I was bemused by a headline on CNN’s web site this morning. It stated, “Soccer Player Sold for $130 Million.”
Manchester United have accepted a world-record $130 million offer for Cristiano Ronaldo from Real Madrid.
The English champions have given the big-spending Spanish giants permission to talk to the World Player of the Year, according to the United Web site.
God dammit, where are the human trafficking activists demanding an end to the selling of these soccer players? Why aren’t they as concerned about the selling of those poor souls any more so than they are the selling of those who do sex work?
We know the answer to that, of course. The hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty it takes to assert that those involved in voluntary prostitution are being “sold” and therefore this practice must be ceased cannot be more patently demonstrated than the disparity we see in reaction to the selling of an “athlete” when compared to the reaction to the consensual exchange of sexual services for compensation. Not only is there no outcry about the selling of this athlete, it is indeed celebrated in many circles. Hypocrisy, much?
The irony is even greater when you realize that, almost literally, the new soccer team owns this player when he’s been traded. He can’t play for anyone else, he can’t market his services, he can’t even participate in any soccer-related activities or anything else that might impact his or the team’s image without getting permission from his owners. In many cases, athletes can’t even participate in private activities that might result in harm to them, lest their value to the team might be reduced. My gosh, how degrading is that?
There’s no such issue with someone who sells sex, though1. Despite the anti-prostitution crowd’s insistence on using the term “selling” with respect to our bodies, our persons, we don’t actually sell anything other than our time or our services. Selling implies a transfer of ownership, and no such thing happens when someone sells sex. When the transactions are over, prostitutes takes themselves, including their bodies, and go on about their business. They can market services to anyone else, they can participate in sex worker activism, they can work for someone else if they so choose. Not so with the athlete in this case. The team literally owns him and he’s not free to do anything remotely related to work unless they grant him permission.
Why, pray tell, are there not activists fighting to get rid of this arcane and dehumanizing practice? All he is is an object – a player who’s only valuable to the team so long as he helps them win games. Once he’s no longer able to do that, he’s dispensed with as if he were any other form of chattel.
Does that sound familiar to you? It should if you’ve been listening to the anti-prostitution crowd for any length of time.
Prostitutes do sell their time and their services to their clients, just like any other service provider in fact. Plumbers do it, accountants do it, surgeons do it, athletes do it. You’d have a hard time finding any other job where the compensation for doing something that is perfect legal to do if it were done for free is the subject of so much angst and resources directed at stopping it.
I made reference to this on Twitter and someone said “having sex and doing a job are two different things.” Well, if selling sex is your job, then no, they aren’t different at all to those involved in it. They aren’t different unless you impose an artificially generated disparity between sex and any other possible service one could perform, mentally, physically, or otherwise. Artificially, you say? Yes, artificial. There’s no hard coded basis for declaring sex to be sacrosanct. There are some religions that deem it so, but…wait, did I mention the word “artificial” yet?
Now, for some people of course, sex is sacred, special, mystical, and deserving of a much higher level of respect than anything else you could do with another human being. And that’s fine if you wish to adopt that kind of approach. I’d never tell you that was wrong, or harmful, even if you’d been brainwashed (read: coerced) into that kind of mindset. In fact, I’d stand up and defend your ability to advocate that for your own benefit any day of the week.
Many of us don’t feel that way about sex, though. So why in the hell do you believe it is remotely acceptable for you to tell someone else that they must view sex the same way you view sex? What gives you even the slightest right to impose such a construct on someone else when what they do is by consensual arrangement with another human being, in the privacy of their own environs.
I’ve seen people make the argument that prostitution “affects others beyond those involved in the transaction.” You’d have a hard time actually proving that it does, especially on anything other than an individual level. But isn’t that true of any activity humans undertake? I mean, consider our soccer example here. People have died in riots during soccer games. I can’t recall any mass casualty incidents generated by two (or more) people fucking and exchanging money, can you? Shouldn’t we outlaw soccer and arrest its players for engaging in such activities if we’re going to assert that the potential collateral harm that might occur as a result of those activities is a legitimate basis for outlawing something?
I’ve mentioned it before, but it bears repeating. You have to be intellectually dishonest to construct a line of reasoning that states that prostitution should be made illegal for X reason when there are a number of things that also involve the potential for X that are not similarly outlawed. The only difference, of course, is that prostitution involves sex (specifically female control of sex, which is a subject for another post). And as I said above, you don’t have the right to decide for me how I should view sex or manage my own sexuality. It is mine to use as I see fit.
