Yet Another Reason to Legalize Prostitution

|

Former madam Kristin Davis reviews the new Lifetime movie about the "craigslist" killer, which oddly calls the convicted murderer an "alleged" criminal and fails to name his victim.

I believe that prostitution should be decriminalized, if not legalized, so that women who are victims are afforded legal protection and can call the police if they are victimized. Let's not forget that Phillip Markoff was found to have the trophies of dozens of women he victimized. If one of them felt comfortable calling the police, then Julissa Brissman would still be alive and this man would have been caught.

Although we kid ourselves that we live in a progressive society, we are still quite closed-minded. Lifetime did not give Julissa a name because society doesn't place any value on the lives of sex workers. Because they commit crimes, they are automatically deemed to be less valuable members of society.

Whole piece at The Daily Caller here.

Davis ran for governor of New York last time around on a platform of legalizing pot, prostitution, and poker (well, gambling more broadly). She talked to Reason.tv about her libertarian beliefs during the campaign. Check out the vid here.

NEXT: Prohibitionists: Leave Us Alone!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is writing about ladies of the evening so embarrasing that Reason refuses to identify the author of this piece?

  2. Lifetime did not give Julissa a name because society doesn’t place any value on the lives of sex workers

    That’s not true. The value can be anywhere from $25 for a BJ in a truckstop to $4,000 a night.

  3. Lifetime did not give Julissa a name because society doesn’t place any value on the lives of sex workers.

    Lifetime’s target market approves.

  4. Are women less sympathetic to sex workers? I think we seen them more as people than their clients.

    1. Re: Rather,

      I think we seen [sic] them more as people than their clients.

      I seen them Rather needs a few classes in grammars.

      1. OM, don’t make me search your mistakes 😉

        1. Rather, I would rather you do, you might actually learn something in the process…

    2. Depends on the woman. I worked with a “progressive” woman who viewed strippers as sub-human. Jeebus knows what she thought of escorts.

    3. I think women see prostitutes like union workers see freelancers, scabs, and illegal immigrants.

      Sex workers aren’t in it for the lifelong tax-free benefits and excellent legally-mandated severance package, they’re getting nothing but an hourly rate.

      If they were legal, men might start to wonder why they bothered putting up with as much bullshit as they do in relationships.

        1. I never knew “e” was the acronym for coward 🙂

      1. “I think women see prostitutes like union workers see freelancers, scabs, and illegal immigrants”

        As “unfair” competition? I think you?re right.

    4. It depends on weather the sex worker is prettier than the woman in question.

      1. Hah, nice. There are plenty of women who blame sex workers for ruining society, as if withholding sex from a sexual partner and expecting them not to go elsewhere is par for the course.

    5. Of course they are. Women hate prostitutes more than any Bible-thumping blowhard or loud-mouthed “degrading to women/corrosive effect on society” nanny-staters, even moreso when the two intersect.

      Can’t have prostitutes undercutting the sex market, after all.

  5. Because they commit crimes, they are automatically deemed to be less valuable members of society.

    Wait, what?

  6. Um, forget about just sex workers, do women actually really like ANY other women?

    1. HL Mencken’s definition of a misogynist: A man who hates women as much as women hate one another

    2. I don’t hate all women, just that bitch down the hall that keeps flashing her diamond ring at me.

    3. Just because I won’t do a 3-way doesn’t mean I don’t like women. BTW, I really like men; Greg, why don’t you like other men?

  7. The state should NOT endorse this kind of immoral behavior.

    One of the ways the Left expands the Total State is by weakening other institutions (traditional religion, family, and morality) through promotion of things like prostitution and narcotics.

    1. Soo…preventing the State from dictating what we do with our own bodies expands the state’s power?

      1. In the long run, yes it does.

        1. So limiting the State expands the State – gotcha.

        2. War is peace! Freedom is slavery!

        3. Are you really that stupid, or are you just playing a part in a web show?

        4. Police states are so conducive to morality. Piss off, troll.

          1. Liberty can only be mantained by a virtuous, Judeo-Christian society.

            Why do you think the most libertine states like the Netherlands are also the most Socialist?

