The peculiar twist on all this, which I believe highlights the underlying rationale that seeks to prefer marrital over non-marital sex (here to support S’s point) is that within the context of marriage the exchange of cash is perfectly agreeable–eg, the bride price, or Ari and Jackie O.’s prenup which was specific even to the number of instances of intercourse that Ari was entitled to per month in return for an “allowance” of x millions/mo.l

This issue arises as part of the transition to *civil from clerical jurisdiction over a variety of human actiities once under the jurisdiction of church courts.

Virtually all of the laws subsumed in the criminal code as “offenses against the public morality” , (wherein we will find prostitution, public drunkenness, intemperate language, indecent exposure, laws against suicide, and the like) represent in some measure the tension between the former clerical jurisdiction and modern secular government which has as a founding concept limitations on the vindicable interests of the state against the autonomy of the individual.

I have, tucked away on a back shelf, my (more than slightly overdue) PhD. dissertation, The History of the **Secularization of
Jurisprudence.

*eg, marriage, inheritance, etc.

**This process is proceeding, as a brief glimpse around the world demonstrates, unevenly.

So is the thesis…

The word means what it means.

The “for sale” is a gloss.

I refer my learned colleague (not offered with irony) to the ranked definitions Webster’s Second, which is, as he is doubtless aware, the reference of choice for deconstructing judicial linguistic issues. The elimination of fornication as a sanctioned activity coincides with the transition to Webster’s Third, where the former secondary definition migrates to primary.

Withal, my point is that the object of laws against prostitution was not originally to single out commercial sexual activity, but merely included it within an assortment of extra marital, hence illicit, sex.

I think, certainly, that we are more on the same page than not, as to policy; I merely wish to highlight the anachronistic quality of the prohibition which has lingered over the commercial version of the activity while the freebie has become legal.

Re:public vs private.

Granted, a barber needs a license whereas my girlfriend can cut my hair for free (that is, if I let anyone cut my hair, which would be an atrocity and a stench in the nostrils of the lord, but that’s another story…).

That said, I believe most commentators who subscribe themselves as free market capitalists (not me..) consider as private the interaction of two free individuals meeting in the free market for the free exchange of goods (sorry, I know the “free” thing gets tired…)

I wish we could edit too–I stay away from html tags because I can’t preview the outcome and don’t want to make a bigger fool of myself than I already do.

1st large paragraph, 4th line: “in all marketplace activities sex-for-cash” should read “… marketplace activities INCLUDES sex-for-cash”.

5th large paragraph: “consensual adults” should read “CONSENTING adults.”

I wish we could edit these posts.

When someone charges a cash price for sex, even in the privacy of her apartment as Soufiah Yousof did, that supposedly “private” sexual activity becomes a marketplace activity, and the public interest (in varying degrees) in all marketplace activities sex-for-cash. “Public” interest is not limited to politics, i.e., to the power of coercion, but also includes the power acquired by purchase with money. Hence the public’s interest in regulating mortgages/lending, corporations, and all kinds of things that involve the exchange of money.

A quick correction on the Latin verb “prostituere” (I used to teach Latin, majored in classics, and also studied Roman law in grad school): In classical Latin, “prostituere” as applied to prostitutes actually means to “stand forth FOR SALE,” like so much merchandise on a shelf. Cf. prostitutes in Amsterdam and Bangkok who sit in windows, advertising themselves to potential clients.

Your point about modern Western social stigmatization originating in Christian culture does carry weight, but it should also be noted that, throughout its history, the western (Roman/Latin) Christian church has had mixed views of prostitution. St. Augustine thought prostitution should be tolerated as an evil lesser to adultery, in order to provide an alternative to adultery, since, in the theology of that time, Christian marriage was a sacrament necessary for salvation and Augustine believed that the sin of adultery (violation of a marriage) was a possible impediment to salvation. During the Middle Ages, Catholic cities, as they grew, apparently were mostly pragmatic in their attitudes toward prostitution, and tried to regulate it rather than eliminate it. During the Reformation, the Calvinists in particular came down hard on prostitution, and the modern American scorn for prostitutes is probably influenced by British Calvinism.

