Should Vitter Resign?

Jonah leans that way, but with caveats; Jason Zengerle looks at Congress's recent anti-prostitution gestures; Ramesh writes that "maybe one reason that Vitter hasn't been more forcefully and widely condemned is that our law and culture don't treat prostitution as simply 'illegal,' like drug dealing ...You can't advertise for drug deals in the yellow pages, but you basically can for prostitution." He also asks "how far" we want to take Ruth Marcus' reasoning "that prostitution is different from adultery on moral as well as legal grounds," because, in her words, "One is demeaning to a particular woman, the second to all women."

I'm not sure how far I'd run with that particular way of phrasing it, but I think her basic suggestion is right. I'd put it this way: Adultery where you don't pay for sex is arguably a worse sin against your spouse than going to a prostitute, because you're cheating emotionally as well as physically; however, going to a prostitute is a worse sin against society, because it makes you an active participant in a industry that profits from a kind of large-scale degradation that goes far beyond the damage it does to a single marriage. (Similarly, using drugs might be a worse sin against people close to you than selling drugs, because their lives will be more damaged by your addiction than by your dealing - but selling drugs is a worse crime against society as a whole, and merits harsher penalties.) Adultery is a matter of private morality, in other words, whereas procuring a prostitute is a matter of public morality; that's why the latter is an appropriate target for criminal penalties, and why Vitter shouldn't be able to get away with claiming that his actions belong to the private sphere.

Yes, prostitution will always be with us, and it's possible for me to imagine a society where I would support the kind of Catholic libertarianism that this writer recommends, on the grounds that it's simply too pervasive and inevitable a vice to legislate against. But America in the twenty-first century isn't that society; we're rich enough and sexually permissiveness enough that both potential prostitutes and potential johns should be able to find other ways of getting what they need (income and sexual excitement, respectively). Ramesh is right that we tend to treat prostitution with a wink and a nod, which is why Vitter almost certainly won't have to resign. But the law is correct, the winking and nodding isn't, and if Vitter did what he appears to have done I think there's a strong case he should step down.

Meanwhile, Deborah Jeane Palfrey's lawyers are busy arguing that she's protected by Lawrence v. Texas ...

Comments

The main reason that there are not a torrent of calls for Vitter's resignation is that the class of people who normally call for such things, don't know who else could be implicated.

Posted by henry evans | July 23, 2007 9:41 AM

The main reason that there are not more calls for Vitter's resignation is that the people who normally call for such things don't know who else could be implicated.

Posted by henry evans | July 23, 2007 9:41 AM

You wrote: that prostitution and drug use amounts to participation "in a industry that profits from a kind of large-scale degradation that goes far beyond the damage it does" to a given participant's loved ones.

But particularly in the case of drug use, many (far from all!) of the societal problems are caused by the illegality of the behavior, not by the behavior itself. (I mean rich, violent drug dealers terrorizing neighborhoods).

There is, of course, no argument for banning marijuana that wouldn't also call for banning alcohol, but it's the collateral damage that makes me wonder if even more dangerous drugs should be legalized and heavily regulated.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 23, 2007 10:08 AM

“Meanwhile, Deborah Jeane Palfrey's lawyers are busy arguing that she's protected by Lawrence v. Texas ...”

I love it! While we argue what is a greater indignity to women and the institution of marriage: prostitution, adultery or both; the lawyers for the Madam are busy arguing under a constitutional precedent that calls are democracies very ability to set sexual standards radically into question.

What presents the greater danger to public morality? The acknowledged philandering of a single public servant or the constitution of the united states being interpreted as to recognize no possible law that interferes with the autonomous free agent?

Posted by Fitz | July 23, 2007 11:42 AM

Just to be clear, you think it's a good thing that a women who sell their bodies for sex should be sent to jail?

Or alternatively, the damage and hardship placed on prostitutes who are imprisoned is a price you are willing for those women to pay for the sake of society's moral integrity?

Posted by Joseph | July 23, 2007 12:11 PM

Ross is dead wrong in at least 2 ways:

1. The type of escort services that Vitter apparently patronized are just about the least exploitative forms of prostitution. The women tend to be well paid, and have not been trafficked. This wasn't a Korean massage parlor or a streetwalker.

Basically, it comes down to whether you think it is inherently bad for women for a man to pay a lot of money for sex. That's really the toughest case for prostitution opponents to make.

2. I don't see how sexual promiscuity in society impugns the case for legal prostitution. The benefits of sexual promiscuity are unequally distributed. Some males get quite a lot of it; others get little or none. Further, because they know that so many other males are having a lot of sex, it increases their RELATIVE deprivation and probably makes them even more likely to want to patronize a prostitute.

There are excellent arguments against various forms of prostitution that are associated with the exploitation of women, organized crime, STD's, and the like. There are also arguments, but less compelling ones, against high-end escort services. But Ross' taxonomy of sex crimes doesn't work at all.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 23, 2007 12:57 PM

“Just to be clear, you think it's a good thing that a women who sell their bodies for sex should be sent to jail?”

I think it’s an inevitable and justifiable result of our culture and law that rejects prostitution as morally valid. Under such laws, prostitutes, johns and pimps all face the threat of prison. This does not disallow everything from drug treatment to outreach that helps such women avoid a life as sexual objects sold for pleasure.

“Or alternatively, the damage and hardship placed on prostitutes who are imprisoned is a price you are willing for those women to pay for the sake of society's moral integrity?”

Yes: remember (of coarse) one of the net effects of laws against prostitution is they discourage prostitution as a socially acceptable and legitimate field of occupation. “Society's moral integrity” includes a world were selling your body for money is not acceptable or legal means of profit and employment.

Posted by Fitz | July 23, 2007 1:00 PM

"Basically, it comes down to whether you think it is inherently bad for women for a man to pay a lot of money for sex. That's really the toughest case for prostitution opponents to make."