If you believe that there is a fundamental right to privacy in our Constitution, and the U. S. Supreme Court has declared in many rulings that such a right is implicit (see Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.), then the government has no business whatsoever dictating to me what I can or cannot do in my bedroom or a client’s, even if it involves money. In fact, I believe it is unconstitutional. But that, too, is a subject for another post at some point in the future.
Right now I need to go buy some tickets so I can watch some other athletes owned by someone else compete in a baseball game when I get back from vacation. Maybe if I sold tickets to people so they could watch me fuck one of my clients it’d be acceptable? Yes? No?
- For the rest of this article, we’re going to be assuming this is consensual [↩]
- Toward A Code of Ethics I am in the process of drafting a Code of...
- Yes, but would you marry me? In response to my Q & A post a few...
- Dear Mr. Spitzer In case you haven’t heard, Eliot Spitzer is back in...
Email This
Print This
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
“…then the government has no business whatsoever dictating to me what I can or cannot do in my bedroom or a client’s, even if it involves money. In fact, I believe it is unconstitutional. But that, too, is a subject for another post at some point in the future.”
If it involves money then constitutionally you give the government the toe-hold it needs to regulate the activity, federally under the Commerce Clause and locally under whatever state statutes regulate business or commerce.
Its kinda like cooking. You can cook whatever you want in your home, and distribute it for free, but once you start selling you food the government comes in and regulates your kitchen, the foods temperature, employee hours, so forth and so on.
Der position of the government is commerce, be it selling food, sex or rock and roll, is a public and not a private act.
New Steven,
If it involves money then constitutionally you give the government the toe-hold it needs to regulate the activity, federally under the Commerce Clause and locally under whatever state statutes regulate business or commerce.
I almost added a disclaimer that indicated that it could be regulated under the appropriate commerce regulations, but even then, the government is only allowed to enact regulations that can be legitimately justified as protecting public safety/health or economic stability. I figured someone would point that out, though.
“I made reference to this on Twitter and someone said ‘having sex and doing a job are two different things.’”
I challenge anyone who refuses to classify prostitution under the rubric of work/labour to take a cock in their mouth (when they’re not particularly turned on, of course) and bob up and down for however long it takes to spew forth with ejaculate (sometimes 20-30 minutes or more).
By the way, very good, clever post…
It has all the sardonic spirit of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.”
Antonella,
I challenge anyone who refuses to classify prostitution under the rubric of work/labour to take a cock in their mouth (when they’re not particularly turned on, of course) and bob up and down for however long it takes to spew forth with ejaculate (sometimes 20-30 minutes or more).
I know, right? A great many people think we just lay there and let the client do the work when that is *so* not the case.
Thanks you for stopping by.
Why not point it out yourself?
Does it have anything to do with advocating a no or limited regulation standpoint?
Antonella,
By the way, very good, clever post…
It has all the sardonic spirit of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.”
What an awesome thing to say. Thank you.
New Steven,
Why not point it out yourself?
Does it have anything to do with advocating a no or limited regulation standpoint?
Sort of, though in this specific instance it had more to do with not wanting to drift off into tangential issues and have to bring them all back together to close the piece with the short time period I had this morning.
As with most subjects about which people feel strongly, “arguments” are in fact rationalizations for what they’ve already decided on a visceral level.
If there were a legitimate distinction between the soccer player and an escort — and I’m not sure there is — it would along the lines of one of the following:
A) Soccer is an enjoyable occupation for the worker whereas sex workers don’t really enjoy having sex with fat, dirty, old clients. [I suspect neither side of the comparison is universally true.]
or
B) The soccer player is very well-compensated and thus not economically exploited, whereas many sex workers are scraping along at a near subsistence level, forced into this profession because of the absence of reasonable alternatives. [Again, neither side of the comparison is universally true.]
Of course, if they made those arguments, it would change the focus away from sex work itself, because what is really objectionable is not sex work per se but that societal conditions leave some sex workers with no real choice. To the extent that there is “exploitation,” it arises from that lack of choice rather than sex work. Thus, many escorts are not exploited, and there are many people in other horrible jobs who are exploited.
Address the exploitation that forces some people into jobs they otherwise would never choose. Not a particular profession that, for others, is a voluntary and rewarding choice.
Hey, there, Chevalier.
Of course, if they made those arguments, it would change the focus away from sex work itself, because what is really objectionable is not sex work per se but that societal conditions leave some sex workers with no real choice. To the extent that there is “exploitation,” it arises from that lack of choice rather than sex work. Thus, many escorts are not exploited, and there are many people in other horrible jobs who are exploited.
Address the exploitation that forces some people into jobs they otherwise would never choose. Not a particular profession that, for others, is a voluntary and rewarding choice.
