Letters to the Editor
-
Congrats for picking up teh phone!
You are to be congratulated for picking up the phone and calling an expert. I often wonder why you and the other gals at Broadsheet so rarely perform these acts of journalism, instead, just shooting from your hip.
I honestly don't think you should be congratulated for picking up the phone. My understanding is that you are paid to be a journalist.
But the reality is that since Broadsheet's journalism is so poor, that I can't help by congratulate you this afternoon for picking up that phone.
You should consider doing that more often in the future.
Communications -- it's not just bathroom gossip.
-
Point three is ridiculous
I am assuming that, given the hypothetically legal context in which he puts it, Herbert intends "illegal prostution" to mean underage prostitution and forced prostitution. Given that, how does he figure that legalization would encourage "illegal prostution?" Isn't the whole point of legalization (other than the inherent value of freedom over one's own body) that it will reduce such incidents of "illegal prostitution" by bringing the whole industry into the public sphere, subjecting its practices and practitioners to public scrutiny, and drawing distinctions between the legal and illegal practices within it? Isn't it self evident that if you criminalize the whole industry, you thereby equalize all forms of prostitution in the eyes of the law, and therefore can neither encourage nor discourage such "illegal prostitution?"
I haven't read the article - I assume that it is off limits to me, as a non Times Select subscriber. Am I missing something here?
-
Damn NYT subscription wall.
You can make all the social arguments you want, but if your audience is strictly limited, it doesn't matter much. I have no idea if he is right or wrong or even interesting.
-
the basic premise is
that sex for money is bad and exploitative--more exploitative than what's possible in the typical wage relationship.
All other arguments about prostitution are equally applicable to other types of work. For example,
-"many minors enter the sex industry"
....and many minors don't enter other industries? You can work in most states at what, 15? You can work on a farm at what, birth? Until there's data that show that prostitution brings in minors disproportionate to other fields (food service especially), then the unstated assumption is that minors are somehow more exploited in performing sex for money than say cleaning out McDonald's bathrooms for money--an assumption that I find highly debatable.
-"it is very difficult to leave the industry"
...see above. More difficult to leave than your shit job in your shit small town? How is "difficult" being quantified?
Again, point out the specifics of prostituion as an occupation and show how it is incommensurate to other occupations.
-"the legalization of prostitution typically increases illegal prostitution by legitimizing the exchange of sex for money."
...again, how is this any different than any other occupation? Some people who wait tables are on the books; others aren't. All of these arguments can (until someone produces data about prostitution's specificities) be equally applicable to most other occupations. I think there are some good arguments about outlawing prostitution, but saying that it as an occupation is somehow more exploitative than other occupations is not the way to argue against prostitution.
Oh, and the idea that we don't already exchange sex for money is hilarious. The last time I checked, I could order Skin-a-Max, download a Vivid video, or even buy a dildo to stick in my body at any time. All of these corporations (and their employees--including the ones having sex on film) can take my money for sex, but I can't walk out to the corner and solicit myself?
-
Don't studies exist that could address most of these points?
After all, there are nations where prostitution IS legal under some circumstances.
Is there more illegal prostitution in places where it is also possible to pursue the profession legally?
More minors involved?
Etcetera?
-
I had exactly the same reaction as Tracy Clark-Flory
I've similarly enjoyed and admired Bob Herbert's columns immensely (with perhaps the occasional exception).
But I could hardly disagree more with his conclusion to -- apparently -- hyper-criminalize prostitution. This will surely drive all the ills Herbert fairly documents underground, making them all the more difficult to remedy.
I don't question Herbert's good points, that there exist serious abuses in the prostitution industry and that these should be targeted for elimination. But prostitution per se is not the problem any more than marriage per se is the problem when there is spousal abuse.
It seems to me that Herbert has lost touch with reality on this issue.
-
Flory again shows her lack of intellect
Broadsheet called upon Sherry F. Colb, a professor of law at Rutgers Law School, to throw into the mix the nuanced voice of a legal expert who has argued against the criminalization of prostitution -- and, boy, did she deliver.
"Without knowing precisely what happens in the prostitution industry, my inclination would be to allow consenting adults to engage in whatever conduct turns them on and harms no one," Colb said.
Nuanced? That's laughable. That's the ideological argument on the most basic level. the other issues mentions, such as child prostituion being wrong, are too obvious.
The core issues are in a gray area. Reasonable people can and do disagree depending on what they emphasize. These is no clear cut correct issue. It's truly a dilemma.
It rests on multiple ideological fault lines. One is between libertarianism and the recognition of individual choice, and on the other hand between complex power dynamics and actual power of individuals within society.
Herbert comes at it as a black man connected with civil rights, and makes that argument in detail. From his perspective, it's a degrading result of social injustice and inequity, analogous to slavery, and a moral hazard. Colb comes at it as a empowerment feminist, who also probably sees law enforcement generally as paternalistic, and therefore takes the stance of a woman's liberty. These issues can be debated and drilled down very deeply, with a lot of point and counter point, until an individual finally has to pick a side or admit indecision.
But Flory's "my expert says" level of thinking is exactly why I find BS so incredibly shallow.