I don’t know how? Be it a lot of money or a little, a high end escort service or a street walker, -the arguments against prostitution tends to resonate well with the populace at large.
Making human sexuality into a commodity debases both the persons involved and the act itself. Turning sex into a going concern devalues its familial and procreative functions and reinforces it as mere instrument for pleasure. It separates the object from the subject, inherently exploiting the people involved in its procurement and sale.

Posted by Fitz | July 23, 2007 1:14 PM

"I'd put it this way: Adultery where you don't pay for sex is arguably a worse sin against your spouse than going to a prostitute, because you're cheating emotionally as well as physically..."

If I'm reading your argument correctly, going to a prostitute is not "cheating emotionally" on your spouse, just some sort of physical sin? Wow, this is the last place I thought I'd see the old "But it was just sex!" argument. On second thought, maybe it's not that surprising. Pathetic.

Posted by kn | July 23, 2007 1:45 PM

The type of escort services that Vitter apparently patronized are just about the least exploitative forms of prostitution. The women tend to be well paid, and have not been trafficked.

Really? I don't know anything about this, but would have guessed that even these classy prostitutes are trafficked -- i.e. illegal immigrants essentially enslaved by gangsters. Is that not the case?

jenny

Posted by jenny | July 23, 2007 1:51 PM

jenny:

I can't speak specifically for Ms. Palfrey's organization. But from what I recall (and it's been a long time since I read the feminist arguments about prostitution in college), high-end escort services IN THE UNITED STATES tend not to be involved in trafficking. The reason for trafficking is that you get cheap labor, but high end services can charge enough that they can make money while compensating the women relatively well. Further, part of what the men who patronize such services are buying is the fantasy of being with somewhat more acculturated, intelligent women, "courtesans" and "escorts" rather than "hookers". Sex slaves tend not to fulfill that fantasy.

Fitz:

You are taking a ridiculously abstract view of sex. Sex is a pleasurable recreational activity that involves putting body parts into other body parts. It can also be a means of reproduction. Its role as a means of reproduction is in no way affected by its use by others as a form of recreation.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 23, 2007 2:45 PM

"You are taking a ridiculously abstract view of sex. Sex is a pleasurable recreational activity that involves putting body parts into other body parts. It can also be a means of reproduction. Its role as a means of reproduction is in no way affected by its use by others as a form of recreation."

Dylan, you are taking a ridiculously reductionist view of human sexuality.

It is a view that is separated from our history, tradition, cultures, religion and practice. Sex is hardly the equivalent of beach volleyball. It entails physical, mental, emotional, social and spiritual interactions that have always defined us as individuals and as a society. Its procreative function cannot be divorced from its social aspects. To do so is to put us precisely on the shaky ground that we find ourselves. Indeed; this recreational view leads us to precisely the point were everything from pornography to legalized prostitution becomes acceptable.

If you refuse to lift it up on its pedestal; don’t wonder why it lies down in the dirt.

Posted by Fitz | July 23, 2007 3:16 PM

You are taking a ridiculously abstract view of sex. Sex is a pleasurable recreational activity that involves putting body parts into other body parts. It can also be a means of reproduction. Its role as a means of reproduction is in no way affected by its use by others as a form of recreation.

The irony here is that it is Dilan who is treating sex as some abstract idealized "pleasurable recreational activity" and ignoring all the concrete, real-world effects that are involved in sexual intercourse. To wit: if it is really true that its role as a means of reproduction is in no way affected by its use by others as a form of recreation, why do people get jealous when their partner sleeps with someone else? Why do we make men pay child support even if they just had a one-night stand? And what about the spouse who contracts an STD because his or her husband was engaging in a "pleasurable recreational activity" with someone else?

Posted by Mike S. | July 23, 2007 3:25 PM

Fitz and Mike S.:

Maybe you two can't have sex without it causing all sorts of historical, traditional, cultural, religious, and practical effects. Maybe you two are unable to divorce it from its procreative effects. (May I suggest a trip to the drugstore?) But please don't ruin it for the rest of us.

Seriously, it IS a fun recreational activity. It can cause pregnancy, but doesn't have to. It can cause STD's, but doesn't have to. Like many fun activities, it carries risks, which in turn can be mitigated.

Now it is also true that it CAN be imbued with context, e.g., when people promise monogamy. And then people get mad when the promise isn't kept. But again, that's not any different than any other promise. If someone promises to go to the ball game with you and then breaches the promise, that can anger you too.

As for the rest of your examples, they are ridiculous. If a monogamous spouse contracts an STD, that is because the cheating spouse (1) didn't use protection, and (2) didn't tell the monogamous spouse so that an informed decision could be made about having sex or using protection in that instance.

And by the way, what is "sex"? You seem to want to define pornography and prostitution as "sex", but a lot of those things do not involve intercourse. Now why, exactly, should NON-procreative acts be linked to procreation? What separates oral sex from licking a breast from french kissing? None of those are procreative acts, you know.

Look, you guys were taught a bunch of BS about sex by religious authorities, and it apparently never occurred to you when you were having it that "gee, this is simply a slightly risky, very enjoyable way of rubbing two bodies together". Again, if you want to carry on your silly view that rather than what it actually is, this is some sort of "symbolic" act, that's your business. But don't try and affix your arbitrary definitions upon the sex acts of others.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 23, 2007 3:43 PM

But don't try and affix your arbitrary definitions upon the sex acts of others.

Same to you, Dilan!

Case in point: This definition:

[T]his is simply a slightly risky, very enjoyable way of rubbing two bodies together.

Posted by Charlotte Allen | July 23, 2007 4:57 PM

But don't try and affix your arbitrary definitions upon the sex acts of others.

Same to you, Dilan!

Case in point: This definition:

[T]his is simply a slightly risky, very enjoyable way of rubbing two bodies together.

Posted by Charlotte Allen | July 23, 2007 4:57 PM

The difference is that Dilan Esper's definition is what sex actually is, and his adversaries' includes things that have nothing to do with what sex actually is, which was his entire point.