You’re right, of course. And this is why I say the way the anti-prostitution crowd is handling this is (most likely intentionally) intellectually dishonest. You have to acknowledge that some sex workers voluntarily do what they do, and that many enjoy their work, if you wish to address the problem they purport to be interested in.
They won’t do that, however, so they lack any semblance of credibility to those who legitimately study the issue.
Obviously, the politicians and the gullible public don’t have the requisite understanding of the situation in order to understand the problem, and when a prostitute does come forward and indicate that s/he enjoys the work, they’re written off as an anomaly, despite scores of books and other works that have been written detailing such experiences. This intentional misleading of those groups inhibit the development of any real solution to the problem of those who are forced or coerced into prostitution and who do want out.
Many people think there can’t be people economically coerced into being athletes, but that’s not true, either. There’ve been plenty of examples where sports figures retired and had to go back into the work to continue to earn a living because they couldn’t do anything else. This is, as you pointed out, hardly unique to sex work.
A substantial portion of the population engages in work they’d absolutely not be doing if they had other alternatives. Using the fact that some people engage in sex work to support themselves as a justification for keeping it illegal is disingenuous at best.
Very well said Alexa. I would just like to say that most people who would oppose prostitution on moral grounds are perfectly fine with a footballer being sold for a sum of money that is equivalent to a significant percentage of the GDPs of some African countries. Talk about messed up values and a total lack of perspective.
So right about the Modest Proposal comment!!!!
What great writing abilities for a quickie post after learning about the event. Unlike others which you understandably take time polishing. You could have a decent career in journalism but not as satisfying.
Excellent post, Alexa. You make a very interesting and, I think, compelling argument.
Unfortunately, I’ve found that isn’t enough when the audience you find yourself attempting to convince doesn’t deal in logic and reason.
It seems that the anti-prostitution crowd has a lot in common with the anti-abortion crowd and the anti-gay marriage crowd–most notably, assumed moral superiority and the almighty Bible, two things that make it very difficult to argue/debate/reason with them logically.
“…So why in the hell do you believe it is remotely acceptable for you to tell someone else that they must view sex the same way you view sex? What gives you even the slightest right to impose such a construct on someone else when what they do is by consensual arrangement with another human being, in the privacy of their own environs.”
Well Alexa, for starters, this sinful, deviant behavior you speak of is not God’s will. The only place you ought to be kneeling, my diabolical friend, is in a pew, as you earnestly pray for the salvation of your soul.
And really, how do you argue with a comment like that? My response, like yours, I think is perfectly logical: You may believe anything you like, but don’t impose on my right to live my life the way I see fit–especially if my behavior doesn’t impinge upon the rights of others. But apparently, that’s not enough. Many religious conservatives feel it’s their duty to spread “the Lord’s word”–and that means they’re coming after you. A Christian friend explained how she viewed this duty: “It’s like having the cure for cancer…” They really think they’re saving your little black soul.
And armed with their moral superiority and gold-embossed book, they have all the armor they need to deflect each and every one of your logically sound, well-reasoned arguments, however compelling. It’s a frustrating position to be sure, and one to which I’m not a stranger. Still, like you, I can’t help but continue arguing.
I realize that getting into religion here could get complicated (though that wasn’t my original intention, I guess it sort of turned out that way). I should add that I also did not intend to attack any particular religious group…my apologies if I offended anyone.
“If you believe that there is a fundamental right to privacy in our Constitution, and the U. S. Supreme Court has declared in many rulings that such a right is implicit (see Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.), then the government has no business whatsoever dictating to me what I can or cannot do in my bedroom or a client’s, even if it involves money. In fact, I believe it is unconstitutional. …”
Maybe the time is right to challenge the prostitution law in some state and bring the issue to the front burner.
I believe consenting adults ought to be able to conduct business or the business of pleasure as they see fit. The laws will never go away as long as there are “nonconsenting women/girls” involved that need protection.
Don’t stop the money machine! Keep it going no matter what. That’s our culture and with that; you are right on the “money”. Hah. Just some levity to the topic. What can I or we do to help? That should be another topic upon your return. Seriously. There should be a heavy push on it. I hope you have a profitable and enjoyable vacation. Be safe.
Be that as it may, the anti-prostitution sentiment is much broader than simply the ranks of the religious conservatives. Even among atheists. Even among liberals. They may not be able to articulate coherent arguments against it (other than based on stereotypes of exploited children/women that have some, but only some, truth to them). And you can call them “brainwashed,” which may be remnants of their parents’ religious and/or moral training. But as a practical matter, I think anti-prostitution sentiment is extremely widely-held in the United States. I suspect there are many more people — although they may not be quite as fervent about it — who are anti-prostitution than are anti-abortion or anti-gay-marriage.
