crime. However,
if it ceased being a crime it might also....ummm......gonna have to
think about this one for a bit.
Paul|8.13.09 @ 1:36PM|#
That's to be expected. Prohibition always creates victims.
If prostitution were legal, normal child labor laws would
apply.
Right. Teenagers would only be allowed to have sex for a maximum of
15 hours a week. Plus they wouldn't be allowed to work hours after
8pm.
Paul|8.13.09 @ 1:42PM|#
Plus, all the free Mr. Pibb you can drink! (Limit 2 per
day.)
Guess you didn't get the memo, FrBunny. Soda is bad. Even 2 per
day. Legislators workin' the midnight oil as we speak. Afterall, we
don't don't want our teenage prostitutes obese.
|8.13.09 @ 1:45PM|#
Did you bother to look at the Rhode Island craigslist
posting for adult services? Because this hottie is one of those
awful RI hookers.
You just wanted an excuse to troll the RI adult craigslist, didn't
you, prolefeed.
|8.13.09 @ 1:46PM|#
To answer the question that no one has asked, Florida had to
ditch its state motto ("The Sunshine State") because it
discriminated against albinos. Since the exotic dancing lobby is
very powerful in Tallahassee, well. . . .
We started our navel-gazing and trashing of tradition when we
ditched our state song ("Old Folks at Home") because it was racist
and offended presidents.
|8.13.09 @ 2:00PM|#
In a perfect world, Episiarch would be a pimp.
Dennis: I will be providing a very important service, however, as
what I would like to be called...a handsome companion.
Mac: To dudes?
Charlie: To guys or...
Dennis: No, not to dudes. To--no, hang on. Hold on. Hang on. To old
fancy rich ladies who want to do classy, exotic, fancy things with
me.
Mac: Great, Dennis, you keep banging dudes.
|8.13.09 @ 2:13PM|#
Did you bother to look at the Rhode Island craigslist
posting for adult services? Because this hottie is one of those
awful RI hookers.
You just wanted an excuse to troll the RI adult craigslist, didn't
you, prolefeed.
Just wanted to see if your mother was there, Epi. ;o)
|8.13.09 @ 2:21PM|#
Whenever I hire a hooker, I just put a video camera in the room and tape. That way, if I am caught, I can say I was making a porno mocvie.
Elemenope|8.13.09 @ 2:33PM|#
Funny thing, I actually know Donna Hughes (not "know" know, in the Biblical sense, but have met several times in the context of the University I attended). She has done some actually impressive work documenting and fighting (esp. child) sex trafficking, though it occasionally runs up against libertarian sensibilities. e.g. Increased prostitution is correlated with sex trafficking, and sometimes the consequentialist impulse takes over from there.
|8.13.09 @ 2:39PM|#
Increased prostitution is correlated with sex
trafficking
Illegal or legal prostitution? Or does she not make a
distinction?
Elemenope|8.13.09 @ 2:51PM|#
For her, it's basically a consequentialist calculus: sex trafficking is correlated with prostitution pretty tightly (legal or otherwise), and so if one wants to reduce trafficking, one must reduce prostitution. I know for a fact she opposed a legalization drive for prostitution in Berkeley a decade or so ago, and I don't think her position has changed. Part of her argument also centers on the high incidence of client-on-prostitute violence even in areas where prostitution is legal and/or regulated.
B|8.13.09 @ 2:55PM|#
"Nick Gillespie argues that legalizing paid sex acts would bring
in millions in new tax revenue."
And would also allow chronic World of Warcraft players and Trekkers
to get laid for the first time.
|8.13.09 @ 2:59PM|#
How is trafficking defined? In the UK debate it has been widened to include all migrant prostitutes.
|8.13.09 @ 2:59PM|#
Seems like a self-serving backwards correlation to me. You don't
have sex trafficking at all without prostitution; she taking a
morally black subset in order to make the superset gray. It's like
banning steakhouses because people choke on steak occasionally.
Wanting to go to a steakhouse is not a pro-choking action.
"Pro-chocking" is one of those phrases that is going to pop up
disturbing ads, isn't it?
Elemenope|8.13.09 @ 3:07PM|#
Seems like a self-serving backwards correlation to me. You
don't have sex trafficking at all without prostitution; she taking
a morally black subset in order to make the superset gray. It's
like banning steakhouses because people choke on steak
occasionally. Wanting to go to a steakhouse is not a pro-choking
action.
Heaven knows I agree with you, and don't agree with her.
However, if I were to pick a nit, the actual act of prostitution
has more directly to do with sexual violence and trafficking than a
steakhouse has to do with choking, if only because while you can
choke on any number of foods (of which steak is but one example),
pretty much everyone that is trafficked for sex becomes a
prostitute. That it is a steakhouse is incidental, that it is
prostitution is integral. Hence, the correlation-to-causation leap
is more supportable (at least, way less crazy) in the prostitution
example than the steakhouse example. As a consequence, when it
comes to making policy arguments, it is a stronger hurdle than it
sounds like.
Paul|8.13.09 @ 3:14PM|#
And would also allow chronic World of Warcraft players and
Trekkers to get laid for the first time.