Posted by Epsilon | July 23, 2007 5:16 PM

If I just got slapped down by THE Charlotte Allen (i.e., Independent Women's Forum), I'm flattered.

But more seriously, I thought I was clear that I have no problem if other people want to imbue whatever meaning they want to on their own sex acts. The problem comes when people start insisting that the sex acts of OTHERS need to have that same meaning and conform to the same definitions.

I might spice this up a little bit by noting that under Mike S's and Fitz's definitions of what "sex" has to be, there would seem to be no room for gay and lesbian Americans to share a meaningful intimate life with their partners. I would think that if one WERE to start theorizing about the alleged greater contextual meaning of sex, that meaning would need to account for the 2 to 3 percent of the population that is attracted to others of the same gender. Or are they shut out?

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 23, 2007 5:35 PM

"gee, this is simply a slightly risky, very enjoyable way of rubbing two bodies together"

This is the ideology.

When their not "problematisizing" the very definition of sex, their reducing its profound social meaning to pure recreation.

The understanding of sex proffered by Dilan and Epsilon is a-historical & anti-intellectual.

Man is a social animal, no culture has ever reduced sex to an enjoyable way of rubbing bodies together.

Proof of this is no further than the original example of this post. Society makes prostitution a criminal offense and illegal. Preasure brought to bear for a U.S. Senator to resign. The issues range from adultery, to public standards to questions of personal charachter.

All of this evaporates into air under an understanding of sex as a "fun" recreational activity.

Man has never understood sex in this manner. It has always been endowed with far greater meaning than what is being proposed.

The foreign element is not our common understanding of sexual propriety as exemplified by the Vitter scandal. Rather it is the reduxtionist view proffered by those who still cling to the shopworn phrases of the sexual revolution.

As stated, - sex is understood through our collective "history, tradition, cultures, religion and practice" (we can add law as well.

To seperate it from our collective understanding and superimpose a ideology that denies its profound social understanding is a-historiacal and anti-intellectual.

It operating under pure ideology.

Posted by Fitz | July 24, 2007 10:48 AM

"gee, this is simply a slightly risky, very enjoyable way of rubbing two bodies together"

This is the ideology.

When their not "problematisizing" the very definition of sex, their reducing its profound social meaning to pure recreation.

The understanding of sex proffered by Dilan and Epsilon is a-historical & anti-intellectual.

Man is a social animal, no culture has ever reduced sex to an enjoyable way of rubbing bodies together.

Proof of this is no further than the original example of this post. Society makes prostitution a criminal offense and illegal. Preasure brought to bear for a U.S. Senator to resign. The issues range from adultery, to public standards to questions of personal charachter.

All of this evaporates into air under an understanding of sex as a "fun" recreational activity.

Man has never understood sex in this manner. It has always been endowed with far greater meaning than what is being proposed.

The foreign element is not our common understanding of sexual propriety as exemplified by the Vitter scandal. Rather it is the reduxtionist view proffered by those who still cling to the shopworn phrases of the sexual revolution.

As stated, - sex is understood through our collective "history, tradition, cultures, religion and practice" (we can add law as well.

To seperate it from our collective understanding and superimpose a ideology that denies its profound social understanding is a-historiacal and anti-intellectual.

It is operating under pure ideology.

Posted by Fitz | July 24, 2007 10:48 AM

Hi, Dilan!

Yes, it's me, lately of the IWF. As for The Definition:

"[T]his is simply a slightly risky, very enjoyable way of rubbing two bodies together."

I don't get why this definition is supposed to be especially helpful in enabling "gay and lesbian Americans to share a meaningful intimate life with their partners." I thought gays and lesbians wanted to get married. Isn't getting married investing sex with exactly the sort of contextual overtones that your definition rejects? "Rubbing two bodies together" doesn't sound very meaningful or intimate to me. What are you saying--that for heterosexuals, sex is filled with folderol about love, emotional nourishment, etc., but for gays and lesbians, it's just body-rubbing?

To Epsilon:

The difference is that Dilan Esper's definition is what sex actually is, and his adversaries' includes things that have nothing to do with what sex actually is, which was his entire point.

I have an even better reductive definition of "what sex actually is" for you:

What sex actually is is Mother Nature's way of getting us to make more of us.

Posted by Charlotte Allen | July 24, 2007 11:39 AM

Re: . Its procreative function cannot be divorced from its social aspects.

Not only can it be so separated, it is separated, by nature itself. Indeed, one of the most unique behavioral facts about the human species is the fact that our females are sexually active even when they are not fertile. Thus the vast majority of sex acts are not procreative. In fact, I think it's pretty likely that they were and are never intended to be so either. I'm very open to an argument that one should avoid excess indulgence in this pleasure as one should avoid excess in all pleasures; and also that one should never objectify one's sex partners, but treat them with the same kindness and consideration one wishes for onesself. I am not open to arguments that babies must be part of the mix because that simply isn't how the human species functions.

Posted by Jonf | July 24, 2007 2:03 PM

JohnF

Re: Its procreative function cannot be divorced from its social aspects.

I can appreciate what you’re saying. However when I say “divorced from” I don’t mean “everywhere and always leads to pregnancies.” Rather I mean its social meaning “is insurmountably tied up with, or…”inextricably linked to” its procreative function.

We can, (and have) tried to divorce the two. In doing so we have denied an elemental fact of being human.

Allow me to demonstrate (with the words of another) how “insurmountable” & “inextricable” this union is.