Chev,
I think anti-prostitution sentiment is extremely widely-held in the United States. I suspect there are many more people — although they may not be quite as fervent about it — who are anti-prostitution than are anti-abortion or anti-gay-marriage.
I disagree with you on that to an extent. I think, yes, the vast majority of people are anti-prostitution when it comes to visible prostitution in their neighborhoods, or on the street in general. Every survey I’ve seen suggests that, for the most part, they could care less if indoor, out of sight prostitution occurs, however.
That’s one reason why, in my post about decriminalizing prostitution, I mentioned not legalizing/decrim’ing street work and restricting the number of clients a prostitute could see if s/he worked out of his/her home. I know for a fact that, so long as you propose to allow street walkers to continue to work the streets, you’d not find anyone in favor of legalizing prostitution generally. That was the flaw with Prop H in San Francisco, in my opinion. If you put forth a proposal to allow public vote on indoor, private prostitution, I suspect it would actually pass in many cities in this country.
I like your latest post. I was conversing with a sports lawyer a while back and we touched on this topic. He was a lawyer acting for Manchester United and he said that it wasn’t so much as owning the player per se. Rather, the club owned the “footballing rights” to the player. The player is free to do whatever he wants but with regard to anything to do with football he is restricted to playing for that team, touring with that team etc. So when one team pays a fee to another team they now have the exclusive right to use the player’s talent and marketability.
The ownership which you touched upon at the beginning of your post is more evident in South American football teams whereby the players are owned by third-parties rather than teams. And teams pay a fee to the third-party to “use” the player. Just google Carlos Tevez and Kia Joorabchian. From a young age these players are snapped up by agents and they are effectively owned for life.
On another note I’m a lifelong Manchester United fan and as sad as I am at losing Ronaldo as a neighbour (he lives 5 mins down the road from where I live) and as a talented player, I would find it immensely hard to turn down £80m. Lol.
Sorry I couldn’t contribute to your views on prostitution and selling sex but I’m still catching up on your older posts and tying to understand the arguments for both sides.
Timo,
…it wasn’t so much as owning the player per se. Rather, the club owned the “footballing rights” to the player.
Yeah, if you’re not used to the way, I could see it being easy to take me literally with the point I was making. I understand the concepts of one team “owning” another player. I was more poking fun at the way CNN chose to construct their title and using it as a point of comparison to one of the major issues we deal with with the anti-prostitution crowd.
Didn’t mean to make you think I thought he was literally owned by anyone.
Sorry I couldn’t contribute to your views on prostitution and selling sex but I’m still catching up on your older posts and tying to understand the arguments for both sides.
Thank you for stopping by, and at least making the effort to understand the rationale behind it.
“Maybe if I sold tickets to people so they could watch me fuck one of my clients it’d be acceptable? Yes? No?”
That would be Pornography and that would be ok according to our society, plus you would make more money.
I’ve just listened to this podcast:
http://nigelwarburton.typepad.com/philosophy_bites/2009/05/michael-sandel-on-what-shouldnt-be-sold.html
Its a conversation with Harvard Prof Michael Sandel on “What Shouldn’t Be Sold”. Its not about prostitution exclusively, but it gets mentioned and discussed right at the start, and throughout, giving sex as an example of something which perhaps should not be bought and sold. The podcast is only about 18mins long. Its an example of an argument against prostitution from the left of the political spectrum.
I found Prof Sandel’s argument profoundly unconvincing. In fact I’m not sure that he had much of an argument at all. He just seemed to assume that buying or selling sex was somehow corrupting, and therefore shouldn’t be allowed. He also spoke about “market freedoms” and “civic freedoms” as if they were in opposition but he didn’t define either term. I was underwhelmed.
Prof Sandel is also giving the BBC’s Reith lectures this year, where he will (I hope) expand on his argument. You can find the lectures here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/reith/
Robert,
I found Prof Sandel’s argument profoundly unconvincing. In fact I’m not sure that he had much of an argument at all. He just seemed to assume that buying or selling sex was somehow corrupting, and therefore shouldn’t be allowed.
And that’s the argument everyone makes – that somehow sex is “special” and shouldn’t be bought and sold. That’s why I made the point that some of us don’t view sex through that lens. As we see it, there’s nothing wrong with selling it and someone else’s attempt to impose the restriction on the sale of it is attempting to force us to live by their moral code. Unacceptable.
Thanks for pointing us to that, btw.
