And they shall burn thine houses with fire, and execute judgments upon thee in the sight of many women: and I will cause thee to cease from playing the harlot, and thou also shalt give no hire any more. – Ezekiel 16:41
In the replies to my column of October 10th, Bredstik asked a question which I first started to type a reply to, but then quickly realized it deserved a whole column. Here is his question:
I feel compelled to ask possibly a few more…
Generic statements, so I don’t have to write a whole book, in order to frame the questions below. Truthfully, I’m having a hard framing the question succinctly so I’m trying to carefully blurt out what’s in my head as clearly as possible….hope it makes sense…
In the U.S. (and other places), the major religions are monotheistic. Of these, when they speak of ‘God’, it is basically identified/understood as being male (as a protector/father figure). There is no balancing feminine “force” in these religions that gives the feminine side equal consideration/status/dominance. Male “ideals” are predominant, female ones are … not as dominant . Even though the core teaching of the morals/ethics of these religions are frequently non gender specific, there is a sense that there is a male deity watching over and guiding things/events.
Question(s):
Do you think that religious views are *the* major factor in people believing what they do about prostitution (girls needing to be protected, male dominance, immoral, etc)?Regardless of the answer above, do you have any info/data/good links/thoughts on how prostitution is viewed differently by countries (in current times, nothing ancient) where there is balanced or less pronounced “male dominant” deity (are prostitutes socially better off, worse off, or basically the same)?
I don’t think monotheism is really the culprit as much as patriarchal culture is. Despite neofeminist dogma about prostitution being a manifestation of patriarchy, the truth is actually the opposite: Prostitutes had our highest status in the ancient Goddess-centered cultures because we were rightfully viewed as the gateway between mortal men and the great Feminine Principle. It wasn’t until the patriarchal cultures succeeded in subordinating the Earth Mother to the Sky Father that our status started to slip, and that preceded monotheism in most of the Western world by several centuries. For example, by the 6th century BCE free temple prostitutes in Athens had largely been supplanted by slave-girls given to the temple as donations, and the Athenian leader Solon tried to eradicate secular prostitution by establishing cheap state-owned brothels and persecuting streetwalkers (as discussed more fully in my July 31st column). In general, male-dominated governments are not really happy about being unable to control prostitutes, and maladjusted men are unhappy that women they don’t own can demand (and get) generous compensation for their sexual favors while men cannot make similar demands from women. Just look at all the TV and movie fantasies (such as Hung) of male prostitutes who can make a good living from an adoring female clientele, or of male pimps controlling harems of beautiful hookers. These shows are about as realistic as your average cartoon, yet insecure men love to make and watch them because they’re a fantasy inversion of the uncomfortable truth: That women control male access to sex, always have, and always will.
That having been said, I think Judeo-Christian religion is a major source of the West’s extreme version of the Madonna/whore dichotomy (and thus an aggravating factor in the generally shoddy Western treatment of prostitutes). To understand the reason for this, it’s necessary to go back to the origins of the Hebrew people. The Hebrews were one of a number of Semitic tribes who probably entered Egypt during the rule of their Hyksos kinsmen in the 17th-16th centuries BCE; thus, they became rather unpopular when the native Egyptians overthrew their foreign overlords and restored native rule with the 18th dynasty (“Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.” – Exodus 1:8). And though it is highly unlikely that they were actually enslaved as in the traditional conception, it is very likely that they were subject to severe discrimination and probably persecution as well. Then sometime around 1300 BCE, a lesser Egyptian prince whom history calls Moses forged himself a bloodline and in partnership with the Hebrew leader Aaron offered to lead the tribe back to Canaan, land of their ancestors.
