Wow, great post. It does bother me that the usual punishment for the johns is only "disorderly conduct" which is "akin to a traffic ticket," but only because I know the prostitutes are punished more severely. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/03/10/an-alleged-evening-with-client-nine-a-look-at-the-mann-act/

I believe a court in Africa, perhaps it was the South African higest court, held that it was a violation of equality to charge prostitutes with more serious charges than johns.

1. Decriminalization, yes. Legalization, no. Legalization is also bad for sex workers. Many sex work supporters have pointed this out and do not want legalization.

2. Nobody is pretending to be more "sexually pure" than a Republican. What angers and entertains most people is the hipocrisy of the GOP. I'm not angry at republicans for being closeted gay men so much as I'm angry at them for being closeted gay men fighting in public for the dissolution of all gay rights.

3. Having a sexual kink is different from paying somebody else to put up with your sexual kinks. There are plenty of people who are totally okay with sex, not "prudes," and still against sex work. Please don't, in your explanations of why you're okay with it, try to simplify my position to "OMG THOSE WHO AREN'T IN FAVOR OF SEX WORK MUST BE ABSTINENCE-ONLY REPUBLICANS!"

It's misguiding. It's the same argument that misogynist porn industry leaders made up to persecute Andrea Dworkin, who was only one of many in a long line of anti-sex "work" women who are atheists and far to the left of you.

I also suggest you read my post about why sex workers supporting a woman's "right" to sex work are often making arguments which are inherently racist.

Thanks a bunch.

"everyone should be allowed to have the kind of sex they want ..."

Gah, no. That's as bad as Barbara Streisand saying "nobody on this earth has the right to tell anyone that their love for another human being is morally wrong." (Talking about gay marriage.) Show some respect for semantics, people! Sex between consenting adults should be whatever they want. Love between consenting adults shouldn't be called morally wrong. Take away the 'consenting adults' part, and you give ammo to the 'slippery slope' jackasses who say legalizing gay marriage will lead to marriage with sheep or little kids or something. It may seem to be implied, but it's not, so I wish people would be more careful with how they put this kind of thing.

Also, re: Sera's hypocrisy statement above, I agree. Which is the annoying thing about Spitzer, the hypocrisy of prosecuting these things and then participating himself. But I do find, in general, this fascination with politicians' sex lives to be juvenile.

You know I got ahead of myself, I am going to change that to just the decriminalization. Legalization opens a can of worms that I may save for another post.

Also, I don't deny Spitzer's hypocrisy for a minute. Just trying to broaden the parameters of the debate.

I know it's slightly off-topic, but can someone please explain the difference between decriminalization and legalization? I think in MN prostitution is not prosecuted, but pimping and johning (is that a word) are...is that decriminalization? In any case it's not working here; prostitution in MN is still little more than rape (average age of a prostitute is 14).

And let's be real, $5500 dollars is still not enough for a woman's body.

Hi, I've asked this question in the comment thread of the other Spitzer-post below, but now it seems this is the more appropriate place to ask. I'm confused about how (voluntary) prostitution seems to be such a controversial issue in feminism. As I see it, if I argue that a woman has an absolute right to do what she wants with her body when it comes to, say, abortion, how can I argue at the same time that she cannot do the same should she decide to sell sex (and as such decide whether 5,500 dollars are enough for a sexual service - afte all, she's not selling her body as such). I can't square those lines of arguments. Maybe someone here can help me understand.

And what's the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation? Isn't something legal if it's not criminalized?

Great post. Can I ask what the difference is between legalizing and decriminalizing?

I'm asking because I've been trying to work out my position on legalization of sex work and I keep coming back to question of abuse.

My basic thought process is that I'd love it if we lived in a society where the social support systems and the ideologies surrounding sex/gender were such that no one ever found themselves in a position where sex work seemed like a viable avenue. Since we don't however, it seems to me that consenting adults should get to decide what they do with their own bodies.

I've also thought that with human trafficking being the problem that it is, making prostitution legal would help take away one layer of the intimidation that keeps people enslaved. However, I am torn because I also wonder if making it legal and regulating it will create situations where people are forced into signing binding agreements or some other type of scamming the system that leaves people enslaved and law enforcement in no position to help?

Leah:
Prostitution in MN is highly prosecuted. John's are charged but they usually can afford lawyers and aren't given any time. The punishment for a John (at least in St. Paul) is to go to a Saturday session about the realities of prostitution. But again, prostituted women in MN are highly prosecuted.

"Sex between consenting adults should be whatever they want. Love between consenting adults shouldn't be called morally wrong. Take away the 'consenting adults' part, and you give ammo to the 'slippery slope' jackasses who say legalizing gay marriage will lead to marriage with sheep or little kids or something. It may seem to be implied, but it's not, so I wish people would be more careful with how they put this kind of thing."

I totally agree.

"You know I got ahead of myself, I am going to change that to just the decriminalization. Legalization opens a can of worms that I may save for another post."

That reminds me of when I mentioned how, in theory, legalized prostitution could relate to workfare:

http://feministing.com/archives/007091.html#comment-82663

Workfare prostitution in Amsterdam

Paul Treanor | 18.12.2001 11:34

regarding the article at http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2001/12/18929.html

"...There is no specific official decision, taken at a specific meeting, to introduce compulsory prostitution for the unemployed. The policy is a result of changes in the law and welfare policy, explained in more detail below...

"...The legalisation of prostitution was a victory for campaigners, often feminists, who for ideological reasons treat prostitution as 'normal work'. Their attitude is symbolised by the politically correct term 'sex worker' for prostitutes - I am deliberately not using it. The 'campaign' in the Netherlands was low-key, and spread over many years: prostitution was never a big political issue. These campaigners forget, that the unemployed (in most countries) are legally required to accept 'normal work'. In the Netherlands, they were indirectly creating an obligation to work as a prostitute...