If you believe that there is a fundamental right to privacy in our Constitution, and the U. S. Supreme Court has declared in many rulings that such a right is implicit (see Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.),
Hello first time commenting here and I’m sorry if this sounds harsh but this is a MASSIVE pet peeve of mind: To answer your question; no I do not and the courts absolutely positively did NOT imply a fundamental right to privacy and it is a mistake, ignorant or dishonest to suggest they did. This is a common error the courts did uphold a right to privacy but not all rights are fundamental rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_right . The ways I choose explain this is by point to the differencing levels of judicial scrutiny formally recognized by the courts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review (This is the easiest to pass laws are almost never ruled unconstitutional here, laws affecting the non-fundamental The 14th amendment substantive due process right to privacy rights fall here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny (In between rational and strict as you might have guessed; used in certain special circumstances)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny (Strictest, fundamental rights such as the 14th amendment right to procedural due process fall here. Note that both the case you cite fall under rational scrutiny and not here.
Now it may be your opinion that privacy should be considered a fundamental right, however that is again not what the court implied in ether of the cases you cite. I also strongly disagree with the idea of making it a fundamental, right to suddenly have right to privacy cases tried under strict scrutiny would limit the government power to an unacceptable degree for example many necessary public health measures (I’m a graduate nutrition and dietetics student BTW) would be declared unconstitutional. For example, mandatory vaccination programs fall under rational scrutiny; now while this would probably pass strict scrutiny many other public health measures would not. (It should be noted that the concept of differencing level of judicial scrutiny where not present 104 years ago; nonetheless it clear that the courts used what would now be considered a rational review and legal scholars agree if decided today it would fall under rational)
You are in on the right track in that many consider the cases you cite to be example of the emerging concept of “rational review with a bite”. This concept would certainly open up a more nuanced legal analysis of substantive due-process rights; a version of this so called “rational with a bite” that would be better guard privacy while avoiding the issues that would arise if we moved right to privacy in to the realm of strict review is certainly something I would approve. (Come to think of it I don’t think I ever sat down and written out what I think this my ideal version of “the rational with a bite standard” would look like… that could be fun) Anyway my point remains even taking this in to account it does not suggest that the courts are willing to consider privacy fundamental but rather that they are willing to consider that the current dichotomous system of fundamental or not is insufficient; that their exist rights that fall between the two, requiring a level a scrutiny that also falls somewhere between the existing standards.
Forgot to mention something when I say “right to privacy” in my above post I mean primarily within the context of this discussion (i.e. sexual intimacy ). Certain right to privacy issues do fall under strict scrutiny hence why you will see it mentioned as a fundamental right. However, my objection was to classifying the cases you mentioned as implying a fundamental right to sexual intimacy when at best they are ambiguous about whether it is a fundamental right. This may be a case of sex being considered special for no logical reason but my original point stands. Sorry for any confusion.
Found anther error in my original post (I should really proofread these thing better before I hit “send” :(
Note that both the case you cite fall under rational scrutiny and not here.
That (and any other such references) should just read Texas vs. Lawrence you are correct in that Griswold established a fundamental “right to privacy” and thus basis for strict scrutiny review however that right was to decision regarding procreation only not to sexual intimacy in general which is what would be need in order to extend it to sex work, so my point still stands in regards to that. ( I’ll admit I generally don’t like the term “right to privacy” much because in contexts such as this the term is too over encompassing leading to a distorted view of what is and isn’t actually protected or considered fundamental.)
Williams v. Pryor, http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611892.pdf illustrates that the court opinion on sexual intimacy for intimacy sake pretty clearly:
the district court[which was over turned] announced a fundamental right to “sexual privacy,” which, although unrecognized under any existing Supreme Court precedent
we again reversed the judgment of the district court, holding that there was no pre-existing, fundamental, substantive-due-process right to sexual privacy triggering strict scrutiny.
It also removes ambiguity about Lawrence v. Texas:
we determined that Lawrence which had been decided after the district court’s decision in Williams III, did not recognize a fundamental right to sexual privacy.
the Supreme Court in Lawrence “declined the invitation” to recognize a fundamental right to sexual privacy, which would have compelled us to employ strict scrutiny in assessing the constitutionality of the challenged statute. Williams IV, 378 F.3d at 1236. Thus, because there is no fundamental right at issue, we apply rational basis scrutiny to the challenged statute.
Note: I’m not necessarily saying I agree with these verdicts just pointing out where I disagree with your interpretation.
Ok, I’m done now I just needed to get that off my chest I will now stop turning your escort blog in to a legal blog. You may now return to your regularly scheduled whorage.