My band booked its first job, at the Prince Bar and Deli. I spoke with the owner and manager while my band mates enjoyed the offerings of the bar. They each had at least one shot and a beer and several cigarettes while we were there. It left em thinking about physical pleasures and choices.
I have written previously that there are five physical pleasures we use to assuage emotional pain- sex, drugs, food, liquor and cigarettes. Further, the safety of these activities is not related to their legality. I watched my band members legally consume alcohol and cigarettes, while they would have been arrested for smoking pot, and either arrested, despised or both for paying a woman for sex.
I remain unable to udnerstand the moral judgments made about these various activities. If the morality were related to the likelihood of self destruction I could understand, but it is not. It seems quite arbitrary to legalize one thing and stigmatize another. Specifically, prostitution and drugs are illegal. Why? Why are they not regulated, taxed and inspected like tobacco and alcohol?
Interestingly, the Women's Christian Temperance Union was a major force in both Prohibition and the outlawing of prostitution in the US, which until 1915 was legal in much of the country. It is worth considering what has been accomplished by laws against these activities.
A common complaint against drugs is that they are used to deliberately become intoxicated, while alcohol does not have to result in drunkenness. There is some truth to this, but if intoxication occurs in private, without driving, why does anyone care? It is commonly said, rather sanctimoniously, that drugs destroy family life and are associated with unemployment and misbehavior. That is certainly true, but no more so than for alcohol, and likely rather less so in consideration of volume of usage. From a medical view, alcohol is more dangerous than heroin and certainly than marijuana, although not cocaine or methamphetamine.
We have the absurd legal condition where one chemical that acts at a receptor (caffeine) is legal and sold n stores everywhere, while another, cocaine, is illegal, and as a result can be sold cut with impurities. Imagine the available revenue if cocaine were sold like coffee. Columbia would end its drug cartel problems, and stores could boast of having 'pure Columbian cocaine' much as we now have boasts of Columbian coffee.
Another complaint is that drugs and prostitution are associated with crime. This is circular reasoning; anything illegal is a priori associated with crime. This was true of alcohol during prohibition. Its legalization was a blow against organized crime, which had to find other sources of revenue. It was not alcohol that induced criminality; it was its status.
There are many claims of exploitation of women through prostitution. Without question there are prostitutes who are victimized by crime, and also child prostitutes who are grossly abused and exploited. There are also those who work to support a drug habit. The reality of these situations obscures the more common reasons for sex trade work- absence of other support or work, lack of education, abandonment by a spouse.
I do not see why a woman should be prevented from using her body to earn money. While it would not be the choice of occupation for my daughter, I do not think it is intrinsically wrong or degrading. Why is it any worse for a woman to sell her body for its use and appeal than it is for a man to do the same in selling his body for strength and size on a football field? Why should it not be a woman's choice to do as she pleases with her body, especially when there is a market? There is no complaint about women posing naked for pictures, and certainly no complaint about the gross sexual packaging of underage singers. Why is prostitution conceptually different? Its most degrading aspects seem again to be related to moral judgments that are not society's business, and to its illegal status.
There is risk associated with prostitution. Prostitutes are at risk for STDs and violence. Murder of prostitutes is distressingly common, making it one of the most dangerous activities in the US for the worker. These problems, however, are again a result of its illegal status. There is no one to advocate for a prostitute, and not a few who feel such women (and men) deserve whatever happens to them. In those countries where it is legal, prostitution is much safer and cleaner.
It is an ongoing source of thought and amusement to me to look at how variably society has viewed physical pleasures. I used to watch Hasidic (ultra-orthodox Jews) men, whose wives had just delivered, standing outside smoking cigarettes. They would then hail a cab as a group and go to the bowery for oral sex in doorways. I suppose for these men it was acceptable to petition God for the safe delivery of their wives while violating the standards of their religion. I have listened to a 350 pound charismatic preacher rage against the evils of alcohol. I can only assume that God, whose son he worships turned water into wine, condones the mass consumption of food while making the wine his son created a sin. St. Augustine argued that prostitution should be legal, because it prevented the greater sins of masturbation and adultery.
There have been a great many stances on liquor, sex trade, gluttony and the like over the centuries of western civilization. By historical standards, we live in a very prudish culture that, while abhorring prostitution and drugs, indulges itself grotesquely in food and liquor.
If we consider alcohol as the drink that brings comfort to a man at the end of a working day, it is good. If we speak of alcohol as that which destroys homes and kills on highways, it is bad. This same dichotomy is present in everything we do, including guns and cars. Banning activities is not a way to end them; they never end. It is better to legalize and control than to stigmatize.
