Full Version: Prostitution vs pornography
Link to a take on the Spitzer debate, from the Guardian newspaper website
I don't want to debate the whole issue of the Spitzer case - we've got other live threads to deal with that.
What I found interesting was the following paragraph:
I've never seen the argument over prostitution's legal status put in quite this way, but it makes eminent good sense.
I can see an argument that, because pornography is published material, it is covered as protected speech under the First Amendment, therefore it cannot be intrinsically illegal (though, clearly, if anything illegal is filmed - actual rape, child abuse or murder, for example - it can be prosecuted).
Prostitution isn't for publication so can't claim similar constitutional protections. However, politicians like Spitzer - he is far from unique in this in the USA or anywhere else - have made much electoral hay in their muscular opposition to prostitution, without much peep being made about pornography, at least in the USA.
However, at root it is still sex for money the transactional and dehumanising nature of which is usually at the root of objections to prostitution. And other objections to prostitution - immorality, links to organised crime and drug abuse - are also easily levelled at pornography, with as many justifications for making those links (albeit different ones, on different scales).
Even celebrity sex tapes that have come into the public domain (forgive the pun) appear not to have done any special harm to the careers of those filmed in them (especially if they are women - it did great harm to Rob Lowe's career for many years, though that may have been a product of the times) and, in cases such as Pamela Anderson or Paris Hilton (or, in the UK, Abi Titmuss) it appears to have reinvigorated or even launched the careers of those featured in them.
In short, the tone of public debate seems to rest on a consensus view that:
Is the legislative appetite not there because major corporations, and their campaign donations or media coverage, stand to lose out big time if pornography is made illegal?
Would prostitution be legalised if, say, a major leisure group (let's say, for the sake of argument and because it makes for a fun kind of Zen, the Hilton Group) opened a nationwide chain of clean, well-run brothels at every other freeway stop and offered $30million to whichever political party made it federally legal?
Questions for debate:
Why is there a dichotomy between American attitudes to pornography and prostitution? Or is there no such dichotomy?
Why is it seen as a fit subject for legislators to intervene in - through banning or limiting - transactions where one person pays another to have sex with them, but not where one person pays two other people to have sex with each other and films it for distribution?*
Is it the freedom of speech issue or the commercial interests that make use of pornography - whether or no a spouse gets lied to about it - a non-issue while use of a prostitute is still a major career-limiting move for many prominent men (and women)? Or is it just that there is little or no stigma attached to using pornography but a big one attached to prostitution?
Bonus question - a broadening of the last one; (I may start another topic on this one if it has legs)Is it true that, in USA, social policy is driven by moral perspectives while commercial policy is not?
Please give examples.
*Even if that distribution is some time after filming, and before anyone points it out, I realise that some pornography is geared around one person paying another to have sex with them and filming it themselves for distribution, then or later, but the principle - that there's nothing for legislators or commentators to concern themselves with when it comes to sex-for-money, as long as cameras are involved - is still the same.
For the record, I have no particular ideological or moral problem with either pornography or prostitution, provided only consenting adults are involved, but I don't think either of them are such great ideas that I would want my notional future kids to work in either.
I don't want to debate the whole issue of the Spitzer case - we've got other live threads to deal with that.
What I found interesting was the following paragraph:
QUOTE(Elizabeth Pisani @ with my emphasis)
For many years now, social policy in the US has been moulded by morality. Interestingly, commercial policy hasn't. It's illegal for one adult to pay another for sex, but perfectly legal for two adults to be paid to have sex with one another by a third person, who will film the encounter and then sell it as pornography to other adults.
I've never seen the argument over prostitution's legal status put in quite this way, but it makes eminent good sense.
I can see an argument that, because pornography is published material, it is covered as protected speech under the First Amendment, therefore it cannot be intrinsically illegal (though, clearly, if anything illegal is filmed - actual rape, child abuse or murder, for example - it can be prosecuted).
Prostitution isn't for publication so can't claim similar constitutional protections. However, politicians like Spitzer - he is far from unique in this in the USA or anywhere else - have made much electoral hay in their muscular opposition to prostitution, without much peep being made about pornography, at least in the USA.
