It seems that the only news item people have wanted to talk about this week was the fall of New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer (story in New York Times). However, I could only find one angle that was not off-topic for this blog.
I have been married to the same woman for almost 30 years, and am committed to that marriage. I also am opposed to the legalization of prostitution where I live. However, I am still asking myself, why should "interstate trafficking in prostitution" be a Federal offense? If call girls can afford to ride commercial jets, let 'em. If a locality wants to legalize it (and accepts the social costs with its eyes open), let it. On the other hand, if the State of New York wants to slap a lengthy prison term (or whatever) for Gov. Spitzer's offense, the State has that right. The Other Paper (here in Columbus) published a piece this week that displays some very creative local approaches to enforcement against prostitution.
Free government means letting individuals make their own decisions, good or bad, at the lowest level possible.
Now, people, would you please move on to something else?
3 comments:
There is nothing morally wrong whatsoever with Prostitution. The women and men who practice it are being victimized by a corrupt government that vilifies them even while patronizing them. How can one argue that people ought to have the right to decide how to live in their own bodies, and then exclude these people and their profession from such an argument?
I think that the real problem here is the legacy of Christianity, which teaches people that their own physical sexual desires are "wrong" and that they should feel shame. It is also a legacy of patriarchal domination. Patriarchs tend to fear the power of liberated women so they take steps to prevent them from excercising that power freely. You think sex corrupts but money does not?
The problem is not with Christianity, which teaches no such thing in the scripture (with the exception of a comment by Paul in I Corinthians 7; but even there, he acknowledged that celibacy was a personal preference, and not a command); but with how certain sects have perverted the truth to suggest that sex is somehow wrong.
Prostitution usually is morally wrong: when married men engage in it, it can have devastating consequences for his wife and family. It also can be used as a way of exploiting young women even to the point of slavery. However, it can be reasonably be argued that it is not always morally wrong.
Sex can corrupt; for example, in 1962 when British Defense Minister John Profumo leaked British secrets to a call girl who happened to be a Soviet agent; but you are also right that money corrupts (and far more often).
My previous comment also left out the risks of sexually transmitted disease, and such safety risks as a dangerous encounter with a pimp or of theft.
BTW, my objections (here and in my previous comment) have nothing to do with maintaining patriarchy. They are practical, real-world risks that are easily prevented by avoiding prostitution.
Post a Comment