            1. The glorious freedom of doing as your told.

              1. er.. “you’re.”

                I wish some could tell me to type betterer.

            2. Liberty can only be mantained by a virtuous, Judeo-Christian society.

              I’m sympathetic to deep libertarianism, myself, but I try not to fall into the Statist fallacy: “If the State doesn’t do it, it doesn’t happen.”

              You seem to be saying that social/cultural/moral disapproval can’t affect behavior unless expressed via the jackboot. IOW, there can be no moral society, only a legal society, run in every detail by a Total State.

              1. It is much easier for it to affect behavior when such things are made illegal, at least in the moral realm.

                And drug use has consequences for society far beyond the individual that choses to use them–it is a form of aggression against society itself. Look at China in the 1800s, or our cities during the crack epidemic. And no, not all the harm caused by the crack epidemic was due to it being illegal. The drugs ITSELF caused most of the harm.

                1. Don’t be his porn.

                2. So you are a teetotaler i take it? In favor of prohibition of alcohol and cigarettes?

                  1. I don’t drink alcohol or smoke.

                    Alcohol and tobacco are too entrenched in our traditional culture to eradicate, but illegal drugs are not.

                    BTW, boosters of legal narcotics are usually also serial abusers of alcohol. They don’t care about the dangers of alcohol, they just want more options to satisfy their selfish desires for euphoria without effort.

                    1. So we hit the heart of it. you are in fact a communist. You hate those of us that are “selfish”. We should all share our productivity with the rest of society. I don’t have the right to do what i want with my free time.

                      stop trying to control my mind.

                    2. Euphoria should only come through real human achievment , hard work, and a realtionship with God, and it should take effort on the part of the individual–not by pumping poisons into the brain.

                    3. so your plan to “eradicate” illegal drugs includes……?

                    4. Eradication of the impure and unfaithful. QED.

                3. Taxed Enough Already: It is much easier for it to affect behavior when such things are made illegal, at least in the moral realm.

                  vs.

                  Jesus: If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.

                  Sounds like the (alleged) servant thinks himself greater than the Master.

                4. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn

            3. “Liberty Control can only be mantained by a virtuous, Judeo-Christian society.”

              Fixed. It even makes sense now, in that thoecratic dictatorship sort of way.

            4. Why do you think the most libertine states like the Netherlands are also the most Socialist?

              Because they’re Dutch. Duh.

    2. The state should NOT endorse this kind of immoral behavior.

      There ya go.

    3. Re: Taxed Enough Already,

      The state should NOT endorse this kind of immoral behavior.

      The decision not to penalize an activity it cannot be contrued as endorsing it. You’re equivocating.

      1. “The decision not to penalize an activity cannot be contrued as endorsing it.”

        Sorry – the “it” was left after editing by mistake.

        1. God, you are real, aren’t you 😉

      2. Objectively, if the state legalizes it, its saying society accepts said behavior. The behavior grows more and more widespread and mainstream.

        It is, de facto, promoting it. Look at abortion rates since Roe, or teen pregnancy rates since so-called “sex education” was introduced to government schools.

        1. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/…..600206.pdf

          Historical teen pregnancy rates had a blip in the 50s, then reverted to their 1920s rate.

          1. If it went down its only because of abortions.

            1. True, I’ve noticed a spike in non-pregnant teens getting abortions to prevent pregnancy.

            2. Abortions don’t reduce pregnancies, they only reduce births. Dumbass.

              1. …BT beat me to it…

                1. I decided to be constructive and address him as sarcastically and condescendingly as possible.

                  1. I decided to be constructive and address him as sarcastically and condescendingly as possible.

                    I hope that kind of thing doesn’t catch on here in the internets.

                    1. comment of the day-you sweet bastard.