Ted
I have written previously that there are five physical pleasures we use to assuage emotional pain- sex, drugs, food, liquor and cigarettes. Further, the safety of these activities is not related to their legality. I watched my band members legally consume alcohol and cigarettes, while they would have been arrested for smoking pot, and either arrested, despised or both for paying a woman for sex.
I remain unable to udnerstand the moral judgments made about these various activities. If the morality were related to the likelihood of self destruction I could understand, but it is not. It seems quite arbitrary to legalize one thing and stigmatize another. Specifically, prostitution and drugs are illegal. Why? Why are they not regulated, taxed and inspected like tobacco and alcohol?
Interestingly, the Women's Christian Temperance Union was a major force in both Prohibition and the outlawing of prostitution in the US, which until 1915 was legal in much of the country. It is worth considering what has been accomplished by laws against these activities.
A common complaint against drugs is that they are used to deliberately become intoxicated, while alcohol does not have to result in drunkenness. There is some truth to this, but if intoxication occurs in private, without driving, why does anyone care? It is commonly said, rather sanctimoniously, that drugs destroy family life and are associated with unemployment and misbehavior. That is certainly true, but no more so than for alcohol, and likely rather less so in consideration of volume of usage. From a medical view, alcohol is more dangerous than heroin and certainly than marijuana, although not cocaine or methamphetamine.
We have the absurd legal condition where one chemical that acts at a receptor (caffeine) is legal and sold n stores everywhere, while another, cocaine, is illegal, and as a result can be sold cut with impurities. Imagine the available revenue if cocaine were sold like coffee. Columbia would end its drug cartel problems, and stores could boast of having 'pure Columbian cocaine' much as we now have boasts of Columbian coffee.
Another complaint is that drugs and prostitution are associated with crime. This is circular reasoning; anything illegal is a priori associated with crime. This was true of alcohol during prohibition. Its legalization was a blow against organized crime, which had to find other sources of revenue. It was not alcohol that induced criminality; it was its status.
There are many claims of exploitation of women through prostitution. Without question there are prostitutes who are victimized by crime, and also child prostitutes who are grossly abused and exploited. There are also those who work to support a drug habit. The reality of these situations obscures the more common reasons for sex trade work- absence of other support or work, lack of education, abandonment by a spouse.
I do not see why a woman should be prevented from using her body to earn money. While it would not be the choice of occupation for my daughter, I do not think it is intrinsically wrong or degrading. Why is it any worse for a woman to sell her body for its use and appeal than it is for a man to do the same in selling his body for strength and size on a football field? Why should it not be a woman's choice to do as she pleases with her body, especially when there is a market? There is no complaint about women posing naked for pictures, and certainly no complaint about the gross sexual packaging of underage singers. Why is prostitution conceptually different? Its most degrading aspects seem again to be related to moral judgments that are not society's business, and to its illegal status.
There is risk associated with prostitution. Prostitutes are at risk for STDs and violence. Murder of prostitutes is distressingly common, making it one of the most dangerous activities in the US for the worker. These problems, however, are again a result of its illegal status. There is no one to advocate for a prostitute, and not a few who feel such women (and men) deserve whatever happens to them. In those countries where it is legal, prostitution is much safer and cleaner.
It is an ongoing source of thought and amusement to me to look at how variably society has viewed physical pleasures. I used to watch Hasidic (ultra-orthodox Jews) men, whose wives had just delivered, standing outside smoking cigarettes. They would then hail a cab as a group and go to the bowery for oral sex in doorways. I suppose for these men it was acceptable to petition God for the safe delivery of their wives while violating the standards of their religion. I have listened to a 350 pound charismatic preacher rage against the evils of alcohol. I can only assume that God, whose son he worships turned water into wine, condones the mass consumption of food while making the wine his son created a sin. St. Augustine argued that prostitution should be legal, because it prevented the greater sins of masturbation and adultery.
There have been a great many stances on liquor, sex trade, gluttony and the like over the centuries of western civilization. By historical standards, we live in a very prudish culture that, while abhorring prostitution and drugs, indulges itself grotesquely in food and liquor.
If we consider alcohol as the drink that brings comfort to a man at the end of a working day, it is good. If we speak of alcohol as that which destroys homes and kills on highways, it is bad. This same dichotomy is present in everything we do, including guns and cars. Banning activities is not a way to end them; they never end. It is better to legalize and control than to stigmatize.
Ted
Yep. Germany, for example, legalized prostitution and found that this made it safer and provided better living (and working) conditions for the women, not to mention values obtained in tax revenue. Yet when the 2006 World Cup was held in Germany, many Americans expressed outrage at Germany for their decision. Both the health of the prostitutes and of society improved by the legalization of "the world's oldest profession", while gaining Germany scorn in the eyes of those whose moral alarms prevented them from looking at the practical consequences of illegal prostitution in their own country.
ReplyDeleteDavid Graham