"...All claimants are obliged to accept 'suitable work' if it is offered. If they have previously worked, then they may first seek work in their previous profession, and refuse job offers outside that profession. When claimants have been unemployed for one year, or if they are under 23, then the position changes. From then on, 'all work is suitable work'. This formula is emphasised repeatedly, in official information for the claimants. Amsterdam restated this policy in September, in a press release from Alderman van der Aa: 'those who refuse an offer of suitable work lose their right to benefit". The press release also emphasised that 'for school leavers and those who just finished studying, then in principle all work is considered suitable'...

"...The policy of the Amsterdam Social Service is clearly to place people in jobs, against their will if necessary. Job interviews supervised by a security guard are one indication, of how tough they are on that. If the city, and Alderman van der Aa, were serious about not placing claimants in prostitution, even indirectly, then they could take a decision to forbid the practice. The Mayor and Aldermen (the city government) could define all sex industry work as "non-suitable". They could contractually forbid re-integration firms to offer the work, or pressure claimants to accept it. No such decisions have been taken..."

Maybe it's just Minneapolis then; also I meant to say charged not prosecuted. As part of my training as a rape crisis counselor, I went to a lecture about prostitution in MN, but that was AAAAAAAGES ago. I do know that they were very specific to Minneapolis, and...given that it was cops doing half the presenting, they could have been fibbing about who they charge and who they don't.

Something can be not a crime but still not legal or still regulated. Like driving fast. We can receive a fine for speeding but not jail time or a criminal record. Or some States have decriminalized possession of marijuana so possession can still lead to a fine but not jail time. Prostitution is decriminalized or legal in many countries. Decriminalization alone wouldn't be a solution for prostitution but it sure seems fairer than putting prostitutes in jail.

Legalization is not the answer.

Go to amsterdam and walk through the red light district and then please come back and tell me those women aren't just slaves of a different flavor. In addition, a lot of those women are not Holland natives. They are from 3rd world countries and tricked into coming to europe for "work." Once they arrive, what are their options?

TS, in my opinion (for whatever that's worth:) ) the issue isn't the ideological concept that a woman can do what she wants with her body. In a vacuum that is true.

The fact is that in reality, women who enter the business almost never enter it willingly. The fact is that in reality, these women are in VERY dangerous situations every moment they are at "work." I know you can always find that one exception and that one lady who loves her calling to be a prostitute, etc.

But most women are either forced into prostitution against their will or they enter into it with the intention of just doing it for a short time to take care of whatever crisis they are trying to manage. They rarely get out of it.

We have a non-profit in town that works with women who are trying to stop the cycle and life as sex workers. These aren't $5500 per hour escorts and the reality of their lives is so much more grim than you can ever imagine. They feel utterly out of control of their bodies and their lives.

Extramarital affairs and kinky sex requests can be issues that married people need to figure out on their own. Paying a woman for the use of her body is an entirely different issue to me!

I want to make the argument for recognition of Silda Wall Spitzer's victim status in this situation. Both Eliot Spitzer and (arguably) the prostitute(s) made the choice to be involved with each other. Silda wasn't given a choice, and now she's got to face the public humiliation and personal trauma of the betrayal of a cheating husband. It seems to me like she got a pretty raw deal, and that she deserves a little feminist support.

Well said. I agree that its important to keep in mind how power, priviledge, heterosexism, and patriarchy fit into situations like these. While I don't care what type of sex Spitzer likes, I agree with many people in that he should step down for breaking the law. As for the woman he had sex with -- much like Lewinsky and others -- I fear her social and legal punishment will be far more harsh than his.

An in regard to whether $5500 is enough or not and how much women should/can sell their bodies for... my argument would be that women should have the right to voluntarily be sex workers if they so choose, but a woman's rights also extend to the right not to be abused and the right not to be forced into sex work to make a living. We devalue and degrade women's bodies and therefore work done with their bodies. We also have laws and social norms which place women more in the homemaking role than the provider role -- upholding ideas that its ok for women to get paid less (or at least lose money over pregnancy leave and similar female issues) and its ok that more women live in poverty and its ok that the best solution the government can come up with is trying to marry women off or get them minimum wage jobs while their kids rot in abusive and unregulated childcare (see 1994 Personal Responsiblity and Work Reconciliation Act -- how much money is the fed gov't spending to convince poor women to just get married as a solution to poverty?).

In other words, I respect every woman's right to place a price on how much she's willing to sell her body for. What I don't respect is a system which means that a woman can only make a living wage if she is a sex worker. I don't respect a system that asks women to put a price on their bodies in order to pay for food on their tables. To look at the "feminist view" (or one of the feminist views... there are hundreds) would be to understand how sex workers are devalued through race, class, and gender stereotypes and anti-sex "morality" ideas. It would also entail understanding how social norms, laws, and social expectations devalue women's bodies, work, and right to have any kind of sex they so choose.

If a woman was free from all these pressures, then what price she sets is up to her. But we don't live in a vacuum -- so $5500 has meaning.

ts, "(voluntary) prostitution" is the key. You might want to go read Sera's blog (first few posts).

To answer some questions:

For me, prostitution is a big deal within feminism because there is a definite line between being open about and enjoying sex and putting a price on sex and making it available for others to purchase.

Commodization of sex makes me very nervous as a feminist. This is because women are often the ones who are the bodies being sold and men are usually the ones purchasing the bodies. I feel that within the minds of many men, buying the ability to use a woman's body for sex and buying the woman (a person), aren't two different things. The idea that women can be bought, or that certain women can be bought, makes them less human in many people's minds and attitudes. They become seen as chattel and not worth as much as other people. It often happens that men with money can take physical advantage of women without money. This plays out when violence done to prostitutes is not investigated as seriously as violence done to other women. (When was the last time you saw a nation-wide panic over a missing prostitute? How about a missing co-ed?)

This also says nothing about who truly profits in prostitution. Women often have pimps who take most of the money made from johns to "protect" the prostitutes. Even in high class brothels and escort services, the women who are being used for sex only make a fraction of the money, with (probably) more than half going to the establishment that employs them. In other words, women are being the ones used in a sexual manner, but they are not the ones profiting from their work.

I'm not saying that women shouldn't have lots and lots of sex if and when they want to. I just get very uncomfortable when sex becomes something that can be bought and sold.