                    2. Umm, he’s right actually. From Thomas Sowell’s the Vision of the Anointed.

                      “As sex education programs spread widely through the American educational system during the 1970s, the pregnancy rate among 15- to 19-year-old females rose from approximately 68 per thousand in 1970 to approximately 96 per thousand by 1980. Among unmarried girls in the 15- to 17-year-old bracket, birth rates rose 29 percent between 1970 and 1984, despite a massive increase in abortions, which more than doubled in the same period. Among girls under 15, the number of abortions surpassed the number of live births by 1974.” ? P. 18

                      The problem is TEA is arguing past you guys. He sees the highest good as moral virtue, and he sees a legitimate role for the State in promoting it. You, and I as well, see the highest goal as liberty.

                      He’s not dishonest or misinformed, he just has different priorities.

        2. Right – like alcohol is legal, so society considers being a drunken lowlife acceptable. I see how it works now. Idiot.

        3. Ah, the “she didn’t tell me specifically to not grab her ass when she walked by” defense.

          I haven’t had much success with it.

        4. I never would have wanted to have sex as a teenager if it wasn’t for that damned “sex education.”

          Or do you think teenagers wouldn’t figure out that whole penis goes into vagina thing on their own?

          1. Bone stupid people (much to my regret) figure this out everyday. As an OB nurse told me, “the first thing a child learns is ’round peg goes in round hole'”. So, if they have the mental capacity of a 1.5 year old, fucking is going to take place eventually.

        5. Objectively, if the state legalizes it, its saying society accepts said behavior.

          The Statist Fallacy in action. Note the elision of “state” and “society”.

          1. “Objectively, if the state legalizes it, its saying society accepts said behavior.”

            So TEA, are you saying that laws should be written so only things that are legal are proclaimed as legal, as opposed to our current system that only those things enumarated as illegal are illegal?

        6. The State either declares something illegal OR it has no goddamn say in the matter. The only time the State “promotes” some activity is when it wants to tax the shit out of it. Which is this case would mean State Brothels.

          1. “You can’t win if you don’t play!”

        7. Huh… the Constitution says that government can’t ban religion. But if government doesn’t ban religion, that means that government is de facto promoting religion (which as history shows us, is becoming more and more widespread). But the same passage also says that government can’t promote religion.

          It’s a paradox. And since the Constitution contains a paradox, that renders the whole thing invalid, whether or not it’s a hundred years old.

          Sweet! Now we can do whatever we want!

        8. Objectively, if the state legalizes it, its saying society accepts said behavior. The behavior grows more and more widespread and mainstream.

          State ? Society.

    4. So this will be like when my mom tells me to go to church, find a nice girl, and quit wastin’ my money at the track.

      But with a gun at my temple.

    5. What????

      First of all, the Left is just as fascist as the Right and doesn’t promote prostitution or narcotics. The Left is just as gung ho in the war on human nature. Secondly, how do prostitution and narcotics weaken “traditional religion, family and morality?” Traditional religion is weakened by it’s own irrationality while family and morality are not necessarily at odds with prostitution and narcotics. Two people exchanging money for sex has absolutely nothing to do with family or morality. Same with narcotics – narcotics are actually legally used for pain and are only a problem when used in excess – like absolutely anything. Third, expansion of the “Total State” has nothing to do with weakening of traditional religion, family and morality. Fourth, somebody’s use of narcotics or participation in prostitution is nobody else’s business unless such activity harms others.

      1. The use of narcotics DOES harm society–look at the Chinese during their opium epidemic. Opium was perfectly legal and it nearly destroyed their entire society.

        1. Re: Taxed Enough Already,

          The use of narcotics DOES harm society–look at the Chinese during their opium epidemic. Opium was perfectly legal and it nearly destroyed their entire society.

          You believe the anti-British history books too much. The so-called Opium epidemic is a figment of left-leaning historians’ imagination.

        2. hyperbole much?

        3. Opium, heroin, and morphine were all perfectly legal before the 1920s in the U.S.–and it, oh right, didn’t destroy American society.

          1. Opium use was “epidemic” by today’s standards in much of Britain during the 19th century. However, because it wasn’t illegal (and it was cheap), the vast majority of users paid for opium with money they earned legally.

