If prostitution is illegal why isnt marriage?

There really is no difference between the two

"I'm sorry, sir. The kidney you sold was rejected. You'll have to refund the money after we return it to you."

There are probably going to be a lot of comments about the marketing-of-organs thing. But I regard that as a red herring. Because there is such a thing as tissue rejection, the market for a specific organ is extremely limited, to the point where finding a suitable customer is nearly impossible. Let's say I need a kidney and Amy is willing to trade away one of hers. I might offer her $5000 for it, or I might just ask her to donate it to me. The problem is, given that Amy and I have no known genetic relationship, the odds that her kidney would function in my body and not be rejected are near zero. This will happen whether I pay her for the kidney, or she gives it to me. That makes it a commodity with essentially zero value to me.

To maximize the market for an organ, you'd have to engage in an extensive campaign of tissue screening, encouraging as many people as possible to submit specimens for type matching so that you could search a database for a match. There are databases of current recipients in need of an organ, but the number of people with a current need is a tiny fraction of the population. What you'd need to do is have a database of a large swath of the population, so that you could identify potential matches and then maybe convince them to purchase a commodity option on your organ, such that they can convert the option if and when they need it. Right now, setting up such a database would cost far more than you'd ever make selling the organ. Someday, there might be such a database, but I don't see it happening in my lifetime.

As for the original topic: I suspect that there are a lot of men, and some women, who would engage the services of a prostitute if it were legal and reasonably safe. We already market damn near everything having to do with sex, except the actual person-to-person sex itself. And that market is big.

I have a friend who donated a kidney to another friend after hearing she needed one. Here's the process:

http://www.allinahealth.org/Health-Conditions-and-Treatments/Health-library/Patient-education/Kidney-Transplant/For-the-kidney-donor/Tests-you-need-before-surgery/

From UC Davis on matching and compatibility for kidney donation:

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/transplant/livingdonation/donor_compatible.html

Kidneys are commonly transplanted between two people with no matching antigens without a rejection episode.

If prostitution is illegal why isnt marriage?

There really is no difference between the two

lujlp at May 18, 2016 6:59 AM

Big difference between the two.

One is a cash transaction specifically for sex. As the old saying goes, you don't pay a prostitute to have sex with you, you pay her to leave afterward. You expect a wife to stick around. In fact, you become upset if your wife leaves you after sex to go have sex with another man.

If a prostitute can no longer have sex, I don't have to take care of her. If my wife can no longer have sex, the law expects me to take care of her. After all, it's what I signed up to do when I said "I do."

If a prostitute arbitrarily cancels our arrangement, I don't owe her anything. If my wife arbitrarily cancels our arrangement, I have to give her half my stuff.

In marriage, I'm entering an exclusivity arrangement with my wife. In prostitution, I know I'm sharing her with others. If my wife has sex with another man, I can sue for alienation of affections or for a divorce. If my prostitute has sex with another man, that's life.

If my wife's car breaks down, I'm obligated to come get her. If my prostitute's car breaks down, I might offer to reimburse her bus fare.

My wife is expected to get to know the neighbors and socialize with them. My prostitute is not. In fact, it's better if the neighbors don't know her, or of her.

Marriage imposes certain expectations on society that prostitution does not. If I'm invited to a social event, my wife is as well. My prostitute, on the other hand, is not automatically granted plus-one status. In fact, if I show up at a social event with my prostitute, I may be asked to leave.

It would help the old guy out in an earlier post.

It would be an initial career choice for a lot of high school girls.

It would create a need for "lab" testing shops and thus be a job multiplier.

It would give young guys more opportunities to do stupid stuff.

(Failing to find a down side here.)

Since a critique of the marked was requested:

By allowing legal bulk sellers of sex you reduce the price and run all the small operations out of business. So understandably those who provide those small volume services don't want new market entrants who will dramatically reduce the price.

It is the same argument some areas use against Walmart and other big box (snerk) retailers.

There are lots of things that are legal that busybodies try to prevent anyway. For example, zoning laws that make it hard for a tattoo parlor to find a space. The Justice Dept has recently tried to shut off banking services to payday loan stores and gun shops (systemic risk, they claim) and have succeeded in shutting it off for legal marijuana shops. High taxes on cigarettes.

