Recently the New York TImes ran one of it’s Room for Debate series on the subject “Is Prostitution safer when it’s legal”.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...titution-safer This had eight debaters, divided half and half for and against legalization/de-criminalization. All of them were women except Max Waltman, an earnest young Swedish PhD candidate at Stockholm University promoting his country’s 1995 law that makes it legal to sell sex but illegal to buy it. His piece
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...ot-selling-sex and Carol Leigh’s opposing argument that “Labor Laws, Not Criminal Laws are the Answer”
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...o-prostitution are the two most worth reading. Especially as two others of the keep it illegal side endorsed the Swedish-style Arrest the Guy not the Girl plan. One of those favoring legalization advocated rural Nevada-type inmate brothels which are a good deal short of ideal for women sex workers.
Another legalization advocate was quite vague on details and another, a Nevada lady law professor made this quite reasonable (IMO) argument:
“Feminist arguments about prostitution portray financial transactions in the area of female sexuality as demeaning to women. But all of us, with the exception of the independently wealthy and the unemployed, take money for the use of our bodies.The stigmatization of prostitution may be based on convincing, well-reasoned arguments. But it may also be based on class prejudice or stereotypes of race or gender.”
That bit reminded me of a long ago economics professor pointing out that it was not possible to take one’s labor to “the market” to exchange for money without being personally present while the labor being sold, whatever form it took, was “consumed” by the purchaser.
Ms Leigh, who represents the Bay Area Sex Worker’s Advocacy Network, began with:
“
Prostitution laws in the United States were developed from confused and contradictory impulses, to punish and help sex workers at the same time, reflecting our society’s ambivalence and hypocrisy about sex, male desire and women’s sexual autonomy.”
and advocated the principle that sex workers be consulted about sex laws - “nothing about us without us”. Clearly the Swedish get-the-guy law did not involve any such consultation. Ms Leigh praised New Zealand where civil laws dealing with business transactions rather than criminal laws apply to sex work and praised recent Canadian court ruling throwing out a law designed to make life difficult for women in the not actually illegal sex trade in that country.
Both Mr. Waltman and Ms Leigh included several links to studies supporting their opposing side and a look at the warring papers finds a great deal of interest. One that caught my eye was an analysis of the Swedish law and its effect by the “Principal Policy Officer” of the Queensland Australia Prostitution Licensing Authority. Now that is an employer and a job title I shouldn’t mind having on my business card!
Its interesting, have a look:
http://www.pla.qld.gov.au/Resources/...SH%20MODEL.pdf
A lot of stuff to think about that should be of interest to all the boys and girls here gathered together. Something that is clear from the Swedish data that likely applies here as well is that most people, especially most women, want to see our favorite industry not only illegal for all participants but would like the see the lot of us carried off to jail. We shouldn’t forget that we are a band of outlaws, likely to remain that way and that maybe we should think about taking some care for and of each other against the implacably hostile majority.
NYT Debate on Legalization of Sex Work