Quoting Professor Germain Grisez

“Though a male and a female are complete individuals with respect to other functions – for example nutrition, sensation, and locomotion- with respect to reproduction they are only potential parts of a mated pair, which is the complete organism capable of reproducing sexually. Even if the mated pair is sterile, intercourse, provided it is the reproductive behavior characteristic of the species, makes the copulating male and female one organism”

And noting a though experiment by Grisez

“Imagine a type of bodily, rational being that reproduces, not by mating but by some individual performance. Imagine that for these beings, however, locomotion or digestion is performed not by individuals, but only by biologically complementary pairs that unite for this purpose. Would anybody have any difficulty understanding that in respect to reproduction the organism performing the function is the individual, while in respect of locomotion or digestion the organism performing the function is the united pair?”

Only the sexual relationships of men and women together produce children. Therefore, only the sexual relationships of men and women together require governmental regulation because of (1) their capacity to create social disorder, and (2) that reproduction is a fact and does have important and inevitable consequences on society both good and bad if it is not regulated. Thus, it inevitably must implicate the political and public aspect insofar as the production of future citizens is not only vital to the survival of a nation, but that the regulation of this production of future citizens is just as important.

Posted by Fitz | July 24, 2007 4:43 PM

I'll go out on a limb and declare the talented biologist Professor Germain Grisez's idea that a woman and man together fornicating form a single organism to be demented and meaningless. I notice he's careful to claim this is the case even if the mated pair is sterile, I wonder why.

Only the sexual relationships of men and women together produce children. Therefore, only the sexual relationships of men and women together require governmental regulation because of (1) their capacity to create social disorder, and (2) that reproduction is a fact and does have important and inevitable consequences on society both good and bad if it is not regulated.

I thought you also believed that the sexual relationships of e.g. two men together require regulation (in particular, prohibition)? In any case, it is true that children are caused by heterosexual sex and that this has some policy implications, but this hardly renders irrelevant the facts that sex is fun and pregnancy is inconvenient.

That you don't address these facts is I think related to Dilan's charge that "you take a ridiculously abstract view of sex."

jenny

Posted by jenny | July 24, 2007 7:23 PM

Charlotte:

I'm glad you're posting here. I think you misread my position re: gays and lesbians. By allowing everyone to attach or not attach symbolic meaning to sex at their option, I have no problem with gays and lesbians who want to use marital vows to attach meaning to their sex lives. (I should add that not everyone who gets married buys into the deeper, symbolic meaning of sex. Marriage is a sacrament or a deeply symbolic ritual to some, but for others it is a practical tax credit, a way to simplify one's affairs in terms of such things as wills and hospitalization, or a way to bring their significant other into the country and to obtain permanent residency. Many gays and lesbians who advocate marriage rights (but not all-- certainly this is not Andrew Sullivan's view, for instance) want equal access to these rights.)

The problem comes in insisting on attaching symbolism to OTHER people's sex lives, especially when those people either attach different symbolism to it or do not buy into the symbolism at all.

And while I do not deny the procreative function, the thing is, sex (both conventional intercourse and all sorts of other "sexual" activities, from french kissing to oral sex) can also serve a function for those who don't want to procreate. Again, if you are going to give us a grand symbolic theory of sex, it has to account for its nonprocreative as well as procreative functions, and its functions for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. I avoid this by not endorsing a grand theory of sex, instead viewing it as a slightly risky, pleasurable physical act which others are welcome to attach whatever implications to in their own lives that they wish.

Fitz:

Proof of this is no further than the original example of this post. Society makes prostitution a criminal offense and illegal. Preasure brought to bear for a U.S. Senator to resign. The issues range from adultery, to public standards to questions of personal charachter.

All of this evaporates into air under an understanding of sex as a "fun" recreational activity.

No, Fitz, it doesn't. You see, Vitter promised his wife that he would be faithful. Indeed, he most likely made religious as well as secular marriage covenants. Those promises are meaningful for the persons involved, and it injures people when they are broken.

But if Vitter was a single man who had not made such promises and visited a high class bordello where the women are well paid on occasion, I don't see what the big deal is, unless you just want to make a blanket statement that politicians should never do anything illegal.

Only the sexual relationships of men and women together produce children. Therefore, only the sexual relationships of men and women together require governmental regulation because of (1) their capacity to create social disorder, and (2) that reproduction is a fact and does have important and inevitable consequences on society both good and bad if it is not regulated.

That's a strange position. Yes, sexual intercourse CAN lead to children. However, where protection is used, or one partner is infertile, or the two partners are of the same sex, or it is oral or anal sex, it CANNOT lead to children. And even unprotected vaginal intercourse often WILL NOT lead to children.

So how does your argument get us to the point that we should have any regulations against high-class bordellos, other than perhaps a requirement that they prevent pregnancy? It certainly doesn't justify any regulation of non-vaginal intercourse or the activities of gays and lesbians.

And yes, jenny's right. You are still taking a ridiculously abstract view of sex.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 24, 2007 8:17 PM

Jenny (writes)

"I'll go out on a limb and declare the talented biologist Professor Germain Grisez's idea that a woman and man together fornicating form a single organism to be demented and meaningless. I notice he's careful to claim this is the case even if the mated pair is sterile, I wonder why."

That is a limb jenny. Not only is the Dr. point not meaningless, its irrefutable. When a man and a women engage in the procreative act (notice the word) they DO form a single organism for the purposes of reproduction.

“it is a plain matter of biological fact that reproduction is a single function, yet it cannot be carried out by an individual male or female human being, but by a male and female as a mated pair….”
Germain Grisez

The fact that this remains is true if one or both of the partners is sterile may be inconvienant to any particular social agenda you subscribe to; however it is an incountravertable biological reality.

Men and women are members of a class that can produce children. While any member of that class may not or cannot produce a child, they remain members of a class that can produce children. Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that always and everywhere are incapable of producing children.”

Therefore same sex “marriage” necessarily severs marriage from procreation. It both androgynizes the institution and separates it from any necessary link to childbearing.

Dilan Esper (writes)

"The problem comes in insisting on attaching symbolism to OTHER people's sex lives, especially when those people either attach different symbolism to it or do not buy into the symbolism at all."

and the writes this...