As for legalization vs. decriminalization, yes most posters (I believe) have it right. Decriminalization means that prostitution is frowned upon, not strictly legal, but not prosecuted. Legalization means that the government not only allows prostitution, but will step in and regulate it (like it does with many other companies and institutions). This means that brothels and prostitutes in general have to meet certain guidelines, have to adhere to some health codes. Regulation follows legalization, which requires both time and money.

>>>I want to make the argument for recognition of Silda Wall Spitzer's victim status in this situation. Both Eliot Spitzer and (arguably) the prostitute(s) made the choice to be involved with each other. Silda wasn't given a choice, and now she's got to face the public humiliation and personal trauma of the betrayal of a cheating husband. It seems to me like she got a pretty raw deal, and that she deserves a little feminist support.

Especially since I heard that Dr. Laura whateverhername is was on some morning news show saying it's partly her (Silda's) fault, since obviously she wasn't meeting her husband's needs. She was too busy working.
I didn't actually see this, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it makes me want to throw up.

"And let's be real, $5500 dollars is still not enough for a woman's body."

Exactly what is "enough" for a woman's body? I'm politically liberal, openly feminist, and opposed to sex work precisely because of the "patriarchy, heterosexuality, legalization of sex work and the ethical treatment of sex worker" issues. Oh, yeah, and also the issue of pricing the body as a commodity to be sold in the capitalist market ("if we pay them more, then we must really value them" doesn't make exploitation any more attractive).

I am in complete support of allowing consenting adults to do what they will with their bodies, even if that means trading them for money and engage in "kinky" sex (kink is a rather relative term, at best). I also believe that all women and men are entitled to protection from physical violence and domestic harm, regardless of what industry they are in. But I hope the feminist community calling for a legalized sex trade will seriously consider how the buying and selling of bodies might play out in our economic system and address whether or not simply legalizing and attempting to regulate the sex trade will actually liberate women and men or give them more control over their bodies, simply replace cultural and legislative oppression with corporate exploitation.

While somewhat tangential to this discussion, it's very interesting to note how this came to light -- his bank ratted him out to the DoJ, because they noticed "suspicious transactions" on his account. In other words, he made the mistake of paying by bank card, and someone pretty highly placed noticed the transaction (and, probably, recognized the account number), and turned him in. Wall street has a long standing hate for Spitzer, and it's entirely unsurprising that they'd want him gone, and that they'd use this kind of tactic. Someone in a position to do this would almost certainly be people familiar with the prostitution ring in question.

Sorry, when I was writing this Samhita hadn't changed it to "decriminalizing." So my rants a bit off topic. But still an important consideration.

Commodization of sex makes me very nervous as a feminist. This is because women are often the ones who are the bodies being sold and men are usually the ones purchasing the bodies. I feel that within the minds of many men, buying the ability to use a woman's body for sex and buying the woman (a person), aren't two different things. The idea that women can be bought, or that certain women can be bought, makes them less human in many people's minds and attitudes.

Yes. That.

"...These aren't $5500 per hour escorts and the reality of their lives is so much more grim than you can ever imagine..."

For that matter, I wouldn't be surprised if the lives of the "$5500 per hour" ones are very grim too. I would be surprised if any actually keep all of the $5500 someone paid someone else to rent them...

"We also have laws and social norms which place women more in the homemaking role than the provider role -- upholding ideas that its ok for women to get paid less (or at least lose money over pregnancy leave and similar female issues) and its ok that more women live in poverty and its ok that the best solution the government can come up with is trying to marry women off or get them minimum wage jobs while their kids rot in abusive and unregulated childcare (see 1994 Personal Responsiblity and Work Reconciliation Act -- how much money is the fed gov't spending to convince poor women to just get married as a solution to poverty?)."

...and if she does get out of poverty by earning a living with housewife work, then there are often limits on how much she can refuse sex without losing that position* and ending up in poverty all over again. Is it still sex work if sex isn't the primary task but getting and/or keeping the job or career still requires sex at some point?

"What I don't respect is a system which means that a woman can only make a living wage if she is a sex worker. I don't respect a system that asks women to put a price on their bodies in order to pay for food on their tables."

Exactly, no matter if that price is an hourly rate or a dowry! I'm reminded of this (it's from before Allen's recent idiocy in WaPo):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34022-2004Dec3.html

"It often happens that men with money can take physical advantage of women without money. This plays out when violence done to prostitutes is not investigated as seriously as violence done to other women. (When was the last time you saw a nation-wide panic over a missing prostitute? How about a missing co-ed?)"

And *this* reminds me of another article on class and nation-wide panic over missing people, even though neither were prostitutes:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/britains-class-divide/2008/03/07/1204780065775.html

"Legalization means that the government not only allows prostitution, but will step in and regulate it (like it does with many other companies and institutions). This means that brothels and prostitutes in general have to meet certain guidelines, have to adhere to some health codes."

...and could get corporate welfare, could get jobless people referred to them in the name of reducing unemployment, etc.

* I got the impression that a whole bunch (though not all) of people who hate rape still expect their marriages to be sexual relationships and feel free to leave sexual relationships that turn sexless...

Leah:
It's a small world Leah, I'm a rape crisis counselor too in Minneapolis. I just went to a lecture by Joy Friedman from Breaking Free, and prostituted women end up being charged and they often do time. Johns however, rarely have to do time.

>>>While somewhat tangential to this discussion, it's very interesting to note how this came to light -- his bank ratted him out to the DoJ, because they noticed "suspicious transactions" on his account. In other words, he made the mistake of paying by bank card, and someone pretty highly placed noticed the transaction (and, probably, recognized the account number), and turned him in. Wall street has a long standing hate for Spitzer, and it's entirely unsurprising that they'd want him gone, and that they'd use this kind of tactic. Someone in a position to do this would almost certainly be people familiar with the prostitution ring in
question.

Actually, per the New York Times, which broke the story, the bank reported the suspicious transactions to the IRS. They involved him transferring money to sham accounts, not paying directly to this agency. The IRS investigators thought they were on the trail of political corruption or bribery, and were surprised to find out it was prostitution.