Moses was no fool; though he had been passed over (no pun intended) as heir to the throne he had been schooled in leadership as every prince was, and well understood what was needed to forge a loose agglomeration of related clans into a nation worth ruling. He seems to have favored the monotheistic model of his ancestor Akhenaton, but transferred Aton’s characteristics to the Hebrew deity El-Shaddai, whom Moses referred to as Yahweh (“I Am that I Am”). Unfortunately for Moses’ plans, the Hebrews were not yet ready for monotheism and were perfectly happy to continue in the polytheistic ways of their ancestors and cousins. Moses soon recognized the need for a set of strict laws and customs which would unify his followers into one tribe, a “chosen people” separate and distinct from all the related peoples of Canaan; when he decided to codify the laws and pronouncements he attributed to Yahweh, he therefore included prohibitions against nearly everything the Canaanites did. If you’ve ever wondered why Mosaic law bans such innocuous activities as eating shellfish, now you know; the desert-dwelling Hebrews were unused to them anyhow, so Moses forbade them as a “Canaanite food”. Since the Canaanites were a settled agricultural people (unlike the Hebrews, who were nomadic herdsmen) they had a well-established system of religious fertility rituals, most of which had sexual components. Hence the plentiful sexual prohibitions in Mosaic law: By specifically banning the Hebrews from every kind of sexual behavior which formed a part of one Canaanite religious ritual or another (including male homosexuality and women having sex with animals), Moses kept the Hebrews from participating in those rituals and thereby prevented them from being tempted away from the cult of Yahweh.
But barring Hebrew women from becoming temple prostitutes certainly didn’t keep the Hebrew men from patronizing native ones, so the successors of Moses (the Judges and later the prophets) developed a robust tradition of condemning harlots and harlotry wherever they saw them. Since the Hebrews were staunchly patriarchal and thereby had the same public misgivings about our profession as every other patriarchal culture (discussed above), they developed unusually vicious anti-whore rhetoric which was if anything only intensified in their religious heirs, the Christians and Muslims. But while most majority-Muslim countries still have official bans on prostitution, most enlightened majority-Christian countries allow it to one degree or another (though many of these, such as Canada and the UK, practice institutionalized hypocrisy by decriminalizing prostitution itself but criminalizing every activity which is involved in its practice).
Here is a map of the world which shows the legal status of prostitution country by country. Nations where prostitution is banned are red, those in which it is restricted in some way are beige, and those in which it is at least technically legal are green; there is also a table below the map which explains the exact legal status country by country. Note the illustrious company the United States chooses to be in; practically every other “red” nation is either a majority-Muslim state, a totalitarian one or one which has only recently emerged from totalitarianism. Contrast this with the green nations: All of Western Europe, most of Australia, all of the Western Hemisphere except for the US and a few tiny, poverty-stricken third-world states, and even several African countries. The few “restricted” countries include Japan (where every kind of prostitution except “full service” is legal), India (much like Canada but worse), Norway and Sweden (where it is illegal to buy sex but not to sell it).
Looking at Bredstick’s final question in light of this map, I think we can safely say that there is very little correlation. The patriarchal Judeo-Christian sky father is indeed pre-eminent in the prohibitionist Muslim countries and the US, but Europe, Australia and certainly South America are primarily Christian and yet grant their women rights denied to us in the US. China and the former Soviet Bloc countries have no officially recognized religion, yet engage in the same paternalistic control of women’s bodies as the largely-Christian United States. The two countries Sailor Barsoom mentioned which have prominent female deities (Japan and India) are not exactly known for the high status of their women, and they restrict their whores with the same kind of arbitrary legalism as is present in de facto criminalization countries such as the UK. If I had to pick one factor which seems to correlate most closely with the legalization status of prostitutes, it would be the general attitude toward sex in that country; most Europeans and Hispanic people have far healthier attitudes toward sex than the prudish Americans, Muslims and Marxists who run the majority of prohibitionist states.
When I saw the title, Playing the Harlot, I thought this was going to be about all the actresses who have ever played prostitutes (i.e. pretty much all of them). I don’t think Elle Fanning has (yet), but Shirley Temple did, at age four.