By allowing legal bulk sellers of sex you reduce the price and run all the small operations out of business. So understandably those who provide those small volume services don't want new market entrants who will dramatically reduce the price. ~ Ben at May 18, 2016 11:19 AM

Since selling sex (with humans) is a labor-intensive business and requires the labor to be on-site, there won't be any savings to be gained by off-shoring. Those big box [snerk] retailers will also be subject to minimum wage laws as well as laws that govern overtime, hours worked, working conditions, OSHA, NLRB, etc. They'll be subject to unionization efforts as well by UFCW or SEIU.

If you don't think this industry will retreat back to the underground black market, you're naive. Just ask those clothing sweat shops operating in LA or NY how they cope with heavy regulation and unionization.

As far as running the small operators out of business, I can just see small town protests signs, "Save Our Hookers" or demanding that the downtown hookers strolling Main Street be protected against out-of-town big box [snort] bordellos.

Legalized drug dealers can move production facilities to off-shore locations to save money and avoid regulations or unionization. Bordellos cannot.

There are lonely men out there who are too Aspergers'y or something to find relationships and people between relationships who'd benefit from this. Lonely women, especially older women, might be more likely to do this as well -- pay for sex. It's an important service. ~ Amy Alkon Author Profile Page at May 18, 2016 7:34 AM

By all means, let's use what the lonely and desperate might be driven to do as rationalization for loosing the bounds of civilization.

They might also be driven to kill. How about we legalize murder since some fringe element of society might be driven to kill due to loneliness or desperation?

Far fetched? Not so much. The Boston Marathon bombers were motivated to kill in part by their alienation from American society.

I'm just saying legalizing something does not cure all the ills that arise from it. Thought should be put into it before we tear down the walls of civilization and let the barbarians loose in the streets.

The people who seem to think that prostitution is just a choice that people make never seem to be the ones making it. I would think that the majority of people who turn to prostitution do so because they feel they have no other options. It is a form of human trafficking and slavery.

I was personally very disappointed to see at Mayim Bialik's site GrokNation recently, a piece written by yet another feminist talking about how prostitution should remain illegal forever. Bialik seems to have great moral values overall... but then she turns around and not only spouts a lot of feminist BS, she's also said she'd never vote for a non-Democrat *no matter what*, which IMHO just shows she doesn't really want to think too hard about her own prejudices.

"I would think that the majority of people who turn to prostitution do so because they feel they have no other options."

Agree. They're mostly NOT Mayflower Madams. But doesn't legalizing prostitution make it a safer option for people with limited choices? What else are these people going to do? No one seems to have contemplated the alternative. It's not like they'd go be doctors otherwise.

Young women swept into sex trafficking rings often end up there because their own families/cultures/countries place very little value on them. Our best friends (a couple) are both cops who work vice squad. These women would rather be prostitutes than go home.

We can say we shouldn't LET them be prostitutes, but then what? We've taken away their right to sell their body and substituted it with nothing.

On the organ-selling topic: You can do it in Iran.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/27/iran-legal-trade-kidney

My concern is the potentially greater medical costs of one-kidneyed people who aren't going to hang on to that kidney money for long. Wouldn't they end up on Medicaid? Or ironically on the list of people who need a kidney?

You misunderstood Conan. Prostitutes are not the small time operators. The low volume providers are wives and girlfriends. For a wife they likely have sex three times per week or less and expect half of their 'customer's' income. Legal prostitutes would be the Walmarts of the world, offering high volume product at low low prices.

Honestly I'm ambivalent about the whole thing. With the feminist push for affirmative consent and a whole pile of female first laws already enacted there is very little reason for men to marry. Which is why increasingly men are refusing to marry. Legal prostitution would help bring that issue to a head quicker. I am a big fan of traditional marriage, for both economic and social reasons. But under the current legal framework that really isn't an option. So my next best choice is the abolishment of legal marriage.

There are two items here that I think need to be disentangled.

One is the theoretical application of markets... and the second is the practical application of markets.

I have no issues from a theoretical perspective of applying markets to things like the sale of organs.

On the practical side I think it is too dangerous to try and implement.