These posts are great! I think the issue of sex work is a very big issue indeed. I think the state of a society can be quite accurately assessed by the sexual habits of those living in that society.

I very strongly disagree that sex work (prostitution) should be legalized. Here's why:

A lot of the people who I hear say that legalizing prostitution would solve a lot of the issues inherent to the industry are not necessarily the ones who are out paying for sex. They are usually people concerned for the ones providing the services. IF you really think about it, that is a "quick fix" for a very real problem. The viewing of human beings as objects. Things that can be paid for, used, and discarded at will. Women AND MEN. Male prostitutes are in the same boat as females, if not worse, since they are often viewed as cheap and less desirable. It is a direct reflection of the ideology that you can place a price on people.

I don't care what they say, people who pay for prostitutes don't view them as equals. They view them as something less than themselves. That is directly contradictory to the feminist philosophy.

Thanks a lot for this. It's really hard to disentangle the gender rights issues from the organized crime and public corruption ones.

And even though I think women should be absolutely free to do whatever they want with their bodies, I also think that we should recognize that in reality, prostitution is a used to oppress (mostly) females.

Great post, Samhita. I agree with much of what has been said already on problems with legalization. And yes, as a former volunteer with a sex-worker outreach program, I feel in agreement with comments about the amount of money has nothing to do with physical and emotional well-being of women.

But on another level, this story really sickens me, as someone who voted for Spitzer, and begs a bit of a personal question: When can we ever trust the men in our lives? Whether they are elected, or our friends, our lovers, our brothers or brother's friends...When do we trust them to not rape us, use us, objectify our bodies, patronize our minds or otherwise disrespect us? I struggle with this story, as an example of not just an act of "indiscretion" but as Samhita points out, the larger issue of patriarchy, heterosexism in politics, abuse of power and ultimately a complete disregard for women has human beings.

"Commodization of sex makes me very nervous as a feminist. This is because women are often the ones who are the bodies being sold and men are usually the ones purchasing the bodies."

I also agree with that. Today I noticed that there were some other blogs arguing that "no one gets hurt since prostitution is between two consensual adults, thus it's victimless and should not be a crime" The only problem is, is that I do not believe sex work is victimless and I don't believe that legalization will help much (as opposed to decriminalization of the prostitutes, but not the johns). First of all, plenty of women are forced and coerced into this line of work. Many are past victims of abuse and many are exposed to further abuse from johns and pimps. And as I pointed out in one of my comments on the other blogs - an absence of the ability to say "no" because you are either forced or coerced into sex does not equal consent. Human trafficking is a big problem even in the U.S. The CIA estimates that 50,000 people are trafficked each year here. I would hardly call this a victimless industry, knowing that all these people are forced to serve johns by selling their bodies against their will. When those who are trafficked offer "consent" they are doing so only because they are being threatened with beatings, death, or some other harm. And again, the inability to say "no" does not equal consent. Nor is a person forced or coerced into sex work automatically a willing participant - most likely they are not. I've had male friends that have gotten "serviced" before and they all have deluded themselves with the idea that it's victimless because it's "consensual". But even Spitzer paid a pimp first, and usually most of the money goes to them, not the sex worker. I've also had male friends that have insisted that because their prostitute was "classy" that they didn't have to wear a condom. Spitzer also insisted that he not wear a condom, and I heard that the prostitute was NOT able to refuse - this sounds exploitative if she is not able to agree to things on her terms, especially if she is forced to be unsafe. So, how can johns be so deluded sometimes about the reality of the sex industry? I have many male friends that also say "feminism is at fault for promoting the selling sex as empowering" Hardly a true picture of what feminists actually say. Still, why don't these johns care that they are supporting the kidnapping and exploitation of women, children through human trafficking?

This brings me to my other point that an argument I have been seeing on other blogs is the perpetuation of the idea that "the ability to have sex is a right". No No No No - the ability to have sex is not a right (I'm not including sex with yourself here) but whenever there is another person involved you need consent. Why do so many johns and men for that matter, continue to believe in this myth as well.

Here's some links to these blogs - one is Glenn Greenwald - who I usually agree with, but here he's arguing that prostitution is a victimless act: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/10/spitzer/index.html

About Spitzers wife - well I would never "stand by my man" in this instance. I also heard that Spitzers wife urged him NOT to resign. Can anyone confirm this? I think I read it on the NYtimes. Still, Silda looks pissed, she looks like she doesn't want to be there - I have no idea why she agreed to be there other than the "stand by your man" pressure.

And finally, I think it's good that some of this attention will get focused on the issues that sex workers face - I just hope the conversation on other sites remains based in reality and doesn't perpetuate any of the myths that unfortunately, I have already been seeing on other sites.

"I also think that we should recognize that in reality, prostitution is a used to oppress (mostly) females."

Prostitution is used to oppress PEOPLE, not just women.

Male prostitutes are being raped and abused every day.

Wow, really, the commodification of sex(uality) makes people that nervous? I feel like I'm getting the sense that folks think that selling sex is NECESSARILY the same thing as selling your body/soul/humanity/dignity/etc (you guys dont think that right?)

My girlfriend throughout all of college had sex for money while we were together. Maybe if it wasn't illegal she wouldn't have had to give her pimp $300 of the $600 she made per hour. She paid off all her student loans. I had another good friend in college who financed school and an upper west side apartment by being this older guy's girlfriend for $1500 per week.

Are their experiences typical for prostitutes in the U.S? I'd say not... but it really grinds my gears to think of feminists telling them that they didn't have the right to make those decisions for themselves. Isn't the larger problem that women are exploited for their labor and that we live in patriarchal society that degrades them as women? As my ex girlfriend used to say "hey, I think working at McDonald's is pretty degrading-- so's being poor"

I'm not trying to be hyperbolic, I just feel that making pronouncements about what's ok to sell, what's exploitative, etc, starts down the proverbial slippery slope. If we can't sell sex, can we sell sexuality? Are strippers exploited and if so should dancing naked be illegal? Maybe we think stripping is OK... so what if I want to give some dude a handjob but not have intercourse... would that be ok or no? Where are we going to draw a line and depending on where we decide to draw that line-- what does that say about us as feminists and what kinds of sex we value?