The reason I brought up the issue of prostitution being perceived as a threat to marriage was an article on, I think, the BBC web site several months ago (I haven’t looked it up right now) which described a riot by Bolivian housewives in some neighborhood in a Bolivian city, in which these housewives destroyed bars, restaurants, etc., which were known to be frequented by prostitutes, whose availability was claimed to be endangering the marriages of the Bolivian housewives. Also, on Slate.com within the installment series called “The XX Factor,” various married female columnists, in discussing the fall of Elliot Spitzer, dismissed the claim that prostitution was a “victimless crime” on the ground that the wives and children of the male customers of prostitutes could be the first victims of prostitution; at least that’s how I recall it offhand.

I myself have no brief against legalizing prostitution, because I don’t see sex-for-cash as a moral crime, provided it’s between consensual adults, etc., etc.

When I talked about the origins of the current social stigma, I was simply trying to explain why the stigma was so persistent even in countries like Britain which are only nominally Christian. Even the Swedish government, which is often cited as having the best-possible model of regulated prostitution (but see comments cited by Renegade Evolution), apparently regards prostitution as an activity that needs to be discouraged. Since ethnic Swedish culture at this point is hardly even nominally Christian, I’m not certain what ‘cultural’ reasons Swedes would have against prostitution, so I assume the reason is pragmatic.

Again, Cathy Young’s article in Reason Magazine online dated May 7, 2007 (link cited above), with the extensive commentary, is worth reading (and cited by Renegade Evolution). And note again, in the commentary to the Reason article, the commenter Neu Mejican notes that in Turkey, where brothels and prostitutes are legal and regulated, there are still problems with abuse and prostitutes apparently don’t enjoy that much public respect, even though Turkey is not a Christian country.

It might be that the Western social stigma placed on prostitutes predates Christianity. Pagan classical writers (from elite social classes) made no specifically moral objections to prostitution as an activity, but prostitutes as a profession were forced to endure a very low social status (with probably a few elite exceptions, as with Thais, a high-ranking courtesan in Periclean Athens). The Roman/Byzantine empress Theodora, who was the consort of the Roman/Byzantine emperor Justinian I (ruled 527-565 C.E.) was alleged to have started her career as a low-comedy actress and prostitute, and both professions were held against her (see Procopius’s “Secret History,” which is called “Anekdota” in the original Greek). But Theodora was both a devout Chistian (of allegedly unorthodox views) and a genuinely phenomenal empress, being a noted advocate for women’s rights under Roman law.

Sorry for the again-lengthy analysis, but I was just trying to understand WHY prostitution is still stigmatized in the West; I was not arguing that it SHOULD be stigmatized. And the Turkish model suggests that legalization and regulation, by themselves, might not change the social stigma placed on prostitutes, if a culture is already strongly prejudiced against prostitution.

Quick note on the Iranian 1-hour “marriage” — that is presumably an effort to “Islamize” an inevitable activity, in order to keep Iranian Muslim men loyal to the mosque, as it were. The threat-to-marriage argument that I offered applies mostly to largely-secular, Western cultures. My attempted explanation is that, to the degree that formally-married women gain in socioeconomic status (as in the West), to that degree such married women will resent prostitutes as a threat to the marriage in which such women have an investment. But I don’t offer that explanation as an argument against legalizing prostitution, but only as an explanation as to why the stigma persists.

Sufiah’s sex life is private as contrasted with “public life” ie, political. As long as she asks no one for their vote, her pussy and it’s predilections are her own business alone.

The sanctions against prostitution are a vestige of the old laws which punished ANY sexual activity not sanctioned by the church.

Hence, the origin of the word,
Pro Stituere, “to stand forth”;

In the Websters Second Unabridged, the primary definition of prostitute was one engaging in indiscriminate sex; the commercial element was a concommitant of the secondary definition.

This was, of course, contemporaneous with generalized prohibition of fornication, adultery, etc.

The holding in Lawrence v. Texas makes this objection to continued criminalization even more salient.

*even then, susceptible to amelioration via the appropriate cloaking of hypocrisy, see my post above on the temporary marriage.

Anent which, how is the one hour marriage less of a threat to the marriage covenant (resources diverted, attention diluted, etc.) than the happy ending at the massage parlor?

In an online comment to that article by commenter “Neu Mejican” on 05/07/2007 timed 5:12 p.m., the situation of Turkey’s legalized and regulated prostitution is discussed, noting that despite legalization/regulation, abuse of women and children in Turkish brothels is still a serious problem, and Neu Mejican notes that a prior cultural context is probably required in which prostitutes already enjoy a modicum of safety — in other words, legalization by itself does not necessarily change negative public perceptions of prostitutes.