For example, what does it mean to sell an organ future?... and what if someone wants to back out at the last minute?... do we force them to submit to the surgical removal of their organs if they no longer have the money?

Practically speaking it is not the the same to repossess someones car because you paid for it and they failed to deliver.

Unless we are willing to fully treat organs the same as we might other property we cannot implement the same kind of market forces for organ trade.

Furthermore, organs are an inelastic good, which means it doesn't respond to supply and demand in the way most people might expect.

Lastly, what exactly would it mean to enter into an organ market bubble???

Some of these possibilities are quite horrific and while it may be possible to avoid these pitfalls theoretically... in practice the markets have never historically demonstrated they they are immune to things like bubbles and crashes. We can tolerate bubbles and crashes for things like stock markets, housing markets, and commodities markets. It would be utterly intolerable to have an organ market bubble and crash.

Who are the people in your family who should have been in the sex business instead of doing something else?

☑ Stormy at May 18, 2016

And it's weird to see Amy describe sex as a "service." An "especially important" one.

I think grown men and women can live lives of faultless compassion, charity and kindness without worrying for even three seconds about the sexual fulfillment —or even "servicing"— of men who are "too Aspergers'y" to make things happen.

We need not and ought not care for strangers to such a degree.

And it's weird to see Amy describe sex as a "service." An "especially important" one.

I think grown men and women can live lives of faultless compassion, charity and kindness without worrying for even three seconds about the sexual fulfillment —or even "servicing"— of men who are "too Aspergers'y" to make things happen.

We need not and ought not care for strangers to such a degree.

Crid at May 19, 2016 1:31 AM

Sexual gratification has to be in the constitution somewhere doesn't it?

Because if it isn't, then marriage based on who you like to bonk at the moment, and expressing your sexual *identity * through which bathroom you use, is just a pile of narcissistic horse shit, right?

"Who are the people in your family who should have been in the sex business instead of doing something else?"

I can think of a few. I'll say this: being a legal prostitute is probably better than being a crack whore.

Strangely enough, Artemis/Orion brings up an interesting point, price elasticity.

Organs, by virtue of typing and matching, are not fungible goods. I cannot simply pick up Dave's kidney if Bill's proves inadequate.

If I have a rare blood or tissue type, I'm going to pay more for a kidney than someone with a universal match type. The kidney is rare and the law of supply and demand dictates that it is worth more.

Organs are not luxury goods. To the person purchasing one, it is an essential good, almost perfectly price inelastic, especially for the recipient with a rare blood/tissue type.

Demand for replacement organs is almost divorced from price, it is a relatively inelastic good. Demand does not significantly change with a change in price.

Sex, on the other hand, is fairly fungible (unlike marriage). If the first provider says no or charges too much, one simply moves down the line to the next one until one finds a price and provider that match one's standards for the price one is willing to pay.

It is highly price elastic. A high-priced provider who does not match the market's expectations of beauty for price will find demand dropping significantly. On the other hand, a provider whose price matches market expectations will find demand fairly high.

Now, think about gasoline, a fungible good that is price inelastic. When the price goes up, the economically illiterate masses gravitate toward equally economically illiterate politicians who promise to reduce Big Oil's profits and arbitrarily lower the price of gasoline. We're asking these same economic illiterates to accept market pricing of organs and sex without understanding the underlying forces of supply and demand.

I can't wait to hear a political or activist declare that organ or sex industry profits are too high and in need of regulation or that some folks are profiteering (perhaps the pretty girls will be accused of profiteering by charging what the market will bear and shutting out poor guys from having sex with the prom queen).

How about SNAP for sex? Soon enough, some activist group will opine that poor people have equal access to organs and sex and demand the government subsidize poor people organ and sex access.

Yeah, this will end well.

> Artemis/Orion brings up an
> interesting point

Never.

Color me shocked.

Don't we already subsidize poor people's access to organs? So all you are talking about is the current politics of medicare.

I can't see a successful futures market for organs. As a non-fungible good predicting future value may be impossible. The issue of market value of organs vs. eligibility for government benefits was also raised. But we already have issues with wealth thresholds for benefits. Some forms of wealth count but others don't leading to all kinds of perverse incentives. So I see this more as an issue with wealth thresholds than with counting functional organs as wealth. On the organ repo issue, once again we already have this issue with other goods. Some, like education, cannot be repossessed by their very nature. But plenty of others cannot be repossessed due to law. So placing organs in the legally non-repo category should be fine.