As for me, I don't think I'd sell my BODY for $5,500 (for forever?) but yeah, sure I'd probably have sex with someone for a few grand.

And let's be real, $5500 dollars is still not enough for a woman's body.

I totally agree, yet according to the current market value (including agency fees and transportation), this incident was still on the high end of such encounters. Given that, I can't help but to think of his massive sense of self-entitlement in hiring a "high priced hooker," when hypothetically he could have spent under $500 on a fancy dinner and sex with some area DC lady (not a professional) who would have made the decision independently to do this for her own thrill.

What happens in their marriage is their buisiness, and I'm certainly no puritan. I'm just really, really disgusted by the power aspect, which is precisely why he couldn't get off with an anonymous, random encounter.

On one hand, it would be nice if we could all legally had the option of "selling" ourselves (men and women) for cash, and only to people we found attractive. To an extent we can...if I wanted to take a hot guy out to dinner before heading back to my place, nothing is stopping me (my friend and I have often joked it would be nice to have a host bar or cafe catering to women, so we can pay for a couple hours of adoration). I'm also pretty sure this is happening in reverse roles on a daily basis. Is this less of a crime if you pay in gift certificates or shopping trips? What if you married your wealthy spouse for reasons other than love?

I just don't think most societies are ready for legalized prostitution because of the balance of power. Maybe one day when women are, without a doubt, equal we can trust this kind of an industry to flourish without concern for the people involved.

Also consider the majority of the clients; the next time you walk into a deli, take note of every man inside. Think about the heavy-breathing Marketing guy at the office, or the creep who orders a skim latte from you every morning? Now imagine yourself in proximity with each of these guys' hairy, musty genitals. There you go...chances are, legalized prostitution would be so heavily regulated (for instance, requiring you to work for an agency) to provide for the "average Joe," (because of the power structure), and you'd end up with mainly unsavory clients. I can't help but to think a part of you must have to wither and die if you can service pretty much any guy on the street.

I mean hey, if women could earn $1,000 a day by having sex with men who look like Johnny Depp, it might have some consider prostitution as a viable option (at least part time!). This isn't the reality, though.

i wrestle with the sex work issue. i want everyone to be free to do what they please with their bodies (with other consenting adults, obv) and if some people want to have sex for money, i'm honestly ok with that. of course, as has been pointed out, this isn't a vacuum and the "choice" to engage in sex work is often coerced or at least not made without the influence of a patriarchal system.

that said, just because legalization hasn't solved all the problems in the sex industry elsewhere, does that mean we shouldn't try to come up with a better solution? i think it would be possible to have some form of legalized prostitution that is heavily regulated so as to better protect sex workers. it probably wouldn't solve all the currently existing problems, but it could make things BETTER than they are now. leaving things the way they are, with the exception of upping the penalties for johns seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

"I want to make the argument for recognition of Silda Wall Spitzer's victim status in this situation. Both Eliot Spitzer and (arguably) the prostitute(s) made the choice to be involved with each other."

I agree that Silda deserves our support, I just have a question about the "consenting" thing on the part of the prostitute. Because I heard she wasn't able to consent on her own terms. I heard that Spitzer first paid and worked out the deal with the pimp, and that he made the deal on the basis that he would not have to wear a condom. This issue was, that the girl wanted him to wear a condom, but because the pimp worked out the deal and because he was in charge, she didn't get to refuse servicing Spitzer. So if these girls aren't allowed to make these deals on their own terms, I think it sounds very exploitative. Especially because condoms are so important for STD and pregnancy prevention. Does anyone know whether or not the condom thing is true? And whether or not the girl tried to get him to wear one, but was refused and had to service him anyways? Sorry this is a little unrelated to the post about Silda. I was just wondering if anyone else had heard about this.

"I also think that we should recognize that in reality, prostitution is a used to oppress (mostly) females."

Prostitution is used to oppress PEOPLE, not just women.

Male prostitutes are being raped and abused every day.

Meeneecat, this may or may not clarify the unsafe sex issue:

Spitzer was also apparently known as a "difficult" client by the call girl ring.

Suwal told Kirsten that "[Client 9] would ask you to do things that, like, you might not think were safe — you know — I mean that... very basic things."

But, Kirsten said she could handle him and said she actually liked him.

"I have a way of dealing with that. I’d be like listen dude, you really want the sex?" she said.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03102008/news/regionalnews/spitzer_linked_to_prostitution_ring__rep_101299.htm?page=0

YUCK.

>>>About Spitzers wife - well I would never "stand by my man" in this instance. I also heard that Spitzers wife urged him NOT to resign. Can anyone confirm this? I think I read it on the NYtimes. Still, Silda looks pissed, she looks like she doesn't want to be there - I have no idea why she agreed to be there other than the "stand by your man" pressure.

Because she loves him and is no doubt trying to sort out what she thinks is the best decision for her and her family... a truly complicated and fraught decision. Perhaps she will, eventually, decide that it’s best to leave. Perhaps she will decide to forgive him if he does what she needs him to do in taking responsibility for his betrayal. Either way, this is the only choice that she will get in this situation. I think that we should respect that without judgment.

"Prostitution is used to oppress PEOPLE, not just women.

Male prostitutes are being raped and abused every day."

Ya, word. Aside from women who are trafficked into the country involuntarily, The demographic that probably has the LEAST amount of consent/choice when it comes to sex work is transgendered people on the male-to-female spectrum. The SF public health project did a study on trans folks and HIV a while back and found that a VAST majority of MtFs they surveyed had participated in what was described in the survey as 'survival sex.'

talknormal, I'll reply since you specifically referred to my feeling of being "nervous" about sex work.

feel like I'm getting the sense that folks think that selling sex is NECESSARILY the same thing as selling your body/soul/humanity/dignity/etc (you guys dont think that right?)

