Tag Archives: Feature

I started on the wildly popular SuperFreakonomics this week. Like in the first book, the authors (Steven Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner) analyze contemporary issues with economic theory. Its first chapter, which is broader than the answer to its title, is appropriate for HoS: How is a street prostitute like a department-store Santa? Sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh’s in-depth research on prostitution in Chicago serves as the basis for Levitt and Dubner’s freakonomic examination of sex work in modern society and history.

One fascinating revelation is that a sex-positive society actually has less demand for payed sex. It’s understandable that men are more willing to pay for a fuck in a prudish world where sex is hard to come by. Conversely, there’s less incentive to pay for a prostitute in a world where casual sex is the norm. Think about porn. Why pay when it’s so easily available for free?

Read excerpts from the chapter at the Freaknomics blog:

Of all the tricks turned by the prostitutes [Sudhir Venkatesh] tracked, roughly 3 percent were freebies given to police officers. The data don’t lie: a Chicago street prostitute is more likely to have sex with a cop than to be arrested by one.

If, as whole, we’re becoming more accepting of sex, then certainly we’ll support the legalization of prostitution. The criminalization of sex for pay was implemented when lust was still a sin. If sex is now a pastime, it should be treated as any other form of entertainment.

Oh, but I often forget about the side-effects of capitalism.

SuperFreakonomics Book Club: Sudhir Venkatesh Answers Your Prostitution Questions

Q. Do prostitutes want prostitution to be legal, why or why not? — Joe


A. Sex workers may desire particular collective goods that come with legalized commerce– the capacity to use the courts and police, the erasure of stigma, and access to health regulations being some of the most substantial. They are, however, fearful that if the industry becomes completely legitimate, they will be bought out by those who can benefit from investments that create economies of scale. Just imagine what WalMart or Goldman Sachs might do if they had access to this industry.

….

Q. Have you found any economic justifications that could be used as an argument for legalization? — Michael K

A. As long as we break down “legalization” into its component parts, I’m willing to move forward and consider what it may mean to have a regulated sex-work industry — which, in fact, we already do have to some extent. First, legalization could open up the possibility for safer health practices: use of condoms, testing, ensuring that sex workers have access to health care, shelters, etc. In my view, these things would definitely need to be addressed.

Second, we know that when illegal practices become legalized (alcohol, drugs, etc.), workers who lack the capital for investment quickly become susceptible to those who are able to take advantage of economies of scale. If prostitution moves into a for-profit space, the sex workers themselves will be at a severe disadvantage because they lack the capital to protect their investments. So we have several options. First, we can ensure that the workers have the capacity to collectively bargain– just as any industry leader is currently allowed to do. Second, we could limit sex work to nonprofit auspices– perhaps temporarily giving the workers and their advocates a fair shot at controlling their work environment. Otherwise we could get big banks using federal money to wipe out the little guy, or gal. Legalization also means access to judicial institutions, and this raises a host of problems viz. ensuring that sex workers have the capacity to defend themselves in a court of law. Currently, they do not. All this is to say that legalization is intriguing, but it is often invoked as an easy fix to a complex problem.

It’s never easy. But we’ll get there eventually.

Related:
Sweet, Yet Bitter [missing link]