However, at root it is still sex for money the transactional and dehumanising nature of which is usually at the root of objections to prostitution. And other objections to prostitution - immorality, links to organised crime and drug abuse - are also easily levelled at pornography, with as many justifications for making those links (albeit different ones, on different scales).
Even celebrity sex tapes that have come into the public domain (forgive the pun) appear not to have done any special harm to the careers of those filmed in them (especially if they are women - it did great harm to Rob Lowe's career for many years, though that may have been a product of the times) and, in cases such as Pamela Anderson or Paris Hilton (or, in the UK, Abi Titmuss) it appears to have reinvigorated or even launched the careers of those featured in them.
In short, the tone of public debate seems to rest on a consensus view that:
- pornography is
- at best a free expression of liberty in speech and action and
- at worst a reasonably tawdry business but one that is protected in law so let's say no more about it, while
- prostitution is
- at best fairly tawdry, but it's been around forever so let's just do our best to ignore it and
- at worst is a gross exploitation of the vulnerable by the unspeakable and it should be outlawed and those involved should be prosecuted and - if they've been on TV - villified in the 21st century equivalent of the village stocks.
Is the legislative appetite not there because major corporations, and their campaign donations or media coverage, stand to lose out big time if pornography is made illegal?
Would prostitution be legalised if, say, a major leisure group (let's say, for the sake of argument and because it makes for a fun kind of Zen, the Hilton Group) opened a nationwide chain of clean, well-run brothels at every other freeway stop and offered $30million to whichever political party made it federally legal?
Questions for debate:
Why is there a dichotomy between American attitudes to pornography and prostitution? Or is there no such dichotomy?
Why is it seen as a fit subject for legislators to intervene in - through banning or limiting - transactions where one person pays another to have sex with them, but not where one person pays two other people to have sex with each other and films it for distribution?*
Is it the freedom of speech issue or the commercial interests that make use of pornography - whether or no a spouse gets lied to about it - a non-issue while use of a prostitute is still a major career-limiting move for many prominent men (and women)? Or is it just that there is little or no stigma attached to using pornography but a big one attached to prostitution?
Bonus question - a broadening of the last one; (I may start another topic on this one if it has legs)Is it true that, in USA, social policy is driven by moral perspectives while commercial policy is not?
Please give examples.
*Even if that distribution is some time after filming, and before anyone points it out, I realise that some pornography is geared around one person paying another to have sex with them and filming it themselves for distribution, then or later, but the principle - that there's nothing for legislators or commentators to concern themselves with when it comes to sex-for-money, as long as cameras are involved - is still the same.
For the record, I have no particular ideological or moral problem with either pornography or prostitution, provided only consenting adults are involved, but I don't think either of them are such great ideas that I would want my notional future kids to work in either.
QUOTE(Julian @ Mar 13 2008, 01:53 PM) 
Questions for debate:
Why is there a dichotomy between American attitudes to pornography and prostitution? Or is there no such dichotomy?
Why is it seen as a fit subject for legislators to intervene in - through banning or limiting - transactions where one person pays another to have sex with them, but not where one person pays two other people to have sex with each other and films it for distribution?*
Is it the freedom of speech issue or the commercial interests that make use of pornography - whether or no a spouse gets lied to about it - a non-issue while use of a prostitute is still a major career-limiting move for many prominent men (and women)? Or is it just that there is little or no stigma attached to using pornography but a big one attached to prostitution?
Bonus question - a broadening of the last one; (I may start another topic on this one if it has legs)Is it true that, in USA, social policy is driven by moral perspectives while commercial policy is not?
Please give examples.
Why is there a dichotomy between American attitudes to pornography and prostitution? Or is there no such dichotomy?
Why is it seen as a fit subject for legislators to intervene in - through banning or limiting - transactions where one person pays another to have sex with them, but not where one person pays two other people to have sex with each other and films it for distribution?*
Is it the freedom of speech issue or the commercial interests that make use of pornography - whether or no a spouse gets lied to about it - a non-issue while use of a prostitute is still a major career-limiting move for many prominent men (and women)? Or is it just that there is little or no stigma attached to using pornography but a big one attached to prostitution?
