IN THE early 1900s, the United States saw the rise of the Women's Christian Temperance Union. The organization was instrumental in the passage of laws banning drug use, alcohol and prostitution. Since the population largely sidestepped the prohibition of alcohol, a situation to which many a student may relate, the laws failed. The illegal status of many drugs and of prostitution continues.
Let's not talk about drugs. Let's talk about prostitution. Despite legal status in much of the rest of the world, the sale of one's body for sexual purposes is illegal in all of the United States save a few counties in Nevada. Such laws limit the rights an individual has over his or her body at the simple whim of the moral majority. In a society based on freedoms, no such right should be taken away unless the act in question violates the rights of other individuals. In such a society, prostitution should be legal.
It is easy to argue that the legalization of prostitution would lead to an increase in the market for prostitutes and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. This argument is also fallacious. The legalization of prostitution should not be expected to dramatically increase prostitution since it is already a relatively easy crime to commit. Insofar as it does increase, such an increase can only be viewed as a success since prostitution would become a legal part of the market.
Independent from how prolific prostitution would become, an increased spread in sexually transmitted diseases is an uninformed hypothesis. Legal brothels in Nevada require the use of condoms for all situations that present a risk of transmission. Prostitutes are also required to submit weekly cervical specimens to be checked for sexually transmitted diseases. Since such high standards are present in the sole region in which prostitution is legal in the United States, it is reasonable to anticipate this to set a precedent for standards of legal prostitution elsewhere.
Since the legalization of prostitution presents no substantial, objective detriment to society, the sole reason for the ban is the moral opinion of the nation. The foundation of this country is that men and women have certain rights that must not be violated. Most laws serve to prevent one individual or group from infringing upon the rights of another, some in controversial ways. The law against prostitution protects no rights, yet it does remove some rights.
Fundamentally, a person's body is undoubtedly his or her property. Individuals are permitted to pierce, tattoo, and have surgery performed on their bodies.People in our society can sell their bodies for use in experiments, manual labor, modeling and countless other situations. The details of a contract should not change the right to form a contract. If the detail is sexual activity, however, individuals inexplicably lose the right to accept payment for the use of their body and become criminals under current law.
The criminalization of prostitutes bans a simple exchange of money for services, a straightforward economic principle when the details are appropriately set aside. The morality of some -- even most -- of this country's citizens is by no means a basis on which to legislate. There are scores of products sold daily that many people find morally repugnant. It is not within the scope of the government to ban this trade, whatever the opinion of its citizens. It is within the scope of the government to set standards and to regulate the market, and it is through the regulation mentioned above that prostitution in Nevada has become safe while illegal prostitution elsewhere remains dangerous.
Laws against prostitution do not make the United States a progressive nation. Though many nations aim to eradicate prostitution, many do not make the exchange of money for sex explicitly illegal. Instead they prohibit certain activities associated with or surrounding prostitution. Philippe Naughton writes in the Times Online in January 2006 that the decriminalization of prostitution in New Zealand improved the situation by reducing violence against women within the profession.The article also mentions a proposal to allow small brothels in the United Kingdom. Prostitution and brothels are legal in Germany and many other European countries.
Prostitution is not the paragon of typical morality. Fortunately, legalizing something does not require citizens to engage in it. People opposed to prostitution need not become or hire prostitutes. For those interested in being a prostitute or purchasing the services of one, the option should not be illegal. The argument here concerns the right. Preference and morality are personal matters.
Jason Shore is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer. He is a first-year in the College of Arts and Sciences.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 11 hours agoTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