SNAP for sex would be a new one. And I can't believe you didn't note the juvenile humor in that one.

And I can't believe you didn't note the juvenile humor in that one. ~ Ben at May 19, 2016 11:28 AM

I was trying to come up with a good pun. But the all seemed too juvenile or required explanation.

So, I left it at SNAP so someone else could run with it.

Conan,

It really isn't all that strange. If in general you paid more attention to what I was saying as opposed to looking for reasons to pick a fight you would find that I almost always have something useful to offer to a conversation (even if you happen to disagree with me).

In any case, the point stands that traditional market forces can/do work well for elastic goods and fall to pieces for inelastic goods.

If someone has the kidney match that will save your 10 year olds life, how much can they demand from you before you say the price is too high?

The idea that open and free markets will bring more organs to the table and make life better for everyone ignores what markets do.

When the supply is limited and the demand is infinite the price becomes infinite.

This is why we donate organs.

If/when we get the the point that we can culture/grow organs on demand then we can start to sell them (and in this case the market would still need to be heavily regulated to prevent exploitation).

Who are the people in your family who should have been in the sex business instead of doing something else? - Crid

Were I a moderately attractive woman with my current libido and amoral ethical code I'd have gone into porn as it would pay better than hooking.

It really isn't all that strange. If in general you paid more attention to what I was saying as opposed to looking for reasons to pick a fight you would find that I almost always have something useful to offer to a conversation (even if you happen to disagree with me). ~ Artemis at May 19, 2016 1:54 PM

Au contraire, you're famous 'round these parts for rambling posts that have no point and only a tangential relationship to the topic at hand.

But keep thinking highly of yourself. No one on this board has ever accused you of having low self-esteem. So, you've got that going for you.

The sexbots will be available soon and this will all be moot.

Except for the pervos who will then seek out toasters and home appliances to modify and abuse, of course.

But Zappa knew the government will set up clean, safe nightclubs where they can be monitored and kept in line.

Sy Borg

NSFW (audio)

It's a constant problem Gog. Dem robots are takin ur jerbs!

Conan, I thought that was the pun. SNAP for the snapper.

"If someone has the kidney match that will save your 10 year olds life, how much can they demand from you before you say the price is too high?"

What makes you think you get to say anything about that price?

The government will determine if and when your 10-year-old gets treated, not you.

A SNAPPER card?

Supplemental Nookie Assistance Plan and Performance Enhancement Reimbursement?

"The reality: Why exploit if sex for money is legal?"
-And the barriers to obtaining it legally are lower or as low as the cost of exploitation.

I live in Nevada. You can drive drunk for 15 miles and pay $700 to get laid legally, yet somehow we still have boulevards of activity I cannot describe using polite language.

Conan Says:

"Au contraire, you're famous 'round these parts for rambling posts that have no point and only a tangential relationship to the topic at hand."

You are always good for a laugh Conan.

Why is this true, because you and Crid say so?

You each have reputations 'round these parts as well for picking fights and missing the plot.

This entire blog is filled with people who have "reputations"... some of those are well deserved, others are not.

One of the things that amuses me the most about you is that you spend a great deal of time actively trying to tarnish the reputations of people who you happen not to like.

Every time I comment on any thread you see fit to say things like this:

"Strangely enough, Artemis brings up an interesting point"

In case you weren't aware, that is called poisoning the well.

You do this constantly... and then you see fit to declare that I have a "reputation".

You can't spent every waking moment on this blog trying to smear me and then act all high and mighty about if I have any mud on me.

If I have any mud on me it is precisely because people like you (i.e., people who have proven themselves incapable of sticking to a topic without veering off subject to discuss/insult the person instead) keep mudslinging.

History tells us that is you repeat a lie often enough you may be able to get traction with it... but the part that you don't seem to ever understand is that the lie never actually becomes truth.

The point is that you could have easily chosen to run with my point about price elasticity without needing to take a cheap shot... so my question to you is, what does that say about the type of person you are?

It certainly doesn't say anything favorable.