"I avoid this by not endorsing a grand theory of sex, instead viewing it as a slightly risky, pleasurable physical act which others are welcome to attach whatever implications to in their own lives that they wish."

You may think your avoiding a grand theory of sex, but your not...your positing one. You must be aware that your hardly alone in the debased understanding of human sexuality.

They, (along with yourself) are attempting to separate human sexuality from our collective history, tradition, cultures, religion, practice and law.

In this attempt you are suborning that understanding to one of mere recreation with a relativist clause that allows others to assert a personal (but not a collective meaning) to the act.

That’s not just a grand theory sir... it’s a grand design.

Posted by Fitz | July 24, 2007 8:44 PM

“it is a plain matter of biological fact that reproduction is a single function, yet it cannot be carried out by an individual male or female human being, but by a male and female as a mated pair....”

It is a plain matter of biological fact that I should ignore this, but what the hell. Many universal human activities, such as fisticuffs and gossip, cannot be carried out by an individual male or female human being. Any conclusion you'd draw from this whose intermediate conclusion is that a pair of fighting boxers or chatty cathys are actually a single organism is going to be trash. It also matters that a male and female can easily reproduce without being a "mated pair," and that this is more common among humans than among for instance geese, but maybe this isn't what the Dr. means.

They, (along with yourself) are attempting to separate human sexuality from our collective history, tradition, cultures, religion, practice and law.

Erotic imagination and practice are greatly influenced by history, tradition, and culture at least, even for us libertines. What has been not just attempted but accomplished is the separation of any given sexual act, when the participants desire such a separation, from pregnancy and disease. Like any technological advance this has obvious benefits and subtle secondary consequences.

You seem to think that one of these consequences is the literal collapse of civilization, I don't know by what mechanism. To explain it really would require a grand theory of sex, in a way that being skeptical of such dramatic effects doesn't.

jenny

Posted by jenny | July 24, 2007 10:57 PM

The innate connection between sex and reproduction, while important in its own right, isn't necessary to the case against prostitution, and in fact is kind of a distraction to this argument, as one can see by the way it has gotten derailed.

The fundamental problem with prostitution is not just that it severs the connection between sex and reproduction, but also that it severs the connection between sex and intimacy. To borrow a bit of Thomistic terminology, it separates the sex act not only from its procreative function, but also from its unitive function. One could make the case that sex can have two possible ultimate roles in a healthy life, one being to produce children and the other to form the physical embodiement of a committed spiritual and emotional intimacy between a man and woman, and that either of these (contrary to the traditionalist Catholic position) is a valid purpose to be fulfilled by the sex act. Prostitution, obviously, satisfies neither one. It is the most crude and barbaric reduction to the sex act to a completely deracinated and de-spiritualized act of pleasure, and its ultimately degrading nature is made even worse by the fact that money is involved. What is intended to be an embodiment of love and self-giving is instead turned into a vulgar transaction for money.
Perhaps for this reason prostitution has often been seen as a kind of metonymy for everything that is evil in the world (viz. the depiction of pagan Rome as a scarlet whore, in the Revelation to St. John of Patmos). Prostitution is like incest, usury, and cannibalism in that, while it is certainly not a 'victimless crime' (its victims count in the many millions, mostly helpless women and girls), its ultimate evil lies not in the harm that it causes to individual people but in the harm that it causes to our basic human values and sense of good and evil.
It is particularly shocking to hear supposed 'left-wing' voices defending prostitution. Prostitution was traditionally regarded by the socialist left as the most vivid and obvious example of the tendency of capitalism to commodify everything, even the most intimate human act, and vilified for that very reason. It was long one of the proudest boasts of the communist nations (whether true or not) that they claimed to have eradicated prostitution. Prostitution was seen as a metonymy of the evil of capitalism in the same way that St. John presumably saw it as a metonymy for the evils of pagan Rome. Now we apparently have so-called leftists arguing that prostitution ought to be legal. what a blatant admission that the American left is really hardly 'left' at all.
And no, legal sanctions against prostitution need not take the form of criminalizing the prostitutes. There are some nations that punish the pimps, and other nations that punish the johns, and still others that seek to rehabilitate the prostitutes.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | July 24, 2007 11:16 PM

I hope you won't change your mind about us not being similar to communists, but I do think prostitution is a social evil. Moreover, I'm pretty sure I'm glad it's illegal, though like a good progressive I've put the policy statement and the normative statement in different sentences.

jenny

Posted by jenny | July 24, 2007 11:37 PM

Mike S:

"And what about the spouse who contracts an STD because his or her husband was engaging in a "pleasurable recreational activity" with someone else?"

If *that* is your concern, you should favor legalization combined with health regulations (e.g., compulsory condom use, regular medical exams for the prostitutes) as in Nevada. "Since 1986, when mandatory testing began, not a single brothel prostitute has ever tested positive for HIV.[3] The mandatory condom law was passed in 1988. A study conducted in 1995 in two brothels found that condom use in the brothels is consistent and sexually transmitted diseases are accordingly absent." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada

I'm not necessarily advocating legalization, only saying that STD's are a poor argument against it.

Posted by David T | July 24, 2007 11:54 PM

Jenny

You seem to think that one of these consequences is the literal collapse of civilization"

I don’t know were you see me even inferring a "literal collapse of civilization", this is your straw man of the traditionalist, and a boogeyman that haunts many libertines.

Rather it is the demonstrable collapse of the family itself and its quantifiable social consequences. Also the collapse of the sexual ethic that promotes family, and stems the desire to legalize or downplay negative activity such as prostitution or pornography.

The world will indeed keep spinning, people will engage in commerce..- no actual fire & brimstone will fall.

Just very real human pain & isolation.

Posted by Fitz | July 25, 2007 2:17 PM

Fitz:

"The family" hasn't collapsed. Some families have collapsed. Some of those families wouldn't have collapsed in the past. But that's partly because in the past, women couldn't afford to be independent of men and had very few options if they were being abused or even were simply very unhappy with their circumstances. We've changed for the better in that respect.