Bonus question - a broadening of the last one; (I may start another topic on this one if it has legs)Is it true that, in USA, social policy is driven by moral perspectives while commercial policy is not?
Please give examples.
1) Most Americans older than 30 frown on porn, too, but prostitution spreads illness and death and destroys families. Porn spreads no disease among the end user, is produced by pros who generally practice safe sex and are tested regularly, and to most people, masturbating to porn, or using porn to get aroused to boink your wife or husband, is different than physically cheating on one's spouse and breaking your marital vows. I do not believe God creates such distinctions, but, as a practical matter, they do exist.
2) see 1) above--they are just materially different exercises.
3) Probably some combination of factors, but no question the first am makes restricting porn a wholly different matter than restricting prostitution.
Bonus--I think the USA used to be driven by moral perspectives on everything. We fell far short of our own standards, but we acknowledged the standards, which ultimately serves as some level of check on our excesses. Today, we do not agree on the moral standards. Also, today many "Conservatives", for example, are socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I think this just leads to selfishness. Conservatism is comprehensive or not really Conservatism.
Why is there a dichotomy between American attitudes to pornography and prostitution? Or is there no such dichotomy?
I think one key ingredient that is left off here is the other criminal behaviors that surround the "prostitution industry". Prostitution, as a street activity, is closely associated with drug crime, money laundering and a lot of other illegal activities. Prostitutes are also subject to highly abusive treatment by both pimps and johns and the job has a death rate of 50 times the next most dangerous legal job for women -- working in a liquor store. Nevada is the only state where prostitution is legal and it is fairly highly regulated, requiring regular health checks and condom use by prostitutes.
Keep in mind that prostitution is illegal not only in the US, it is illegal in most other countries as well, although this seems to be changing as more and more countries are legalizing it.
Of course, there is the "human dignity" angle that is shared by pornography and prostitution.
I think one key ingredient that is left off here is the other criminal behaviors that surround the "prostitution industry". Prostitution, as a street activity, is closely associated with drug crime, money laundering and a lot of other illegal activities. Prostitutes are also subject to highly abusive treatment by both pimps and johns and the job has a death rate of 50 times the next most dangerous legal job for women -- working in a liquor store. Nevada is the only state where prostitution is legal and it is fairly highly regulated, requiring regular health checks and condom use by prostitutes.
Keep in mind that prostitution is illegal not only in the US, it is illegal in most other countries as well, although this seems to be changing as more and more countries are legalizing it.
Of course, there is the "human dignity" angle that is shared by pornography and prostitution.
QUOTE(Julian @ Mar 13 2008, 01:53 PM)
I can see an argument that, because pornography is published material, it is covered as protected speech under the First Amendment, therefore it cannot be intrinsically illegal (though, clearly, if anything illegal is filmed - actual rape, child abuse or murder, for example - it can be prosecuted).
Porn (obscenity) isn't constitutionally protected. It's a common misperception because it is so prevalent. The blunt truth is the feds have largely laid off prosecuting it because they couldn't keep up, and there is always more pressing crime.
QUOTE(quick @ Mar 13 2008, 02:36 PM)
Most Americans older than 30 frown on porn, too, but prostitution spreads illness and death and destroys families.
Adult porn is so prevalent we've lost interest in it. I couldn't find a reliable poll on the subject, but a few polls on child porn. There was Harris Interactive, but their polls are volunteer-based and subjective. The best I found was this, Statistics on Pornography, Sexual Addiction and Predators:
A 1996 Promise Keepers survey at one of their stadium events revealed that over 50% of the men in attendance were involved with pornography within one week of attending the event.
Over half of evangelical pastors admits viewing pornography last year.
In a 2000 Christianity Today survey, 33% of clergy admitted to having visited a sexually explicit Web site. Of those who had visited a porn site, 53% had visited such sites "a few times" in the past year, and 18% visit sexually explicit sites between a couple of times a month and more than once a week.