But this was good, and that map is interesting. Everybody please note that in the countries where prostitution is restricted or illegal, it still exists. And whaddayaknow, it’s legal in Greece! There’s got to be some sacred hierodule types there, or at the very least some brothel themed after same. I’ve heard there’s one in Japan where the girls cosplay as anime characters, but haven’t confirmed it. Ah, to be a rich man!
The designation of the USA as “illegal” isn’t entirely accurate. I don’t see a green spot in the map representing Nevada.
Yep, and unionized! When the Olympics were held in Athens a few years ago they tried to restrict whores from operating in the Olympic areas in order to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of attendees from prohibitionist countries, and were answered with a gigantic protest demonstration organized by the Prostitutes’ Union which probably got on TV in every civilized country. Don’t mess with organized whores!
It’s not legal in Nevada but rather restricted, so Nevada should be beige like India. It’s only legal in rural areas, and then only in brothels owned by rich, well-connected men. That’s what “legalization” looks like, which is why supporters of prostitutes’ rights are against it and favor decriminalization instead.
Maggie, if prostitution were legalized, are there any regulations and safeguards that you would you like to see in place to protect both parties? Would the minimum age be the age of consent -17 I believe in most places- or a bit older? (I myself think 20 would be a good age.) I know that nurses, for instance, have to undergo very thorough yearly physicals; would you like to see something similiar?
Hi, Missy! I think 18 would be a good minimum age for legal prostitution, since it’s the age we are allowed to vote and do most other adult things.
I’m really torn about the issue of physicals; on the one hand I can see how it might be a good idea, but on the other hand it has tremendous potential for governmental abuse (for example, I imagine rapidly-rising fees for the exam…) and the vast majority of prostitutes police themselves more efficiently than the state ever could. It also seems a bit unfair to require us to get health checks when it’s perfectly legal for some coed slut to sleep with everyone in sight and spread diseases willy-nilly without any legal repercussions at all, especially when every reputable study shows that the rate of all STDs among 18-26 year olds in the general population is dramatically higher than among streetwalkers (some studies say up to 5x higher).
That having been said, I think most prostitutes would agree to health checks for licensing provided they weren’t too intrusive (i.e. if we could go to our own gynecologists rather than some “official” clinic) and the licenses themselves didn’t have strings attached (such as surprise visits to one’s home by cops or regulators or publication of names in addresses in a public database as an open invitation to rapists and serial killers).
Also,where do we draw the line? It’s legal for me to pay a guy to do repairs on my house without his having to be a licensed carpenter, and it’s legal for a man to be a “sugar daddy” as long as there is no direct transaction. Would licensed prostitutes be able to charge more or get other privileges? Would “sugar babies” be in violation of the law? There are many more questions than outsiders might think.
You need to be specific about the difference between “legalization” and “decriminalization.”
Right now (and my mind could change with clarification of terms) it seems like “decriminalization” is a desire to have it both ways: none of the requirements and limitations of a legal business, none of the risk of being arrested.
Is it legal for you to do physical work for somebody (i.e. work which requires no educational credentials or the like)? Or do you have to be checked out by a doctor to proclaim you fit for that work? If you’re a musician or magician or dancer and you contract to provide entertainment for someone, do you need to have a special license for that?
Why should it be any different for prostitutes? Because I guarantee you that no matter how you try to make it different I can find a logical flaw in your argument. Sex is the one and ONLY thing it is legal to do for free but not for pay, and even then I could openly advertise sex for pay as long as we had a marriage license. All income in the US is taxed and so prostitutes should pay income tax like everyone else, but unless EVERY job in a country (or state or city or whatever) requires a license then licensing whores is total BS since every woman has the natural ability to provide the service. If you want me to have a license to do what comes naturally on my own terms, I’m going to demand the police stop unlicensed amateurs from doing it unless they also get the same license I had to.
And that is just as impossible as stopping prostitution.
