I’ve linked to a series of commentary concerning the ongoing debate over legalizing prostitution on the right.
It seems to me the case for legalization rests on two premises:
- In general, the government should not interfere with consensual transactions between consenting adults.
- There’s nothing particular about sex that should make it an exception.
I’m inclined to disagree with the first one, but not the second.
First, I’ll note the irony that social conservatives often stand accused of hating sex and considering it dirty, but in making the case for legalizing prostitution, the advocates claim it’s not substantially different from scrubbing dishes mowing lawns, and other menial labor tasks. So who is it that hates sex, again?
Second, there is a limit to how much we are willing to allow without interference. If I got a thrill out of watching people play Russian Roulette, I shouldn’t be able to pay someone to let me watch him do it, no matter how desperate for money he might be. The same goes for breaking limbs and other acts of violence. We have a natural revulsion to this which is healthy.
But those things are criminal you say. Well, yes. But..
One theme of the recent commentary has been the impact on his wife, Silda, and his children. Regardless of whether one believes that soliciting a prostitute is morally wrong, it has undeniably had an impact on the Spitzer family. And this would be true for their family life even if Spitzer had succeeded in keeping it a secret, or even if his visits had preceded his marriage.
If prostitution is legalized, that would effectively reduce the cost of it, and its ocurrence. (It would also likely erode the social stigma against it as well). The result would be more prostitution and usage thereof, and more families going through what the Spitzers are going through now. It is a legitimate function of government to act to prevent that.
Sex is also how children are brought into this world, and the honor that we treat it with tells us something about the honor with which we hold children. A society that considers sex little different from washing dishes will inevitably come to regard the product of sex as not substantially different from the products of other labor. That is something to guard against.
Of course, that may work for intercourse, but not for the category of acts the Church would consider “sodomy,” which is what a significant number of prostitution transactions deal in. If we accept that sodomy should be legal, then what is the case for making doing it for money illegal?
Well, we are at the flip side of the conflation of morality and legality. Sodomy isn’t legal because society approves of it; it’s legal because enforcement of a ban would be impractical and would require invasion of privacy. Enforcing a ban on trading acts of sodomy for sex is a matter of public law versus private law.
But if, as is increasingly the case, sodomy is legal on the basis that society should not discriminate between sexual practices rather than onprivacy grounds, then criminalizing commercial sodomy is a quaint relic.
The funamental question is whether sex is different from other activities. And I suspect that those inclined to shout, “No!” haven’t thought through all the implications.