Other families have arisen. It is now possible for gays and lesbians to form partnerships and raised children. In the past, those gays and lesbians might have been unhappy, or driven underground, or kept in the closet, or deceiving wives and husbands by pretending to be straight.

And there were plenty of messy families in the past. Plenty of shotgun weddings, plenty of premarital sex, plenty of affairs, plenty of prostitution, a fair amount of single parenthood, etc. Kaitie Roiphe has a new book out on famous people from the victorian age who lived in very unconventional family structures.

There isn't some monolithic thing called "the family" that existed before and has "collapsed" now. And I think the religious right uses this shorthand to try to avoid actually having to articulate cause and effect. Instead of having to show how allowing a monogamous gay couple to visit each other in the hospital and leave their property to each other will somehow cause some other family to break up, they can just say "mess with marriage and it will cause the collapse of the family". It's a way of concealing the fact that the theory being advanced has little empirical or logical support.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 25, 2007 8:32 PM

"It's a way of concealing the fact that the theory being advanced has little empirical or logical support."

I'm afraid this ploy dosent hold any water precisley on the "empirical & logical" support you deny.

You assert (all at once)

#1. Family breakdown is a net positive.
#2. There is no such thing as "the family"
#3. You must prove that "the family" has "brokendown"

This is the hight of obfuscation in the face of tragic & unprecedented levels of illigitamacy, divorce, fatherlessness and the feminization of poverty since the sexual revolution.

http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm

"Instead of having to show how allowing a monogamous gay couple to visit each other in the hospital and leave their property to each other"

#1. Patient advocacy forms (free at any library)
#2. Wills or trusts.

Problem solved?

Posted by Fitz | July 26, 2007 9:02 AM

Fitz:

First, problem not solved. Some hospitals have kept gay partners out despite clear evidence of the patient's intent, and gays cannot obtain estate tax and probate exemptions available to straights.

Second, even if there are complex ways around these issues, why shouldn't gays and lesbians have EQUAL access to the simple method available to straights?

As for the "sexual revolution", you both prove to little and too much at once.

Too little because you seem to think these problems did not exist before the sexual revolution. In fact, they did. The difference is, other problems existed as well. It was harder for women to leave marriages. (Indeed, "divorce", which you decry as some horrible thing, has liberated many women from abusive spouses.) It was harder for women to work. It was harder for them to have fulfilling sex lives.

It is worth remembering that the flip side of "fatherlessness" is not always a happy couple. It is often an abusive husband and a woman who can't afford to leave him. Yet your statistics count that as a positive result and the "fatherless" housheold as a negative one.

But at the same time, you also prove too much, because you are taking on the entire sexual revolution. That includes easy access to contraception, abortion rights, women insisting that their sexual pleasure should count in relationships, easier divorce, premarital sex, cohabitation, AND gay rights.

Even if one assumes that you are right about the trends you are identifying, you aren't going to reverse the tide with laws against prostitution or refusing to grant gays and lesbians equal rights. You'd have to reverse Roe v. Wade AND Griswold v. Connecticut AND Lawrence v. Texas and ENFORCE laws against contraception, abortion, adultery, fornication, prostitution, homosexual acts, and sex outside of marriage. Plus, you'd have to repeal Title VII and get women out of the workplace and back at home. You'd need to repeal easy divorce laws. Etc.

The point is, the ship has sailed. I think it's all for the good, but even if you don't, you aren't going to restore the relationship between sex and procreation that you favor. You are only going to work on the bare margins.

Given that you really can't do anything about the statistics that you decry, why punish people anyway for enjoying themselves?

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 26, 2007 4:18 PM

I don’t know were you see me even inferring a "literal collapse of civilization", this is your straw man of the traditionalist, and a boogeyman that haunts many libertines.

Then I misunderstood your argument that the regulation of sex is "vital to the survival of a nation." In any case, the incipient collapse of the family is apocalyptic enough, though as Dilan points out somewhat ill-defined.

jenny

Posted by jenny | July 26, 2007 5:20 PM

"Even if one assumes that you are right about the trends you are identifying, you aren't going to reverse the tide with laws against prostitution or refusing to grant gays and lesbians equal rights. You'd have to reverse Roe v. Wade AND Griswold v. Connecticut AND Lawrence v. Texas and ENFORCE laws against contraception, abortion, adultery, fornication, prostitution, homosexual acts, and sex outside of marriage. Plus, you'd have to repeal Title VII and get women out of the workplace and back at home. You'd need to repeal easy divorce laws. Etc."

Says you. Rome was not burnt in a day. It can’t be rebuilt in a day either. There are multiple approaches to the problem of family breakdown and the de-linking of sex, marriage and procreation. Considerable public support exists concerning the problem and multiple organizations have confronted this need.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/526/marriage-parenthood

Various proposals for legislation can be argued. One main thrust and successful drive has been to clearly reinforce the definition of marriage traditionally maintained in our society. This is particularly urgent given the condition of this countries underclass. I find this to be a succinct expression of the need for such amendments.

"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to CongressFounding member of the Congressional Black CaucusCoordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

"Some hospitals have kept gay partners out despite clear evidence of the patient's intent, and gays cannot obtain estate tax and probate exemptions available to straights."

The first example is already provided for. Moral grandstanding on a hypothetical hospital directly breaking the law under a vague "clear evidence of the patient's intent" standard is no substitute for a clear patient advocacy form or power of attorney. Second, tax benefits in the event of death are specifically reserved for married couples. Homosexuals can "obtain" such benefits the same way any opposite sex couple can, by getting married.

Posted by Fitz | July 26, 2007 8:16 PM

Dilan,

Isn't it possible for one to hold a moderate position on the value of the sexual revolution. That many of the things you cite are both not going away, and also 'to the good', but that we need to take a few steps back in terms of some of the excesses of the sexual revolution. Of course the Victorian era sexual morality was unfairly and absurdly repressive, but just because we erred in one wrong direction then, does it follow that we are not erring in the opposite direction now?

