Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!ora!daemon
From: dcasper@antares.concordia.ca (david Casperson)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Legalization of Prostitution (bodies & rights)
Message-ID: <510@antares.Concordia.CA>
Date: 23 Nov 90 07:56:26 GMT
References: <7684.27388aae@uwovax.uwo.ca>
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: Concordia University, Montreal Quebec
Lines: 54
Approved: ambar@ora.com

7103_2622@uwovax.uwo.ca (Eric Smith) writes:

>I find it rather mind-boggling that we're discussing, in 1990, on a
>feminist newsgroup, the question of whether or not the government should
>have a say in a woman's choice of sexual partners. I don't think this
>should be an issue at all. Whom a woman sleeps with, and why she sleeps
>with them, should be none of the government's concern (unless coercion
>is involved, of course -- in which case the coercer, NOT the woman, should
>be punished for a crime).

I find it interesting that this article is apparently written by a
Canadian--interesting for the following reason: in Canada prostitution
is legal.  Most Canadians don't realise for the simple reason that
while prostitution itself is legal, almost every related activity is
illegal: pimping, soliciting, discussing the price of sexual services
in a public place, and so on.

I doubt that this reflects any great sexual enlightenment on the part
of the Canadian government (Note to U.S. readers: in Canada criminal
law is in the federal jurisdiction, and therefore uniform across the
country).  I think it is more a case of the government wanting to be
able to tax prostitution.

>I do understand that many women turn to prostitution because
>of economic reasons, and are exploited by pimps, clients, etc. I fail to
>see why this should make the woman a criminal. The proper response to this
>is to provide viable job alternatives for these women. Those who choose
>to remain prostitutes (for whatever reason) should keep the money they earn,
>and receive police protection from pimps and unruly clients.

Also ignored in much of this discussion are the more direct
consequences of prostitution.  Canadian law w.r.t. solicitation used
to be more liberal.  De facto "red light" districts in larger Canadian
cities, Vancouver and Halifax in particular, resulted in a lot of
local pressure to restrict prostitution through legal means.  Some of
the objections were based on moral arguments, but most of the pressure
came from people living in the affected neighborhoods who did not want
to put up with muscle cars and shouting matches at 3 a.m., etc.  I am
not sure that this is relevant to the issue of whether or not
prostitution ought to be legal, but it is worth bearing in mind that
some people (I expect that local police departments often fall in this
category) are opposed to legal prostitution for relatively amoral
pragmatic reasons as well as possibly other moral reasons.

I think that it is difficult to discuss prostitution without
discussing the context in which it will take place.  It seems clear to
me that in theory at least there can be no objection to legalised
prostitution.  On the other hand we know that in practice prostitution
does lead to exploitation.  I think that the criminalisation of
prostitution solves no problems, but I doubt that decriminalisation
would make all that many go away either.  Still, I think that
prostitution ought not to be illegal.

--David Casperson