And the last time.
Paul|8.13.09 @ 3:21PM|#
pretty much everyone that is trafficked for sex becomes a
prostitute.
Pimpin' ain't easy...
!</ </a>|8.13.09 @ 3:31PM|#
Cool, I forgot all about RI and their pay sex laws. I have
Arlington, VA sort of like that in a book series, set in the
future. Except they go beyond "not in public" and ignore it in bars
that do not mind some patrons working the place.
If only my fictional world could come true.
|8.13.09 @ 3:36PM|#
Ele,
I didn't think you agreed with her. I'm having sly smile indication
problems with my prose today. I'm not as happy with the steakhouse
analogy now.
But, I think the sticking point is this:
pretty much everyone that is trafficked for sex becomes a
prostitute
I don't see how a woman or child who is trafficked for sex is ever
not a prostitute, even the virgins they marry off to some
gross mouthbreather is still being whored out in my book.
My point is that collapsing sexual slavery into prostitution is not
truly consequentialist, just dishonest. It sounds more like she is
using it as a line of attack against prostitution. The two issues
are fairly easy to mentally separate. In fact, she's almost arguing
that sex trafficking would be OK without the prostitution part.
Which is silly.
But then, voluntary and involuntary choices are notions a lot of
people have a problem understanding.
Meta4|8.13.09 @ 3:56PM|#
"It is a victimless crime. It's a poor, dangerous choice for a
young teen and a failure of parenting, but it is the definition of
a victimless crime."
A 14-year-old getting boned by a 40-year-old man is statutory rape.
THAT is not a victimless crime.
Meta4|8.13.09 @ 4:01PM|#
"
We started our navel-gazing and trashing of tradition when we
ditched our state song ("Old Folks at Home") because it was racist
and offended presidents."
N ot really related, but I live in a black neighborhood. We have
this icecream truck that plays the strangest songs. It's like they
have a tape of the Amrican Songbook, but because they are from
another country, they don't really know any of the tunes. It's
funny to hear "Deck the Halls" blaring from an icecream truck in
August, but funnier still, is hearing "Dixie" blaring from an
icecream truck in a black neighborhood.
Elemenope|8.13.09 @ 4:28PM|#
I'm having sly smile indication problems with my prose
today.
The danger of writing on these here Internets.
In fact, she's almost arguing that sex trafficking would be OK
without the prostitution part. Which is silly.
I don't see how that follows at all. She's aiming at, specifically,
reducing sex trafficking (being identified here as the primary
evil). Since she identifies prostitution as an associated
phenomenon which she argues somewhat persuasively further
incentivizes and encourages the big-bad she's aiming at, she argues
that prostitution reduction would reduce the demand (and hence the
occurrence) of sex trafficking.
Honestly, where I get off the train here is somewhat of a similar
area as the are of drug use "crimes". Criminalizing prostitution
makes criminals of the apparent victims, compounding instead of
alleviating their situation. If it were the case that only
Johns/Janes could be prosecuted, that may serve the
consequentialist end better, but only at the perverse legal cost of
making offering a service legal while consuming the same service
illegal.
Personally, even if all of her causation arguments track perfectly
(and I have decent confidence that she's at least right about some
of it), the proper policy prescriptions which would actually lead
to harm reduction seem to be legalize-and-regulate, not
criminalize-and-punish.
Happy endings|8.13.09 @ 5:05PM|#
Check out Happy Endings a documentary that follows the women in
the spas and the fight to make prostitution a crime.
http://www.happyendingsdoc.com
|8.13.09 @ 5:43PM|#
"Pro-chocking" is one of those phrases that is going to pop
up disturbing ads, isn't it?
Only if you're disturbed by airplanes rolling around aimlessly on
runways when they're not supposed to.
Robert|8.13.09 @ 7:33PM|#
Having worked for many years with teens exiting prostitution I can tell you first hand it ain't no victimless crime.
That's to be expected. Prohibition always creates victims. If prostitution were legal, normal child labor laws would apply.
Child labor is a victimless crime.
|8.13.09 @ 8:13PM|#
"A 14-year-old getting boned by a 40-year-old man is statutory
rape. THAT is not a victimless crime."
Sorry, I have to do this:
"Man, that Arlene is lookin' HOT!"
"Dude, she's 14 years old!"
"Yeah, finally!"
Michael Goodyear|8.13.09 @ 10:07PM|#
For a critique of the National Review article, see
Professor Elizabeth Wood's letter
|8.14.09 @ 9:14AM|#
A 14-year-old getting boned by a 40-year-old man is statutory rape. THAT is not a victimless crime.
But it's a crime because she's fourteen years old, not
because she's a prostitute.
And "human trafficking" is wrong because of it's coercive nature.
Slavery itself is wrong, not the purpose for which anyone is
enslaved.
I'm getting tired of arguments that prostitution/drugs/gambling/etc
must be illegal "for the children".
That's what various child protection laws are for and I know of
vanishingly few people who are advocating the end of most of
those.
And we can have laws protecting the safety of children without
interfering with the free choices of adults.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245