            1. I would like to see some American stats, as I don’t think TEA cares about those godless Brits.

  8. promotion of things like prostitution and narcotics.

    And ROADS!

    1. Fire departments, et al.

  9. It goes like this:

    As the family, traditional religion, and morality are degraded by things like prostitution, narcotics, atheism, abortion, easy divorce, and pre-marital sex, people will become less and less able to govern themselves, leaving space for big government to fill in things like food stamps, government day cares, various welfare benefits etc. for those too weakened from narcotics or those from broken families who are rendered unable to self-govern.

    The first thing the Bolsheviks did in power? They legalized easy divorce, abortion, and limited amounts of legal prostitution and launched a campaign against Judeo-Christianity.

    It’s not coincidence.

    1. Holy crap – there is too much stupid in this comment to take it in all at once. “Piss off, troll” is the only appropriate response.

      1. So, to recap…
        Drugs, hookers, abortion, fornication, divorce, and the erosion of faith give “the left” myriad opportunities to expand government, so we, on “the right”, should utilize government to fight all of those horrific societal ills.

        Free Republic is that > way, man.

        1. Returning to traditional laws that we had inplace before the Cultural Revolution of the 60s is not “expanding government”, it’s returning government to it’s proper role.

          1. Returning to traditional laws that we had inplace before the Cultural Revolution of the 60s

            So you approve of legal cocaine and heroin? It was only illegal after the Harrison Act of 1914 kept everyone safe from “drug-crazed, sex-mad negroes” .

    2. Re: Taxed Enough Already,

      As the family, traditional religion, and morality are degraded by things like prostitution, narcotics, atheism, abortion, easy divorce, and pre-marital sex, people will become less and less able to govern themselves[…]

      That is a contradiction. If people indulge in any of those behaviors, it is clear they DO govern themselves, as they choose to indulge in these activities. Maybe you have a different concept of self-governing, but DIVORCE or ATHEISM are certainly NOT manifestations of purely instinctive reactions.

    3. So, unless you live in a Leave it to Beaver episode, you are too weak to govern yourself and the Nanny State will take over your mind?

      Good to know.

      And those Bolsheviks “campaign against Judeo-Christianity? One group of statists pushing another group of statists (the Russian Orthodox Church) out of power.

  10. Another Bob Jones University success story!

  11. What’s ‘traditional’ religion?

    People Against Goodness And Normalcy

    1. The various forms of Judeo-Christianity.

      1. Hinduism, Buddhism, paganism/wicca – all new fangled ideas. Christianity = traditional.

  12. WHY are the most libertine societies like Sweden and Holland ALSO the most Socialist?

    WHY did the Bolsheviks (and Communists of all stripes) promote things like pornography, prostitution, easy divorce, abortions, etc. (by 1990 abortions outnumbered live births in the USSR!)

    1. So we have to use government to force people to do everything we consider moral and good, so that they can be free from goverment coercion. Are you really this dense?

      1. The following lead to control by the Left, surely as the sun rises in the East:

        *Destruction of Judeo-Christianity through cultural institutions controlled by the Left such as higher “education” and Hollywood

        *Legalization of things like abortion, homosexual marriage, easy divorce

        *Promotion oand legalization of the use of narcottics such as cocaine, heroin, LSD, MDMA, and cannabis (wrongly described as “harmless”)

        This will leave us in a weakened state leading to Socialism.

        Socialism CANNOT advance unless traditional morality is first destroyed.

        1. Aha – freedom leads to control by the left, which leads to socialism, so the only answer is control by the right! (Which leads to…?…Profit!)

        2. Seriously, TEA, you’re confusing cause and effect. But, leaving that aside, you’re being ahistorical.

          You may not have noticed, but laws against victimless crimes have become more and more draconian as the socialist agenda has advanced. The Left isn’t legalizing any behaviors, regardless of their morality.