The online commentary to Cathy Young’s article varies widely in quality, but it’s worth reading, as is Cathy Young’s article.

H/T for Cathy Young’s article to Renegade Evolution in her post dated February 14, 2008.

Natalia mentioned “societal scorn for sex workers” and Anthony Kennerson talks about Soufiah’s “private sex life” and the tabloids’ “yellow journalism which substitutes gratuitous prurience [etc.] …”

Response to Natalia: The “societal scorn” in the modern West probably ultimately arises from seeing prostitutes as a threat to conservative childrearing mechanisms, since traditional conservative marriages are usually perceived as society’s cheapest means of rearing children (i.e., cheapest for society as a whole). At least in the modern West, and especially in the post-Soviet bloc countries, economic collapse has led to an increase in prostitution and also puts additional stress on traditional family structures, so the increase in prostitution is seen as further aggravating the already-increasing stress on families, because the increasing availability of prostitutes whose prices are possibly spiraling downward because of increased competition, is seen as providing an incentive for husbands/fathers to leave their families or at least divert family resources to spend on sex-for-sale. That, I think, is the basis in the modern West for “societal scorn” toward sex workers. Sex workers are seen as a social threat to families who are already under economic stress. So it’s hard to make a case for not stigmatizing prostitutes where they’re seen as threatening conservative childrearing arrangements.

Response to Anthony Kennerson: Soufiah’s “private sex life” ceased to be “private” once she charged for it. Once someone charges for a service, the public automatically gains an interest in it. If Soufiah gave sex away for free (to worthy citizens!) or donated sex in exchange for donations to a worthy cause, she might even be seen as a public benefactor (at least by some people).

At least in the U.S., the discussion of the societal worth/legalization of the sex industry reminds me of the American discussions about alcohol sales/consumption before the enactment of Prohibition. Prohibition did not outlaw the consumption of alcohol; it outlawed only the sale of alcohol in the U.S. except for medicinal purposes, and the measure was meant to curb widespread alcoholism. During Prohibition, Americans could legally buy and operate “port-wine” kits and home-brewing kits and give away the product, and quite a few Americans did. It was only the sale of alcohol that was illegal.

I bring up Prohibition because I think
that, in the U.S., the sex industry could be treated like the alcoholic beverage industry (both producers and retailers) and regulated similarly. Consumption of sexual services could be forbidden below a certain age and locations where sexual services are sold could be regulated by zoning, just as counties in the state of Georgia routinely “zone” liquor stores, bars, and restaurants selling alcohol to a specified distance from schools and residential areas. Especially if counties, based on county referenda, could have the option of banning the sale of sex altogether (just as in Georgia, so-called “dry” counties ban the sale of liquor in order to combat locally-widespread alcoholism), social conservatives in America perhaps would be willing to listen to proposals to legalize prostitution, and even reduce the social stigma placed on sex workers if, as a result, sex workers were seen as less of a threat to family life (as noted above).

Response to Anthony Kennerson’s comments about “yellow journalism” and “gratuitous prurience”:

The fact that, in the modern West, sex workers are often seen as a threat to family life as noted above, gives misogynistic men a sort of “cultural hook” or cultural platform from which to vent their own misogyny. The sensationalism surrounding Soufiah Yousof also appeals to anti-Muslim and racist sentiment felt by some of the white British males who comprise part of the target audience for the Daily Mail in the U.K.

This is pretty obvious stuff, and I’m sorry for the long post, but I wanted to point out that, as long as sex workers are perceived as a threat to family life, “societal scorn” will be unabated. In the U.S., it might be possible to reduce this perceived threat to family life by regulating the sex industry, like the alcohol industry, on a county-by-county basis, and by reducing the perceived threat at least somewhat reduce the societal scorn.

Sorry again for the long post. Thanks for putting up with my posts.

“…couples must clearly establish how long the marriage will last. .. and agree on the amount of money the man must pay the woman when it ends…

Shia Islam allows a man and woman to marry for a fixed period of time, ranging from *an hour to a century…

Then president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, said it was a way for men and women to satisfy their sexual needs.”

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=1.0.2055414532

*What, no discount for the superquicky?