That’s all very interesting, but I didn’t ask about licenses; I asked what is the difference between legalizing and decriminalizing. I also seem to have hit a nerve, and for that I’m sorry; it isn’t what I was going for.
From all of this I gather that the difference is that legalizing would require a prostitution license and decriminalizing would not. Well, we could argue licenses, but the truth is that I don’t feel strongly enough about licensing to make a case for it. In fact, I’m not sure that I support the idea at all. So the only argument in favor of that I will make is that it would be better than the way things are now. Stings would be a thing of the past.
In my own experience, things are either legal or they are not, or to put it another way: they are legal or they are criminal.
Consensual sex with that cute 34-year-old=legal
Consensual sex with that cute 16-year-old=criminal
Buying enough vodka to get 20 people rip-roaring drunk=legal
Buying enough pot to get a midget slightly high=criminal
So now that there’s this “third category,” I needed it explained to me.
I’m sorry if I sounded snippity; it honestly wasn’t intentional. In Nevada prostitution has been “legalized”; that is, it is legal within a certain rigid framework and if a girl steps one foot outside that she’s a criminal again. In Nevada you can work as a whore if you work for one of the rich, well-connected men who own the brothels and really make all the money. You’re an employee who dances to someone else’s tune and are subject to rigid, arbitrary rules and invasive state regulations. That’s why 70% of prostitutes in Nevada work illegally in Vegas rather than legally in the brothels; it’s far more lucrative and they run their own shows.
Another example of “legalization” is the system Canada and the UK have; it’s legal to take money for sex, but not to advertise or see clients in one’s own facility or to have employees, dependent family or roommates. You might say legalization systems spare a prostitute direct persecution if she accepts membership in a lower caste which is not allowed to do the normal things other people do.
Decriminalization means it isn’t criminal, period; the law recognizes a woman’s right to use her own body as she sees fit.
cool. Thanks!
My pleasure. 🙂
Though legal, things are still quite depressed in Greece, I believe. Unless things have changed since the passage of a 1999 law (the first attempt to implement which caused all the furore in 2004), brothels can only employ a maximum of three persons (including any ‘maid’, who cannot perform sex work); sex workers can work in but one brothel; sex workers must never have been married (even if widowed); have to be registered; and have to have fortnightly medical tests not only for STIs but also other diseases.
The number of brothels is set by the local council and brothels cannot be within X metres of a large variety of facilities, cutting out whole swathes of urban areas.
It doesn’t work (of course!)
Very interesting post and very interesting map.
Thank you, Stephen, for an excellent example of the difference between legalization and decriminalization. Just imagine these restrictions being applied to other female-dominated professions: “No school can have more than three teachers” or “social workers cannot ever have been married” or “nurses must be tested for diseases every two weeks”. Nobody would stand for it, yet everybody seems to think it’s perfectly OK to inflict such asinine rules on us, just as everyone used to think it was perfectly OK to restrict black people from doing the same things as white people. 🙁
Treating one group of people differently than another, just because one happens not to like the group or out of a desire to “keep them in their place” is bigoted and evil. It should never happen (though we all know that it does).
There are times when treating one group differently than another is reasonable. I know somebody who does data entry for a company. She also does not use drugs recreationally (nor for religious purposes). And yet she and her co-workers are subject to random drug testing. Why? If she starts using drugs and it impairs her ability to do the job, she will soon be fired, not for drug use, but for doing a crappy job. There is no reason to test her for drugs other than “drugs are bad.”
On the other hand, I don’t have any problem at all with drug tests, frequent ones, for airline pilots. I’d really prefer that her impairment not be discovered in her job performance. This treats airline pilots differently than data entry clerks, but it is reasonable to treat them differently in this case.
So the question isn’t “is it wrong to treat prostitutes differently than other workers,” the question is “are there cases where it is reasonable to treat prostitutes differently than other workers and, if so, what are those cases?” I’ll throw one out: somebody under the local age of consent should not be able hire a prostitute. This is a case where it is reasonable to treat prostitutes differently than workers where there are no age restrictions (jugglers, maids) or different age restrictions (kindergarten teachers, bartenders) on whom they may serve.
