'We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases."
Prostitution, I suppose, is a contract arrangement. Service for fee, the same as having you lawn mowed or car washed. The government has three options: it can (1) criminalize the activity; (2) offer the activity full legal status; or (3) legalize prostitution but prohibit courts from enforcing contracts. Most small scale gambling has status (3). Even where the local football pool might be technically illegal, the DA doesn't give a damn. Nobody gets arrested. If you get cheated in a poker game, too bad for you. Don't go to court. They don't want to hear about it. That's the way I think it should be with prostitution. I don't think it should be banned. But then, neither would I want to pay extra taxes, so that my community can hire an extra small claims court judge to hear a flurry of numskull cases that would come forth.
The government's current position seems to be, people can have sex pretty much with whomever they want (outside of Texas, of course); and, people can make exchanges of property, or gifts, or favors, for whomever they want also, they just cannot make a specific property exchange, for a specific sex act (except in a couple of counties of Nevada). It's legal to transfer a lot of property in general, for a lot of sex in general, just don't make it specific and explicit. If I spend some money on you AND you have sex with me, that's legal. But if you have sex with me BECAUSE I spend some money on you, that's legal. If there is a logic for this legal prohibition, I would like someone to explain it to me. In all other contracts, the law encourages us to be specific in our agreements. But when it comes to sex, the law demands that we be vague. Besides, presumably, two people could make a preneptual agreement, get their license, and marriage, have sex and make what ever property exchange they agreed upon, and then the next morning, file for divorce. Maybe if enough people jumped through all the hoops to make their activities technically legal, the government would through in the towel. Waddia think?
Soliciting for prostitution is a whole 'nuther thing. I wouldn't want street walkers turning my sidewalk into their business place, any more than I would want other forms of panhandling to go on in front of my house. Government should be able to put reasonable limits on soliciting for sex as it does on other forms of soliciting. When a woman goes to a restaurant vending machine, makes a ninety degree bend at the waist, and bangs loudly at the machine to ensure that every one in the room notices that she has no under wear on, that is allowing the soliciting to get just a little bit too tasteless and crude. It's time for a fine or a little jail time.
Brick
at September 8, 2003 8:57 AM
What a genius Heidi has for marketing! For a college kid to go straight for the $5 G + market is impressive. Given that price range, she could afford to fly all her ladies across state and national boundaries. Suppose she kept all her business contacts and services interstate: Is there a way for her to protect her business with the interstate commerce federal supremacy clause, hold local enforcement at bay, and allow her operate legally? Failing that, I wonder if she could have made her office in Nevada, so that she could argue, ""Ya, I talked to the customer while I was visiting New York, but my customer had sex with the lady in DC, and the contract was lawfully executed in Nevada: I have no office or place of business here. Why do you think you have jurisdiction?". A legal eagle might have fun working this kind of thing.
Brick
at September 8, 2003 11:00 AM
Hmmm... I hear a Leslie Gore song coming on...
It's my body, and I'll sell if I want to. Sell if I want to. Sell if I want to...
You would sell, too, if it happened to you!
Seriously, Brick you raise a valid point. If a hooker has some regular John, how do we know he's actually paying for sex, or simply choosing to spend money on her? And is she giving sex for the money, or is she simply choosing to have sex.
And I agree that the government would throw in the towel should they find this suddenly too complicated. The Supreme Court has already admitted that they can't give us a clear definition of pornography as distinguished from art. They simply decide it on a case by case basis.
From Monty Python's Flying Circus: "I object to all this sex on the television. I mean, I keep fallin' off!" (Personally, the cable box digs into my back.)
Patrick
at September 8, 2003 6:05 PM
I was actually thinking of interviewing her as a joke...
I believe in constitutional rights, but prostitution only spreads criminal activity. It if should be legalized, then there should be at least limits. Women should get mentally checked before becoming a hooker so they don't rise the suicide rate. Women have the right to their own bodies but as long as they respect them and not spread criminal activities.
A point made in the article is that criminal activity is reduced on such an organized level, even when it is illegal. Legalize it and that activity is likely to fall further. The fact that hookers would have legal recourse against bad johns is a big factor. Also I think legalizing prostitution reduces the inherent criminal environment simply because the environment is no longer criminal. Drug use will occur of course, as it does in all walks of life.
