Love For Sale

No, this isn't another Cole Porter post. But it's worthwhile quoting from his magnificent look at the world's oldest profession:

Love for sale,
Appetising young love for sale.
Love that's fresh and still unspoiled,
Love that's only slightly soiled,
Love for sale.

Who will buy?
Who would like to sample my supply?
Who's prepared to pay the price,
For a trip to paradise?
Love for sale.

Let the poets pipe of love
in their childish way,
I know every type of love
Better far than they.
If you want the thrill of love,
I've been through the mill of love;
Old love, new love
Every love but true love.

Love for sale.
Appetising young love for sale.
If you want to buy my wares.
Follow me and climb the stairs
Love for sale.

Porter didn't write "Love For Sale" for Billie Holiday, but he might as well have - no one was better suited to the material than she. When she recorded it in 1952 her voice as a musical instrument was gone; the heroin had taken its toll. Even in her 1930s prime, Billie's voice had a touch of the tragic; by the early 1950s all that was left was the tragedy - she was all naked emotions, raw nerves. And on "Love For Sale" that's all that was necessary. If the earlier Billie had sung it, the one from the 1930s with the lilt in her voice, it probably wouldn't be as effective. Here, she transposes her own tragic descent into drugs onto that of a woman caught in the seamy underworld of prostitution.

Tragic yes, but should it be illegal? Not to sound callous, but if a man and woman enter into a mutual agreement for sex, she getting an agreed upon renumeration, he getting sexual satisfaction, what business is it of the state? Upon what principle can the government step in an outlaw such arrangements?

Of course, the whole conversation is prompted by the news earlier this week of Eliot Spitzer resigning his New York governorship amid revelations that he had a relationship with a high-priced call-girl. Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for Spitzer, who deserves everything that's come his way this past week. He was the most dangerous public official this country has seen in a long time, at least at the non-national level, and the damage he has done - both to human beings and money markets - is incalculable. I'm glad he's gone. And, for those of you who may think it hypocritical to make a case for legal prostitution while cheering Spitzer's demise, I defend myself thusly: while some of us may believe prostitution should be legal, it is in fact currently against the law; Spitzer, as governor, was the chief executive in charge of enforcing those laws; the laws that brought him down he enforced against others on at least two prior occasions, accompanied by self-righteous public condemnations; as a governor and former attorney general, he's well aware of the link between prostitution and the mob; his dalliances with these women put him in the position of possibly be subjected to blackmail, either by one of the women alone, or worse, by the mobsters who might have learned of his activities. Even if prostitution were legal in New York, due to his position and the chance that he could be compromised, Spitzer should not have been engaging in it. That he is gone is appropriate and just.

Back to the issue at hand. Before I digressed my question had been, by what principle can the government step in and outlaw sexual arrangements between consenting adults? I find it hard to think of a such a principle. I understand that the state these days doesn't even pause to take principles into consideration; a government which appropriates to itself the right to investigate Roger Clemens' steroid use or Bill Belichick's use of video equipment to record opposing teams signals obviously has no sense of proportion or limits. But some of us still believe in limited government so it it those that I address here.

Is there a moral argument against prostitution? Certainly. I am not here to defend prostitution, far from it. I am here to ask whether or not it should be outlawed, which is something else entirely. But if one makes a stand that the practice should be illegal because it is immoral, it begs the question of what other immoral practices should be outlawed. Some people find homosexuality immoral. Are we to outlaw it? Adultery is still widely considered to be immoral. There are those on the left who maintain that smoking a cigarette or driving an SUV or eating too many Twinkies is a graver moral offense than visiting a prostitute. But all those things, among others, are legal. What distinguishes prostitution from other purported immoral behaviors that elevates it to an illegal act?

Some say self-abuse; prostitution is degrading to the women engaged in it; we must protect people from degrading themselves. I agree that it is in the public interest to protect people against certain self-abuse, with a large caveat: the public interest is only triggered when that self-abuse has public consequences. While it remains private, it is none of the government's business. And I don't think prostitution rises to this level, as opposed to, for example, illegal drug use such as cocaine or heroin. Many people, probably most, can use these drugs in a recreational manner and continue to lead full and productive lives. But for too many others, it takes control of their lives and leads to other pathological behaviours, most specifically crime. At this point the state has reason to step in. Add to that the case fact that a narcotized society is almost certainly a doomed one, and I come down on the side of the drug laws.

Does prostitution reach this level of public consequence? I say no. If crime is associated with prostitution, it is only because it is illegal; the mob sees it as a vehicle to make money. If it were legal the businesses surrounding it would become legitimate. And there is almost no chance that it's legalization would lead to other pathological behaviors that affected society at large. The spread of social diseases, you say? Yes, there is that threat but it seems clear to me that the spread of social diseases would decrease were prostitution be made legal. The legitimate businesses engaged in that particular pursuit would almost certainly regulate the medical health and hygiene of their courtesans. To do otherwise would be bad for business.

I think I depart from most conservatives in my views here. But, as I've said in previous posts, the more the nanny-state takes control of our lives, the more I object, the more libertarian I become. I would ask conservatives who disagree with me one question though: if we ask the government to draw lines in law because we don't like certain acts, what is one to do once the government decides that an act you favor is illegal? Homeschooling, for instance? My point is that the government has no business in either consensual sexual behaviour nor whether people educate their children at home. We can't support the one intrusion and then in good faith protest the other. In order to protect the one from government intrusion, we must protect the other.

I understand there is a significant risk of being misunderstood here so let me state once again: I am not advocating we all go visit our local brothel tonight and have a romp. I am not looking to change public opinion regarding prostitution as an act nor to degrade the public morals. I am simply wondering how we can continue to keep this private consensual behaviour illegal, no matter how cheap, tawdry, or degrading it is. Free people should be free to behave as they please when that behavior has little or no public consequence.