Speaking for myself only, absolutely not. I do not think that. My argument was that the people (men) purchasing the right to have sex often do conflate buying sex with buying a prostitutes body/etc. And more than that, even those who don't purchase sex may conflate the issues as well. Therefore, there is a common misconception in society that prostitutes are less human. I don't agree with it, but it definitely exists. I don't blame the people who have to become prostitutes, either. It's simple economics. There is a demand for sex. Some people are willing to supply that demand for X amount of dollars. If the demand for prostitution stops, so will prostitution. My issue is with a patriarchal society where rich men can buy sex from those who truly do not wish to be selling it.

I'm not saying that your girlfriend and the other young woman you know didn't have the right to chose whether or not to sell sex to live a certain lifestyle. It does make me sad that women can sell using the organ between their legs for more than the organ between their ears. It definitely speaks volumes about what our society values in young women.

And since you asked, I'm also uncomfortable with selling sexuality as it applies to individuals' bodies (ie stripping). I don't speak for anyone but myself and everyone has to make their own decisions about what is right or wrong when it comes to selling sex and sexuality.

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with selling sex and sexuality. If it ever comes down to starving or selling sex, I'll sell sex. But I can't say how happy I am that I have alternatives to selling sex to sustain my life.

As for what kinds of sex I, as a feminist, value? I value the sex I have with partners I care for and consent to have sex with. Personally, I couldn't put a price on that sex. I value any sex that is done with full and open consent between people who are genuinely attracted to each other. Money doesn't enter the equation for me at all.

Kristin only got paid $ 4,300 for her work with Governor Spitzer.

Of which, about $ 2,300 covered train fare from NYC to Washington, cab fare and other expenses (including paying for the drinks that Spizter gave her in his hotel room).

Then there was the matter of a "deposit" for future "dates" from the Emperors Club.

So she probably got less than $ 2,000 - and, the sex industry being as it is, she most likely had to pay out a large portion of that money to the agency, her dispatcher and several others who also required her to tip out to them.

So, for a 4 hour train and cab ride, an hour of wait time, 2 hours of doing "dangerous but common" sexual things with Eliot, a couple of hours of wait time for the first Amtrak train back to NYC and another 4 hour cab ride, Kristin probably got less than $ 1,000.

And that's what life is like for a "high class call girl" - imagine how it is for the women who work the corners!!

There a lot of really insightful comments here, and I appreciate them.

I used to fancy myself a Libertarian, and still have many instincts in that direction. That said, the economic/class issues involved with prostitution are probably what bother me the most.

I currently oppose the death penalty, begrudgingly, because I feel some truly sadistic crimes call for it. However, I have no faith in our judicial system to administer it justly. Under a perfect system, I could support it.

On a similar note, here's a hypothetical for anyone who wants to chew on it:

Say a perfect system existed, whatever that entails for you (true equality, less toxic culture, lots of education and economic oppurtunity) and a demand for prostitution still existed. Sex work is well compensated, safe and respectful and just one option from many that men and women can choose (major caveats, I agree).

If this perfect world existed, should prostitution be legal?

"Having a sexual kink is different from paying somebody else to put up with your sexual kinks. There are plenty of people who are totally okay with sex, not "prudes," and still against sex work. Please don't, in your explanations of why you're okay with it, try to simplify my position to "OMG THOSE WHO AREN'T IN FAVOR OF SEX WORK MUST BE ABSTINENCE-ONLY REPUBLICANS!"

It's misguiding. It's the same argument that misogynist porn industry leaders made up to persecute Andrea Dworkin, who was only one of many in a long line of anti-sex "work" women who are atheists and far to the left of you.

I also suggest you read my post about why sex workers supporting a woman's "right" to sex work are often making arguments which are inherently racist.

Thanks a bunch."

a-F***ING-men!

"Still, why don't these johns care that they are supporting the kidnapping and exploitation of women, children through human trafficking?"

Lemme guess, they feel too entitled to sex to tolerate situations in which some guys *can't* have sex, no matter how much more merciful and compassionate those situations would be than the status quos.

"This brings me to my other point that an argument I have been seeing on other blogs is the perpetuation of the idea that 'the ability to have sex is a right'. No No No No - the ability to have sex is not a right (I'm not including sex with yourself here) but whenever there is another person involved you need consent."

Exactly! I've even seen some idiots argue that prostitution is necessary because people who can't attract willing sex partners still supposedly have a right to sex:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7057929.stm

"...Last year, he chose to lose his virginity in a licensed Spanish brothel. This year he took two other disabled men on a bus trip to the same brothel, filmed by BBC's One Life.

"'When I was younger I had a friend and we always used to talk about relationships. He had muscular dystrophy and passed away without having a sexual experience. Why should people struggle for that experience?', Asta says...

"...But counselling psychologist Simon Parritt, the author of the 2005 Disability Now survey, says it is difficult to see brothels as the answer.

"'I think everybody has the right to a sexual identity,' he says. 'I don't think everybody has the right to sex with another person. That involves somebody else's rights.'..."

"(my friend and I have often joked it would be nice to have a host bar or cafe catering to women, so we can pay for a couple hours of adoration)"

Some of those exist in Japan, right?

I am pro-sex worker's rights, but think that conversations surrounding sex workers also require a more nuanced definition of consent. For some women, sex work is as viable an option as any other job, allowing them personal, creative and financial freedom.

Other women, based on the interlocked nature of sex, economics, gender, race, children, and all the rest, have to choose between prostitution and, say, death, homelessness, abject poverty, or any one of a number of far worse options. In that case, is it really a choice? And is it really consent?

Something about this whole thread confuses me.

How can a person be simultaneously "pro-sex worker's rights", and at the same time opposed to prostitution (sex-work)?

In the general case, the "choice and consent" argument strikes me as something of a red herring. We are all -- every one of us -- obliged by the circumstances of our lives to accept some compromises among our principles. I'm responding in this thread because I an procrastinating on an assignment at work I think is foolish and demeaning. But I need to pay the rent, so I'll whore out my mind and get it done. Eventually.

In Spitzer's case I have no sympathy. He prosecuted the crime. He should accept the consequences of being caught committing it. But on the general question you can either be for criminalizing the exchange of a particular physical service for money, or else you can be for regulating it like any other job.

Any other choice feels like making distinctions without differences.