          Rather, the Left and the Right are cheerfully cooperating in the destruction of civil society via the relentless expansion of the Total State. Rolling back the right flank of the Total State doesn’t help the Left, it hurts it by allowing civil society to recover that much ground.

          1. TEA is also confusing moral with legal. Legal does not equal moral and illegal does not equal immoral.

        3. TEA, you’re seriously delusional.

          1. Judeo-Christianity is not being destroyed by anything other than it’s own irrationality. If it’s premise (unquestioning acceptance of an irrational mythology) was strong enough, it couldn’t be “destroyed” by competing ideas.

          2. Freedom does not, in any rational universe, lead to control by others.

          3. Of the drugs you name, only heroin is classified as a “narcotic.” Narcotic is a medical term. Also, cannabis, while not harmless, might be the safest drug – legal or otherwise. It is impossible to overdose on cannabis while a tylenol overdose will lead to liver failure and an aspirin overdose can be easily fatal. Cannabis, as typically used, does not cause any long lasting organ injury (except maybe possibly neurological) – unlike legal tobacco which destroys all organs with long term typical use. Cannabis, according to studies, is also not addicting unlike other legal and illegal recreational drugs. As an ER physician, I have yet to see a single patient with a short term or long term injury from cannabis use. I see people dying from legal drug use (tobacco and alcohol) every day.

          Control over individual morality is fascist. Your fear of socialist fascism is leading you to embrace right wing fascism.

          1. Cannabis saps the individual of iniative, motivation, creativity, and ability to self-govern.

            It is an immoral drug which gives a person easy euphoria simply by ingesting it rather than euphoria through real accomplishments and hard work or family.

            1. Cannabis Bad self-esteem saps the individual of iniative, motivation, creativity, and ability to self-govern.

              When are you going to start persecuting thought crimes, eh?

          2. So the effects of Cannabis are actually much MORE insidious than that of even the “hard” drugs.

            Cannabis is, essentially, a Socialist drug.

            1. Jack? General Jack D. Ripper? Is that you?

              1. Purity of Essence…Peace on Earth…Purity of Essence…

    2. We don’t cotton to no puritanism ’round these parts.

    3. Re: Taxed Enough Already,

      WHY are the most libertine societies like Sweden and Holland ALSO the most Socialist?

      You may be confusing cause and effect. People may be more sexually libertine in Sweden because they have little other liberties available and are just bored – I mean, have you seen Swedish television?

      WHY did the Bolsheviks (and Communists of all stripes) promote things like pornography, prostitution, easy divorce, abortions, etc. (by 1990 abortions outnumbered live births in the USSR!)

      Actually, the communist regime was quite prudish. Divorce was not high in the USSR because of communism, it was despite the communist regime best efforts. It is simply that a high cost of living and lack of incentives are not friendly to happy couples.

    4. You’re right, North Korea is a libertine’s dream holiday.

    5. “Why did the Bolsheviks (and Communists of all stripes) promote things like pornography, prostitution….”

      Ummm, the Soviet Union outlawed prostitution.

      And here’s a little something from our friend wiki:
      “Pornography in the Soviet UnionPornography in the Soviet Union was largely suppressed until the final years of the USSR. According to The Pornography and Erotica Debate: USSR, sex in general was viewed as “a wasteful consumer of energies better devoted to the building of Communism.” In the Stalinist period, the importation of pornography to the USSR was a capital offence.[citation needed] Genrikh Yagoda, the third head of the NKVD, was accused during his trial (besides espionage and high treason) of storing a great number of pornographic films and pictures. Such accusations were also faced by Nikolai Yezhov, who followed Yagoda. More recently, possession could get up to 3 years in prison, or a 3000 ruble fine. The 1988 Soviet film Malenkaya Vera was the first to feature a sex scene. The resolution on Glasnost stated, “Glasnost must not be used…[to] disseminate pornography” but by September 1989, calendars of topless women for the year 1990 were being sold in Moscow.[1]”

    6. WHY did the Bolsheviks (and Communists of all stripes) promote things like pornography, prostitution, easy divorce, abortions, etc.