The problem with your argument is that you're lumping together a great many issues which each have to be dealt with separately on the merits. It is perfectly possible to be for contraception and against abortion rights, or for the Pill and against condoms, or for cohabitation and against casual sex, or for the freedom to have premarital sex but against commercial sex i.e. prostitution. All of these are legitimate stands that one could take, and are probably much closer to most people's intuitions than either the traditionalist or the libertarian arguments. There are lots and lots of countries which have legal contraception, fairly low birth rates, but absolutely no tolerance of legal abortion (most Latin American countries fit into this group).

If the sexual revolution and the issues that you describe all go together in a package, then perhaps most people would choose to have all those things rather than none of them. But I think that's a false choice, and that each of those issues needs to be considered separately.

(As an aside, it's particularly shocking to me to see the American left today defending abortion, as there are few things more against true left-wing values than abortion. A left-wing approach to mothers having children that they neither want nor can afford, would be to make sure that society takes on itself the responsibility of ensuring that every child is cared for. It isn't to decide that those babies should not be born in the first place. Abortion has arguably constituted a form of genocide against poor and African-American people in this country, and has more in common with the values of racist eugenicicts than the values of idealistic socialists.)

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | July 27, 2007 12:33 AM

Fitz:

What I don't see in your post is any actual compassion for the things that gays and lesbians have to go through. "Well, they can always marry someone of the opposite sex." Could you imagine living in a society where you were told you could have all the benefits of marriage but you couldn't have them with the person you loved and were committed to? How is that an answer?

The truth is that many benefits are DENIED gays and lesbians because of the marriage laws. If they fall in love with a foreigner, they can't bring the foreigner here. They can't always get their partner on their health insurance. They have to fill out all sorts of forms and hire lawyers to make the same arrangements that are automatically made for straights when they get married.

Similarly, I don't even see any acknowledgement from you that increased availability of divorce has freed many women from very abusive marriages. Perhaps you don't care if those women get beat up or raped, as long as it happens in private.

The fact is, while you are worried about a "collapse of the family" that is defined by circular statistics about fatherless homes and symbolic reasoning about the "purpose" of sex, lots of bad things are happening to actual people based on that reasoning, and at the same time the sexual revolution you decry is delivering tangible benefits to many women who would have been very bad off under the old system.

Moreover, you are simply wrong about public opinion where it counts. The vast majority of the public has had sex outside the confines of a marriage. The vast majority of the public at least sometimes has sex purely for pleasure and takes advantage of mechanisms to separate it from procreation. The vast majority of the public not only supports the widespread availability of contraception, but uses it.

There is some public opposition to abortion, because people disagree about the issue of whether the fetus has a right to life, and gay marriage, because public opinion on that issue is still evolving and many people believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. And there's certainly opposition to prostitution. But that's it. There's no great support for rolling back the sexual revolution. And there's very little support for the notion that sex should be tied to reproduction. Most adults don't want anything to do withat notion and never will.

Finally, you make grandiose claims about history and culture. The truth is, the tying of sex to procreation is actually quite culture specific and relatively recent. The Hindus, for instance, have traditionally tied sex to hedonism. So did the ancient Greeks, the forefathers of modern civilization. There are plenty of smaller isolated tribes in the Americas now whose sexual practices include plenty of sex for hedonistic purposes that is decidely not tied to procreation.

You are trying to universalize a belief that is actually a product of particular societies at particular times. And you are bemoaning that society has moved on.

Again, since you are not going to reverse the sexual revolution in its broad sense, the trends you bemoan are going to continue. So all that you have left is to deny some people some pleasure to no end whatsoever.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 27, 2007 2:43 PM

Hector:

I agree with you that it is possible to take a centrist position on these matters. Although it is not my position, I don't really have a problem with that position, but I should note that conservatives on sexual morality do, because it means that there isn't any particular animating principle behind the objections to some of these things (abortion being an exception), and it also lends itself to a certain amount of libertarianism (i.e., why employ the state to police things that people have very squishy beliefs about anyway?).

I should mention that the situation in Latin America that you discuss is more complicated than you let on-- in most of those countries, illegal abortions are quite common and the bans receive little enforcement. One of the things that pro-lifers never seem to want to discuss is whether they are willing to tolerate huge amounts of illegal abortion or whether they think the government should crack down on it. Where such crackdowns have occurred, such as in El Salvador, there have been some horror stories about desparate pregnant women.

I don't believe the sexual revolution is really an all or nothing thing. Clearly we haven't banned discrimination against gays and lesbians, whether in marriage or in other areas of life, and we also haven't legalized prostitution. So, our society is proof of that. But I do think that the clear trend is away from restrictions on sexual conduct, whether imposed as a matter of law or personal morality. I remember sex surveys in the 1980's, i.e., well after what we think of as "the sexual revolution", that showed people believed that premarital sex was OK but only between people who loved each other or intended to marry each other; now, it seems, people have moved to the position that purely casual sex is fine. Obviously Lawrence v. Texas invalidated laws against homosexual sex. People now support civil unions for gays and lesbians. There was only fringe opposition to the HPV vaccine and the introduction of Plan B. Porn is ubiquitous.

At some point this will stop or slow, and I am sure it won't stop or slow at a point of full libertinism. Rather, it will stop at some point where a line will get drawn. What I am confident of, however, is we are not going back to an era where sex is tied to procreation as the Fitzes of the world want.