The fact is that in reality, women who enter the business almost never enter it willingly. The fact is that in reality, these women are in VERY dangerous situations every moment they are at "work."

Why don't I ever hear feminists talking about the plight of coal miners or deep sea fishermen (highest on-the-job fatality rate of any job)? There are plenty of professions in which the employee is put into dangerous situations. Can you tell me that the sacrifices made by a $5000/hour call girl are greater than that made by a coal miner, who is basically guaranteed a shorter life expectancy, and has a much greater risk of cancer? As for entering the profession "willingly", people in bad situations will work crappy and dangerous jobs--it just depends how desperate they are. Unless you have some master plan to find all potential prostitutes jobs with competitive wages, prostitution will persist.

And let's be real, $5500 dollars is still not enough for a woman's body.

Apparently Samhita has made herself the arbiter of what women's bodies are worth. So what's the price, Samhita? $10,000? $50,000? Pamela Anderson sold her body to Rick Soloman for paying off her $250,000 poker debt. So should we assume it's some number under $250k?

Semicolon, I'm sorry, but I find that ridiculous.
Selling drugs is also a viable career option, as well as selling slaves in the early America. It does not make it OKAY. Selling sex objectifies women and supports the patriarchal view that women are meant to service men. How do we as human beings expect to better ourselves if we can't move beyond our violent, self serving instincts? Prostitution offers nothing to society but problems.

With respect, chefmatt, selling *certain* drugs is both a viable career option AND a moral one. Our kind hosts on this site seem to exhibit a refined taste for alcohol. Retailing these drugs is both legal and subject to quite a lot of (imo justified) regulation. And some folk would quibble with your judgment about the nature of consent in modern (wage) slavery.

Your best argument is your last one. I agree that selling sex commodifies women, and that creates social imbalances. The response -- of course -- is to ask whether this is any more imbalanced than commodifying your time and physical or mental labor?

Selling sex objectifies women and supports the patriarchal view that women are meant to service men.

So men selling sex to other men is not as bad?

How do we as human beings expect to better ourselves if we can't move beyond our violent, self serving instincts? Prostitution offers nothing to society but problems.

Maybe you have evolved beyond your biology, O Enlightened One, but many of the rest of us still have sexual urges. Additionally, your social engineering violates the value of personal freedom. I don't want my government regulating what goes on privately between two consenting adults.

Why don't I ever hear feminists talking about the plight of coal miners or deep sea fishermen (highest on-the-job fatality rate of any job)?

Because it's not illegal to participate in those jobs (at least not in season when it comes to deep sea fishing). They don't face jail for doing their jobs.

Coal miners and fisherman are aren't facing possible murder, rape, or assault from those they work with/for.

Furthermore, coal miners and fishermen are both regulated for safety and have unions. Most prostitutes don't have these protections.

As for sacrificing for the job, it's hard to compare coal miners and prostitutes. Do coal miners have to sacrifice their identities and the morals they grew up with (in most cases)? They're at greater risk of lung cancer, but what about STDs and HIV? Most prostitutes are not high-end call girls. So are we only talking about those or are the majority of prostitutes included in this comparison? If not, why are we ignoring most of the women who become prostitutes? Aren't their sacrifices just as meaningful as other prostitutes as well as coal miners?

As for how much women's bodies are worth, how about we say that no matter what price that you throw out there casually (being it for Pamela Anderson's body or a random prostitute in the US), it will be WAY too low.

Why don't I ever hear feminists talking about the plight of coal miners or deep sea fishermen (highest on-the-job fatality rate of any job)?

Because it's not illegal to participate in those jobs (at least not in season when it comes to deep sea fishing). They don't face jail for doing their jobs.

Coal miners and fisherman are aren't facing possible murder, rape, or assault from those they work with/for.

Furthermore, coal miners and fishermen are both regulated for safety and have unions. Most prostitutes don't have these protections.

As for sacrificing for the job, it's hard to compare coal miners and prostitutes. Do coal miners have to sacrifice their identities and the morals they grew up with (in most cases)? They're at greater risk of lung cancer, but what about STDs and HIV? Most prostitutes are not high-end call girls. So are we only talking about those or are the majority of prostitutes included in this comparison? If not, why are we ignoring most of the women who become prostitutes? Aren't their sacrifices just as meaningful as other prostitutes as well as coal miners?

As for how much women's bodies are worth, how about we say that no matter what price that you throw out there casually (being it for Pamela Anderson's body or a random prostitute in the US), it will be WAY too low.

As for how much women's bodies are worth, how about we say that no matter what price that you throw out there casually (being it for Pamela Anderson's body or a random prostitute in the US), it will be WAY too low.

Why? Assume an idealized situation with no coercion. Why doesn't a woman have the freedom to have sex for whatever price she wants?

Assume an idealized situation with no coercion.

The idealized situation doesn't exist in reality.

In an idealized situation, a woman would already have the money and have sex with those she wants to have sex with.

Why doesn't a woman have the freedom to have sex for whatever price she wants?

In our society? Because it's illegal.

Also, it is hugely dependent upon how much someone is willing to pay to have sex with her. This price often has absolutely nothing to do with how much a woman values herself and sex, but more to do with how economically disadvantaged she is (classism), and how much other men want to have sex with her (often racist). If we get into male and trans prostitution, homophobia comes into play.

Women aren't "free" to set the price in any society because their price is dependent upon how they are viewed in society. And if they are viewed as commodities, they are often inherently seen as less than those who are purchasing them.

I have a problem with that.

Paul G., I am in total agreement with you. When I said drugs, I was referring to illegal, and addictive drugs (I'm not against weed, even though I don't use it myself) that are produced and trafficked by criminals, who care very little about the value of human life.
Badnfluence, you seem a bit to eager to argue with people. Read all of my posts on this thread, I clearly state that prostitution is demeaning and harmful to both men and women. I have sexual urges too, but I refuse to place a dollar value on another human being and his or her body. Sex between consenting adults is great, but is it so wrong to ask those consenting adults to examine their behavior, and question whether what they are doing is in fact right or wrong? And the impact that their behavior is having on the world around them? If we can't even challenge our own thinking and behavioral patterns, we're no better than animals.