Prostitution, I suppose, is a contract arrangement. Service for fee, the same as having you lawn mowed or car washed. The government has three options: it can (1) criminalize the activity; (2) offer the activity full legal status; or (3) legalize prostitution but prohibit courts from enforcing contracts. Most small scale gambling has status (3). Even where the local football pool might be technically illegal, the DA doesn't give a damn. Nobody gets arrested. If you get cheated in a poker game, too bad for you. Don't go to court. They don't want to hear about it. That's the way I think it should be with prostitution. I don't think it should be banned. But then, neither would I want to pay extra taxes, so that my community can hire an extra small claims court judge to hear a flurry of numskull cases that would come forth.
The government's current position seems to be, people can have sex pretty much with whomever they want (outside of Texas, of course); and, people can make exchanges of property, or gifts, or favors, for whomever they want also, they just cannot make a specific property exchange, for a specific sex act (except in a couple of counties of Nevada). It's legal to transfer a lot of property in general, for a lot of sex in general, just don't make it specific and explicit. If I spend some money on you AND you have sex with me, that's legal. But if you have sex with me BECAUSE I spend some money on you, that's legal. If there is a logic for this legal prohibition, I would like someone to explain it to me. In all other contracts, the law encourages us to be specific in our agreements. But when it comes to sex, the law demands that we be vague. Besides, presumably, two people could make a preneptual agreement, get their license, and marriage, have sex and make what ever property exchange they agreed upon, and then the next morning, file for divorce. Maybe if enough people jumped through all the hoops to make their activities technically legal, the government would through in the towel. Waddia think?
Soliciting for prostitution is a whole 'nuther thing. I wouldn't want street walkers turning my sidewalk into their business place, any more than I would want other forms of panhandling to go on in front of my house. Government should be able to put reasonable limits on soliciting for sex as it does on other forms of soliciting. When a woman goes to a restaurant vending machine, makes a ninety degree bend at the waist, and bangs loudly at the machine to ensure that every one in the room notices that she has no under wear on, that is allowing the soliciting to get just a little bit too tasteless and crude. It's time for a fine or a little jail time.
Brick at September 8, 2003 8:57 AM
What a genius Heidi has for marketing! For a college kid to go straight for the $5 G + market is impressive. Given that price range, she could afford to fly all her ladies across state and national boundaries. Suppose she kept all her business contacts and services interstate: Is there a way for her to protect her business with the interstate commerce federal supremacy clause, hold local enforcement at bay, and allow her operate legally? Failing that, I wonder if she could have made her office in Nevada, so that she could argue, ""Ya, I talked to the customer while I was visiting New York, but my customer had sex with the lady in DC, and the contract was lawfully executed in Nevada: I have no office or place of business here. Why do you think you have jurisdiction?". A legal eagle might have fun working this kind of thing.
Brick at September 8, 2003 11:00 AM
Hmmm... I hear a Leslie Gore song coming on...
It's my body, and I'll sell if I want to. Sell if I want to. Sell if I want to...
You would sell, too, if it happened to you!
Seriously, Brick you raise a valid point. If a hooker has some regular John, how do we know he's actually paying for sex, or simply choosing to spend money on her? And is she giving sex for the money, or is she simply choosing to have sex.
And I agree that the government would throw in the towel should they find this suddenly too complicated. The Supreme Court has already admitted that they can't give us a clear definition of pornography as distinguished from art. They simply decide it on a case by case basis.
From Monty Python's Flying Circus: "I object to all this sex on the television. I mean, I keep fallin' off!" (Personally, the cable box digs into my back.)
Patrick at September 8, 2003 6:05 PM
I was actually thinking of interviewing her as a joke...
I believe in constitutional rights, but prostitution only spreads criminal activity. It if should be legalized, then there should be at least limits. Women should get mentally checked before becoming a hooker so they don't rise the suicide rate. Women have the right to their own bodies but as long as they respect them and not spread criminal activities.
cecile at September 8, 2003 8:35 PM
A point made in the article is that criminal activity is reduced on such an organized level, even when it is illegal. Legalize it and that activity is likely to fall further. The fact that hookers would have legal recourse against bad johns is a big factor. Also I think legalizing prostitution reduces the inherent criminal environment simply because the environment is no longer criminal. Drug use will occur of course, as it does in all walks of life.
Riboflavin at September 9, 2003 3:49 AM
I think Heidi makes the case for Tom Sizemore to go free. Every time she opens her mouth, I want to deck her.
Roberta at September 10, 2003 10:12 PM