29% of born again adults in the U.S. feel it is morally acceptable to view movies with explicit sexual behavior (The Barna Group).
57% of pastors say that addiction to pornography is the most sexually damaging issue to their congregation (Christians and Sex Leadership Journal Survey, March 2005).
And this statistic:
Largest consumer of internet pornography: 35 - 49 age group
Gallup Poll or no, I think your guess is way off, Quick. Not to mention a number of legal activities can become vices and destroy families.
Is it true that, in USA, social policy is driven by moral perspectives while commercial policy is not?
Yes and no. Prostitution is commerce just like adult pornography. Both are "illegal" but one is ignored. I think our belief in the sacredness of property, not commerce, is what keeps government out of the bedroom. Sometimes. Out in the streets, where prostitutes ply their trade, is a different matter.
There's no rhyme or reason to where we inject our morality, such as it is, in commerce. Texas is once again trying to ban dildos because, according to Attorney General Greg Abbott, allowing the sale and use of dildos will lead to bigamy and child incest.
Yeah Jules. We're that crazy.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Mar 13 2008, 03:53 PM)
QUOTE(Julian @ Mar 13 2008, 01:53 PM)
I can see an argument that, because pornography is published material, it is covered as protected speech under the First Amendment, therefore it cannot be intrinsically illegal (though, clearly, if anything illegal is filmed - actual rape, child abuse or murder, for example - it can be prosecuted).
Porn (obscenity) isn't constitutionally protected. It's a common misperception because it is so prevalent. The blunt truth is the feds have largely laid off prosecuting it because they couldn't keep up, and there is always more pressing crime.
Well, there's the rub, isn't it? One man's porn is another man's protected speech. Defining porn is the problem and therefore a legitimate first amendment problem. Even the Supremes have said, "I know it when I see it...."
I remember seeing Playboy pix from the 50s that showed almost nothing. Heck, you see wilder pictures today in shampoo ads on TV. Our standards have changed....
Why is there a dichotomy between American attitudes to pornography and prostitution? Or is there no such dichotomy?
The crucial distinction here not just that the former falls under the purview of the 1st amendment... that's a constitutional argument that I think holds up pretty fairly.
But the world of pornography is also extraordinarily safe, well-regulated, and violence-free compared to the world of prostitution. Kristof's column in today's times covered the subject pretty squarely. BTW, he and Maureen Dowd are increasingly the only columnists I like over there. Krugman has been writing the same column for 10 months now, and every now and then David Brooks or Bob Herbert will write something compelling. But Kristof's column in the times today made me remember how good their columnists used to be by comparison.
The crucial distinction here not just that the former falls under the purview of the 1st amendment... that's a constitutional argument that I think holds up pretty fairly.
But the world of pornography is also extraordinarily safe, well-regulated, and violence-free compared to the world of prostitution. Kristof's column in today's times covered the subject pretty squarely. BTW, he and Maureen Dowd are increasingly the only columnists I like over there. Krugman has been writing the same column for 10 months now, and every now and then David Brooks or Bob Herbert will write something compelling. But Kristof's column in the times today made me remember how good their columnists used to be by comparison.
QUOTE(drewyorktimes @ Mar 13 2008, 11:15 PM)
Why is there a dichotomy between American attitudes to pornography and prostitution? Or is there no such dichotomy?
The crucial distinction here not just that the former falls under the purview of the 1st amendment... that's a constitutional argument that I think holds up pretty fairly.
The crucial distinction here not just that the former falls under the purview of the 1st amendment... that's a constitutional argument that I think holds up pretty fairly.
Pornography is obscenity. Obscenity is not protected speech under the First. The last Supreme Court case I'm aware of dealing with pornography is Miller v. California (1973). The Miller test skirts the issue of defining obscenity by leaving it up to contemporary community standards to define obscenity. There've been pro-obscenity rulings since Miller, such as Reno v. ACLU (1997) and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), but these dealt with restrictions on the dissemination of internet content and "virtual" pornography in video games, respectively, and don't tackle obscenity directly.
QUOTE(drewyorktimes @ Mar 14 2008, 03:15 AM)
Why is there a dichotomy between American attitudes to pornography and prostitution? Or is there no such dichotomy?