So I ask you, in what way does society benefit from prostitutes? I can confidently say that deep sea divers and coal miners do have something to offer. But hookers? Thousands of children forced into it every year, STDs, the cheapening of human life, all so some men can get off? I'm sorry if my blanket statements offend you, but to me, those realities make the entire industry abhorrent.

paul g. brown - i'm generally in agreement with you. i just wanted to respond to your last point, "The response -- of course -- is to ask whether this is any more imbalanced than commodifying your time and physical or mental labor?"

i would say in a vacuum, no, and it shouldn't be, but in our society it is, simply because with MOST jobs outside of the sex industry, we don't look down on the people who perform them as morally bankrupt, dirty or somehow subhuman. you might feel you compromised yourself for doing a task at your job that is silly, but chances are you aren't going to be berated or looked down on by other people for doing it. sex work creates more social imbalances because of the social stigma that goes along with sex work and the culture that makes it ok to villify participants.

"So I ask you, in what way does society benefit from prostitutes? I can confidently say that deep sea divers and coal miners do have something to offer. But hookers? Thousands of children forced into it every year, STDs, the cheapening of human life, all so some men can get off? I'm sorry if my blanket statements offend you, but to me, those realities make the entire industry abhorrent."

Same here. I got the impression that he thinks "all so some men can get off" is the worthwhile part.

I am a sex worker. I work as an "indie", a self-employed, higher-end escort.

The propensity of others (frequently men, though certainly not always) to comment on the circumstances and issues in women's lives they have no experience with or interest in has been discussed here often. While I think many of the commenters here have a vested interest in sex worker's well-being as an ideal, it seems very few people have any experience interacting with and analyzing sex work as a reality.

The fact is that in reality, women who enter the business almost never enter it willingly. The fact is that in reality, these women are in VERY dangerous situations every moment they are at "work."

I don't know any sex workers who are street walkers, who work for a "pimp" or who are underage. I can't speak on their behalf with any kind of authority, but I will say that these are the people who need laws in place protecting them, not prosecuting them.

However, there are many sex workers who enter the field willingly and without coercion. As badnfluence insightfully pointed out, there are very real risks associated with sex work, as there are with many professions. I just happen to make a lot more money for a job that, frankly, I enjoy and I minimize the risks involved to the best of my ability. I would argue with a great deal of confidence that I am not in danger the vast majority of the time I'm working (no quotes needed).

The women I know who are sex workers (myself included) are all college educated. We own homes, drive newer cars and pay our taxes. Some have children. A few are married. While we are not a racially homogeneous group, we certainly all "act white".

From my perspective, the problems with sex work revolve around issues of race, class and body politics. These are feminist issues, no doubt about it. I just feel that a real dialogue about sex work, legalization vs. decriminalization and the meaning of "consent" should, you know, involve sex workers

Gov. Spitzer was stupid, careless and is now suffering the consequences of those actions. National headlines and the call for his impeachment mean he's suffering a great deal more than most men who are caught offering pay for play. And for his extreme hypocrisy, I think he's getting what he deserves.

I think ellestar hit the nail on the head. There are so many eloquent and convincing arguments on this thread--it makes me glad to be a feminist.

It's true. Coal miners an fishermen don't get STDs and aren't beaten up by johns. Instead they get silicosis or drown. I'm not going to pass judgment on which is worse. You aren't paying for the fish. You're paying for the fisherman's funerals.

There was a time when those who chose professions like acting, nursing and being an abortion doctor were "look[ed] down on ... as morally bankrupt, dirty or somehow subhuman". Need I point out that many of these marginalized jobs were held by women forced into demeaning work for low pay by their circumstances? Hell! There was a time when AND kind of labor was beneath a member of the upper crust.

There was also a time when slave trading, selling cigarettes and being a Republican lawyer were honorable jobs. But the past is another country. Times, and attitudes, change.

I guess my argument on this is a moral calculus. I agree that prostitution (and working in the porn industry, say) are de-humanizing. They commodify human relationships and objectify human beings to a greater extent than programming this stupid widget on this asinine web page (sigh). In pragmatic terms sex-work is dangerous and probably pretty icky.

And yet, and yet - this kind of exchange seems to be as much a part of human nature as beer and hair-dressing. And just like beer and hair-dressing, the social ills that bedevil the behavior are best mitigated by state sanction and regulation.

I don't want my daughters to believe that exchanging sex for money is OK. But then - I don't want them to think that heroin, bull dozing wetlands for golf courses or sneaking "abstinence only" sex education requirements into appropriations bills is OK either.

"Prostitution is used to oppress PEOPLE, not just women.

Male prostitutes are being raped and abused every day."

You're right, perhaps my language should have been more specific.

bettergardens - thanks for contributing. i totally agree that these discussions should include the viewpoints of sex workers themselves, at all parts of the spectrum.

paul g. brown - once again, i agree (and i that's why i am all for "state sanction and regulation" to mitigate the "social ills.") you even snuck in a lawyer joke that i was tempted to make with my whole "morally bankrupt" bit. :)

bettergardens, what is the policy that you believe best serves all the women who do sex work, from you to the underaged, abused, and enslaved? How do we take all of those realities into account in formulating policy?

I'm not sure I know how to make this point correctly, but I'm starting to see in a few places, bloggers (women even) that suggest that Spitzer "overpaid" for sex. And I hate the use of that term "overpaid" not becauase I'm necessarily supportive of encouraging society to legalize sex work, but because there seems to be a sense that "sex" shouldn't be worth that much.

As in overpaying women to have sex with you isn't worth $5,000. Now maybe most men wouldn't pay $5,000 (or can't) but if a woman can earn $5,000 because the market will bare it out, then that's what the sex is worth.

And the other side of the equastion is the fact that it's not like these women would be having sex with Spitzer if it wasn't worth $5,000 to them. They call it "work" for a reason.

I guess what I'm worried about is the sense that "vaginas aren't worth $5,000 --- $500 maybe, but not $5,000."

Having sex with men is a skill, just like dunking a basketball or throwing a pitch. The market will determine what the price of that skill is worth. Supply and demand.