Finally, on the left and abortion, I guess I should make a personal point and a sociological point. Personally, I am not particularly bothered by early-term abortions, because I don't think blastocysts and small embryos and fetuses feel pain or sense that they are alive. I am bothered by late-term abortions, because at some point the fetus becomes basically indistinguishable from a born baby except for the fact that it is in the womb. But I am skeptical about legal restrictions, both because there aren't that many late term abortions to begin with and many of them are in situations where it really is a bad idea to force the woman to give birth. And the consequences to women of prohibitions on abortion are awful-- illegal abortions, forced childbirth and the ensuing disruption of career, education, and life, dependence on men, and sometimes suicide.

Those liberals who disagree with those premises may very well turn out on the pro-life side-- and there are certainly pro-life liberals, as there are pro-choice conservatives.

My sociological observation is this. Abortion was very important to feminist women. Liberals found themselves on a particular side of the civil rights revolution, arguing the rights of women. So it was understandable that liberals would become the pro-choice ideology, even if some of your points are assumed to be correct.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 27, 2007 3:00 PM

Dilan,

>>>>>it means that there isn't any particular animating principle behind the objections to some of these things (abortion being an exception), and it also lends itself to a certain amount of libertarianism (i.e., why employ the state to police things that people have very squishy beliefs about anyway?).

On the contrary, I don't think these beliefs are really squishy, and there are principles, even if not the ones that you or Fitz agree with. For example, I think that sexuality has a particular place in a well-ordered life. I think that it should have a connection with intimacy, or with procreation, or both. It doesn't need to have both aspects every single time, but I think that purely casual sex, which embodies neither of the 'meanings' of sexuality, is immoral.

>>>>>I should mention that the situation in Latin America that you discuss is more complicated than you let on-- in most of those countries, illegal abortions are quite common and the bans receive little enforcement.

That's true, and it's actually the best argument for legal abortion, but I still don't agree with it. I do think it serves a purpose to have abortion against the law, even if such laws are ultimately only marginally enforceable. It makes a statement about what we believe about the value of human life and right and wrong, it does prevent a few abortions at the margins (as well as such things as destroying stem cells, etc.) and it gives us a platform to stand in order to try to make abortions less common.

You bring up an interesting point though. A number of countries, both in Latin America and elsewhere, are moving away from the sexual revolution and towards a more natalist policy. Discouraging abortions, encouraging women to have more children, etc. These include both right-wing and left-wing governments including Bolivia, Venezuela, Russia, Poland, El Salvador Iran, and Cuba. Much of this is a reaction to falling birthrates.

>>>I remember sex surveys in the 1980's, i.e., well after what we think of as "the sexual revolution", that showed people believed that premarital sex was OK but only between people who loved each other or intended to marry each other; now, it seems, people have moved to the position that purely casual sex is fine.

Who is 'people'? I don't think people share that view at all. Obviously SOME people share that view, but I suspect that you think it's more common than it actually is. Just because Paris Hilton and her friends live by that philosophy, it doesn't mean that the rest of the country does. I think actually that most Americans would agree with the 'premarital sex is OK but only between couples who love each other and maybe intend to marry' viewpoint. It's certainly MY viewpoint. I don't think that it lacks a principled backing, although of course it can't be applied as a legal standard, since only each person can read the intentions of their heart. The principle would have something to do with sex being an expression of love, intimacy and commitment, and not something merely physical: drawing a little bit from neo-Thomistic ethics, but not everything. I think that the point of view that the Pill is OK, but condoms are not, is also perfectly intellectually defensible. What seems to me to be intellectually indefensible is the idea that sex should be, or even can be, a merely physical act that has no emotional or spiritual connotations. Isn't that leaving out a very important part of human nature, a very important source of human emotion and spirituality, a source of inspiration for literature throughout the ages? Talking about sex as a mere physical act is materialist reductionism gone mad.

>>>was only fringe opposition to the HPV vaccine and the introduction of Plan B. Porn is ubiquitous.At some point this will stop or slow, and I am sure it won't stop or slow at a point of full libertinism. Rather, it will stop at some point where a line will get drawn. What I am confident of, however, is we are not going back to an era where sex is tied to procreation as the Fitzes of the world want.

Whether we should, or not, is an open queston, and opinions will differ. I don't think sex should be 'tied' to procreation, but I think that procreation is an important element of sexuality, that many couples who choose not to have children are doing themselves and society a disservice, and that U.S. society should start becoming more friendly and encouraging to couples with children.

>>I am skeptical about legal restrictions, both because there aren't that many late term abortions to begin with and many of them are in situations where it really is a bad idea to force the woman to give birth. And the consequences to women of prohibitions on abortion are awful-- illegal abortions, forced childbirth and the ensuing disruption of career, education, and life, dependence on men, and sometimes suicide.

Isn't this really an artifact of the way society is set up today. If we reformed our economic system, then it wouldn't be a career disruption, and if the State financially supported poor women with children, then there wouldn't be a need for them to be 'dependent on men'. (You say that like it's a bad thing; but isn't one element of love, the interdependence of the man and the woman on each other'. I think that we should never be in the position that a woman feels that she has to have an abortion, and I think society should do its best to ensure that every conception results in a well-cared for baby (whether it's cared for by the biological mother or someone else).

>>>Those liberals who disagree with those premises may very well turn out on the pro-life side-- and there are certainly pro-life liberals, as there are pro-choice conservatives.

There are lots and lots of pro-choice liberals (if you stretch 'liberal' to mean 'socialist', then I would call myself one). The problem is that the Democratic Party is fanatically pro-abortion, and that there is much more space for pro-choice Republicans in the Republican Party than for pro-life Democrats in the Democratic Party.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | July 27, 2007 4:30 PM

vsywude zurfo pnld cunfajq dacb pqks wayctbv

Posted by slnjzprv suybkj | August 8, 2007 11:57 PM

buy viagra woman http://magic-pills-swicki.eurekster.com/Buy+Viagra+Online buy viagra online buy line viagra

Posted by buy sale viagra | November 15, 2007 7:42 AM

want delete your site from spam bases? mail your domain name - andydelay[at]gmail.com.

Posted by xyujfr | January 26, 2008 6:04 PM