Absolutely, just as it’s reasonable to require physicians to have specialized training. 🙂
Yes and no; there doesn’t need to be a separate law for that because it’s already illegal for someone under the age of consent to have sex. It’s illegal to drive any car while drunk, so we don’t need a separate law forbidding taxicab drivers from doing so. That having been said, I would be in favor of an 18 age restriction on prostitution (both parties), and a much higher age restriction on marriage. Right now it’s illegal to contract a short-term sex-for-pay transaction at any age but perfectly legal to contract a long-term one in one’s teens! That is rather like banning BB guns entirely while making fully-automatic weapons totally legal. 🙁
OK, maybe not the best example. I’ll try to think of another. But right now, my cute friend is about to arrive and hijack my computer, so it’ll have to wait.
age restriction on marriage: Yes. I’ve often wondered why getting married young was so … acceptable. I feel bad for kids who actually look forward to getting out of school and getting married right away.
It reminds me of the “have to be 21 to drink” ideal. You can go to war and get married @ 18 (you are now a legal adult, get a job), but you can’t legally drink until 21 (yes, there are exceptions). You’d think it would be the other way around: drink + get a job @ 18, go to war @ 21 (if that job isn’t working out for you) and marriage (if you can handle combat…) at 30 😉
The idea that it takes three years’ more experience to drink alcohol than to choose the idiots who make up such laws has always boggled my mind. And the idea that it takes even less judgment to sign away one’s entire life and have the right to create more lives at even an earlier age than one can either vote or drink is like some sort of Kafkaesque joke. If I were dictatrix I would raise the minimum age for marriage to 30 for men and 25 for women, and require both parties to produce sworn statements from at least two other people they’ve had sex with. 🙁
Well, you know the real reason marriage is legal at such young ages (at least under certain conditions) is because everyone knows that no matter what the Age of Consent might be, some girls are going to get pregnant even younger. And when that happens, you know that some parents are going to demand that she get married. These forced marriages are not as common as they used to be, but they still happen a lot, especially in the Bible Belt. (Which is why the divorce rate is so high here.)
When I was in High School back in the ’80s, one guy had to marry his 8th grade girlfriend. (There were three or four shotgun marriages in the four years I was there, plus a few other marriages, in a school with no more than eighty students.)
bredstik et al – don’t get me going on age restrictions! Young man can join the Royal Navy at 15 here in the UK and get blown to smithereens fighting for his country, yet his grieving parents will have the reassurance of knowing that, if everyone’s stuck to the rules, HM Government’s protected him by ensuring nobody’s ever sold him a drop of booze, a cigarette or – above all – a lad’s mag. Oh, and he’ll be a virgin, of course. How comforting.
We really will have to give up our practice of sending everyone who’s useless at politics to London to get them out of the way.
I was looking at some of the linked maps to the one Maggie’s flagged up on her post, and worked through to one on the Age of Consent. Germany, Italy and Spain it’s 14. But it’s just 12 in…guess where? You won’t believe me – the Holy Sea (Vatican City)!
Any possible comment I could conceivably make about this would be in poor taste, so I’ll be ladylike and refrain entirely.
A lot of those “red” countries in Asia only have anti-prostitution laws on the books to make white people happy. It was required back when the UN was created for members to have laws banning both prostitution and drugs. That was the “liberal” position in those times, part of the turn of the century social purity movements you write about. Essentially “progressives” wanted us to avoid the pleasures of life to focus all our efforts on “working together for the benefit of mankind.” This same attitude was also present in Nazi and Communist societies where weirdos out of touch with reality ordered everyone to quit their normal lives and devote themselves to the spartan obsessions of their totalitarian overlords. I can assure you that no cop in Thailand gives a hoot about those laws which as I said before are only on the books so they can have something to point to in order to make white busybodies happy.