The crucial distinction here not just that the former falls under the purview of the 1st amendment... that's a constitutional argument that I think holds up pretty fairly.
But the world of pornography is also extraordinarily safe, well-regulated, and violence-free compared to the world of prostitution. Kristof's column in today's times covered the subject pretty squarely. BTW, he and Maureen Dowd are increasingly the only columnists I like over there. Krugman has been writing the same column for 10 months now, and every now and then David Brooks or Bob Herbert will write something compelling. But Kristof's column in the times today made me remember how good their columnists used to be by comparison.
The crucial distinction here not just that the former falls under the purview of the 1st amendment... that's a constitutional argument that I think holds up pretty fairly.
But the world of pornography is also extraordinarily safe, well-regulated, and violence-free compared to the world of prostitution. Kristof's column in today's times covered the subject pretty squarely. BTW, he and Maureen Dowd are increasingly the only columnists I like over there. Krugman has been writing the same column for 10 months now, and every now and then David Brooks or Bob Herbert will write something compelling. But Kristof's column in the times today made me remember how good their columnists used to be by comparison.
I can see that, in a situation where pornography is legal, legitimate businesses will run it. It is not in the interest of any business to kill their own staff (though customers are expendable provided they pay all the way to the grave - witness the tobacco industry's current focus on the not very litigious third world), or have them addicted to drugs or reliant on medical procedures, because their performance would suffer. Illegal drugs are especially frowned upon and are grounds for disciplinary procedures in almost any legit business because a valuable asset (a trained person who is good at their job) stands to be removed from it against the wishes or control of the business if they get arrested.
Aside: Drugs & treatments that enhance performance or appearance - e.g. steroid and viagra for the men, contraceptive pills and douches for the women, and various cosmetic surgeries for both sexes - are completely ubiquitous if not practically mandatory. Plus, I dare say that more than a few grams of coke, poppers, etc get consumed on and around set, at wrap parties, etc. So I don't think we can talk sensibly about pornography being an industry that it "drug free".
However, prostitution is illegal everywhere in the USA (except Nevada, as has been pointed out). Anyone involved in prostitution is therefore a criminal by definition. It's not a surprise that crimes overlap - prostitution is not the only crime that is strongly linked to drugs. Burglary, petty and grand theft, fraud, rape, murder and a whole host of other crimes are linked to drugs as well, if only because if you mix with criminals you're as likely to be the victim of a crime as a perpetrator of one.
For the "businesses" involved in prostitution, many of which (like the mob) might take on some of the trappings of legit businesses, the very illegality of the activity means you can't afford to treat your "staff" in the same way. Hiring prostitutes is not something you can do by putting an ad in the paper - you have to cajole the vulnerable, and a good way to do that is to hire someone already on drugs, or hook someone currently clean on drugs, or use threats of (or actual) violence, or some combination of these.
Keeping staff clean and sober is not much of a priority, because they run the risk of being arrested just for working, as well as for any drug offences they might commit. And your customers are likely not going to be shocked or offended, since they know that they are breaking the law by seeing them anyway. In for a penny, in for a pound, as we say over here - or, more appropriately, you might as well be hung for a sheep as hung for a lamb.
Besides, the experience of Nevada is that prostitution - while still not a squeaky clean occupation - is far less rife with drugs, disease and violence than it is in, say, Baltimore, San Diego or Miami (to pick three random cities where prostitution is illegal).
So we're back to where we started - many of the "problems" of prostitution come from it being illegal, and it is illegal while pornography is not because of a distinction that is being made between payment for sex where the payer does not film proceedings, whether or not they take an active part, and payment for sex where they do (for paid distribution - a john who filmed his encounters with hookers and stashed the movies in a box in his attic under the impression that this would give him first amendment protection from prosecution is not at issue here. Not to mention a little creepy)
Julian- I forget- did you ever live in America? We are pretty crazy when dealing with sex- there was far more outrage over Janet Jackson's breast in the Super bowl than there is about our election or the war in Iraq.
We are ape-crazy, for realz.