      Because, statistically speaking, they couldn’t get everything wrong.

    1. I loved Yours, Mine and Ours-didn’t remember the title though. Carol Burnett gave a great interview where she discussed Lucy’s brilliant business acumen.

  13. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

    Is this what you’re after, TEA?

    1. It’s freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.

      1. So, Muslim polygamy in the US, legal or no?

      2. Freedom from government respecting an establishment of religion, moron.

      3. Taxed Enough Already: It’s freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.

        And once more for emphasis…

        Jesus: If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.

  14. Thomas Jefferson singed official documents ending with the phrase “In The Year of our Lord CHRIST.

    1. He also screwed and owned slaves. So you must support slavery.

      Idiot.

      1. he supports orgasms

    2. Thomas Jefferson singed official documents

      I always thought he would be a baritone.

      1. He had the hot hand.

    3. He also rewrote the New Testament to exclude any and all references to supernaturalism. Jefferson Bible

      He deeply respected Jesus but thought the mystical nonsense detracted from his message.

      1. Well, that’s definitely safer than burning documents because they refer to Jesus. Although I have to admire his boldness in doing so.

  15. If you don’t believe what I’m saying is true, that’s your right, but at least google “The Naked Communist” and look at what Leftists plan–it includes substantially undermining traditional Judeo-Christian morality.

    1. You left me off. The socialists are going to make you have sex and and smoke goofballs. Be careful…

    2. Re: Taxed Enough Already,

      If you don’t believe what I’m saying is true, that’s your right, but at least google “The Naked Communist” and look at what Leftists plan–it includes substantially undermining traditional Judeo-Christian morality.

      The act of belief is personal, TEA, it is not contingent to how much power the State exerts.

      WHY are the most libertine societies like Sweden and Holland ALSO the most Socialist?

      But this undermines your own argument – what is Socialism, if not the epitome of total State power? And what are prohibitions, if not examples of State power?

    3. If I can’t use my hard earned money to pay for hookers and blow then what good is capitalism? I might as well become a socialist and work less.

  16. Planks 24-28 of the International Communist platform:

    24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

    25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

    26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.” Skousen claimed Communists sought to encourage the practice of masturbation.

    27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”

    28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

    1. Communism failed. It failed in the USSR, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. Obviously those planks to promote communism failed too! Jeebus Cripes, get your brain back in your skull and use it! Those tactics were failures!

      1. The Communist threat never went away, its just assumed a more insidious form (and has many friends inside the current Administration).

        Don’t aid them!

    2. [citation needed]

      Did the Communists add third party, negative claims about Communists into their own platform? Or is this platform made of straw?

  17. Re: Taxed Enough Already,

    Cannabis saps the individual of iniative, motivation, creativity, and ability to self-govern.

    Ah, I get it… You’re trying to sell Watchtower…

  18. WHY are the most libertine societies like Sweden and Holland ALSO the most Socialist?

    WHY did the Bolsheviks (and Communists of all stripes) promote things like pornography, prostitution, easy divorce, abortions, etc. (by 1990 abortions outnumbered live births in the USSR!)

    If you’re not a troll, you sure are ignorant. Sweden and Holland aren’t the most socialist countries. North Korea and Cuba are. Try bringing drugs or pornography into North Korea, and see what it gets you.

    Even if the USSR abortion figure you quote is true, the reason there were so many abortions there was that it sucked to live there, because it was a totalitarian shithole. From your comments, I would have to conclude that far fewer abortions are being performed.

    Also, the USSR, like North Korea, had the death penalty for drug use. It also had heavy penalties against pornography. If it weren’t for all those abortions, it sounds like your kind of place.

  19. I see adult sex workers as consenting humans using what skills they posess to make a living. Pretty much no different than me, except I unfortunately have to keep my clothes on to go to work. The powers that be in the gubmint are prudes like dat.

    1. No offense to you personally, but as a (state) government contractor, I favor the ‘clothes at work rule’. Holy FSM, it would be like a nude beach, where you only see the things you don’t want to see 99% of the time.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.