The face of prostitution most see are the street walking drug addicts. As a former call girl on this site pointed out- that aint really so.
Most prostitution is pretty upscale, and of course, by neccesity, they have lower rates of STDs than the general population.
Let's put it this way- if I were to risk unprotected sex with a call girl or random hook up off myspace
- I would pick the call girl for safety, anomynity, and a real good time.
Lot's of really wierd behavior in the US, that is for sure- but porn is really a global thing- and, more interesting, not really being driven by "pros"- most of the porn on the internet is by Amateurs, mostly women, posting naughty bits of themselves for others to see- for free. How do you exploit for free?
People are sexual animals, and we ought to let adults do as they will with other adults, as long as there is consent.
Ya Julian- there is a dichtonomy between our stated values and our behaviors- go attend a Baptist church, then go private eye and spy on that congregation- schizzophrenia is a much better word than dichtonomy I am afraid my friend.
If more people just admitted they were horndogs and hooked up with other self proclaimed horndogs, probably not much of a problem with either.
We are ape-crazy, for realz.
The face of prostitution most see are the street walking drug addicts. As a former call girl on this site pointed out- that aint really so.
Most prostitution is pretty upscale, and of course, by neccesity, they have lower rates of STDs than the general population.
Let's put it this way- if I were to risk unprotected sex with a call girl or random hook up off myspace
- I would pick the call girl for safety, anomynity, and a real good time. Lot's of really wierd behavior in the US, that is for sure- but porn is really a global thing- and, more interesting, not really being driven by "pros"- most of the porn on the internet is by Amateurs, mostly women, posting naughty bits of themselves for others to see- for free. How do you exploit for free?
People are sexual animals, and we ought to let adults do as they will with other adults, as long as there is consent.
Ya Julian- there is a dichtonomy between our stated values and our behaviors- go attend a Baptist church, then go private eye and spy on that congregation- schizzophrenia is a much better word than dichtonomy I am afraid my friend.
If more people just admitted they were horndogs and hooked up with other self proclaimed horndogs, probably not much of a problem with either.
In the somewhat edited down words of George Carlin: selling is legal, and sex is legal, so why is selling sex illegal?
When you break it down, prostitution is a comercial transaction, you exchange money for sexual gratification, and I don't see why it should be illegal.
As for the "well it breaks up families and spreads moral decay..." argument, well, so does alcohol and a lot of other things that aren't illegal.
As for the "there's a lot of abuse and dirty dealings that involve the world of prostitution, pornography is a safe and clean industry", I say this, prostitution can be made "safe" and "clean" if legallized. During the prohibition years there was a lot of dirty dealings going on in the alcohol business, but since that senseless law was droped alcohol lost all of it's "underworld connections". If pornography were illegal it would be in the same ditch as prostitution, with young girls being abused by porn producers who don't answer to anyone precisely because of the illegality of their business. Legalize prostitution and it will be easier to keep track of abuse, negligence, exploitation and other negative aspects that sorround the lives of those involved with it.
Prostitution can and should be made a matter of personal choice, just like alcohol, tobacco and pornography is.
Sorry if I came off as too libertarian.
When you break it down, prostitution is a comercial transaction, you exchange money for sexual gratification, and I don't see why it should be illegal.
As for the "well it breaks up families and spreads moral decay..." argument, well, so does alcohol and a lot of other things that aren't illegal.
As for the "there's a lot of abuse and dirty dealings that involve the world of prostitution, pornography is a safe and clean industry", I say this, prostitution can be made "safe" and "clean" if legallized. During the prohibition years there was a lot of dirty dealings going on in the alcohol business, but since that senseless law was droped alcohol lost all of it's "underworld connections". If pornography were illegal it would be in the same ditch as prostitution, with young girls being abused by porn producers who don't answer to anyone precisely because of the illegality of their business. Legalize prostitution and it will be easier to keep track of abuse, negligence, exploitation and other negative aspects that sorround the lives of those involved with it.
Prostitution can and should be made a matter of personal choice, just like alcohol, tobacco and pornography is.
Sorry if I came off as too libertarian.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.