SubscribeA dedicated writer and translator of economic ideas who often delves into the economics of culture, Dr. Cowen has published dozens of books, reviews, and articles. His most recent book, Discover Your Inner Economist, shows how economic notions-such as incentives, signals, and markets-apply far more widely than merely to the decisions of social planners, governments, and big business.... and now he talks about how economic notions extend into the bedroom/ bathroom/ back alley/ wherever you pay for your sex.
mtphoto: "The inherent problem with prostitution is that it increases the spread of HIV and STIs. Prostitution also takes the intimacy out of sex, which most adults would know, is important.Um, I think the spread of HIV and STIs is greater in the world documented by that fine online anthropological journal, "Hot Chicks with Douchebags (.com)".
Also, the prostitute, often times, does not keep all of the money for his/her services."
mullingitover: "I like the Costa Rica approach: prostitution is legal (and prostitutes are selective about who they do business with), meanwhile pimping is a felony."I also agree. Prostitution, like drugs, seems to derive a significant amount of its negative effect from its being illegal. Healthy prostitutes can be no more a contradiction than healthy porn stars- who if they are wise get regular checkups and choose their partners carefully (in the sense that most mainstream porn stars only work with people who also get regularly checkups- they probably have safer sex than most single people)- or healthy pot smokers. But the negative sides of prostitution- pimps, abuse, drug addiction causing desperation, violence, etc- are a part of illegality of prostitution. I'd happily see pimps put in jail while happy, healthy women could choose prostitution if they wanted.
"Women's role as mothers has defined them and subjected them to subordination. So in this non-ideal world of ours, if we allow baby selling, we treat women like anonymous fungible breeders. We reinforce objectification and subordination. We retain this defining role of Mother with a capital M. But now we even make it an alienated version, because we make it into a commodity and an object rather than just saying: That's women's nature and women's character.. Entering the market by degrading oneself is not liberating under these circumstances. ... This argument could conclude..."Women have always both sold themselves and been degraded for it, so let's not do more of the same.""The language can get pretty intense and often overlaps with criticisms of prostitution:
A market in women's bodies - wheter sexual prostitution or reproductive prostitution - reveals a social ontology in which women are among the things in the world that can be appropiately commodified - bought and sold and, by extention, stolen. The purported freedom that such institutions would give women to enter into the market by selling their bodies is paradoxical. Sexual or reproductive prostitutes enter the market not so much as agents or subjects, but as commodities or objects....Moreover, once there is a market for women's bodies, all women's bodies will have a price, and the woman who does not sell her body becomes a hoarder of something that is useful to other people and is financially valuable. The market is a hegemonic instituttion; it determines the meanings of actions of people who choose not to participate as well as of those who choose to participate. -- Sara Ann Ketchum, "Selling Babies and Selling Bodies," Hypatia, Fall 1989 at 116, 122-23.As these two passages reveal, most of the opposition comes from an attention to the context in which these decisions are made. Believing that society is sharply marked by sexual inequality, these writers believe that surrogacy (and for some prostitution) will only deepen this inequality by reinforcing stereotypes about the proper role for women, and by giving those with significant resources even more control over the bodies of those without.
"Whether surrogacy can be an act of freedom when women are unequal in society tends not to be asked as a legal matter, far less whether a group-based reality of inequality on the basis of gender, class, and race could make what might be an individual act of freedom under other conditions into an act of subordination under current ones." Catharine MacKinnon, Sex Equality 1189 (2d ed. 2007).My own views? Well, much of my discomfort comes from the legal question about "who is the mother?" To me, carrying a fetus to term, nourishing and protecting it while it takes away your ability to party it up, this is the act of motherhood - not merely being a genetic depositor. If a pregnant woman carrying the egg of another woman is thought of as merely a vessel - without parental rights, then we have effectively allowed a "male" understanding of pregnancy to trump a "female" understanding. To a male parent, you deposit your genetic material, have whatever kind of a relationship with the mother you want, then nine months later you're a parent with all sorts of rights. Now egg donors for gestational surrogacy get that experience too, but at someone else's cost. The lived experience of pregnancy is not something I want to give up - many pro-surrogacy feminists do - they think it's liberating and a path towards equality. Indeed, many disagreements among liberal and left feminists take this form (with postmodernists and 3rd wavers on the liberal side these days). Lefties are worried that "acting like a man" is not liberating and sets the wrong standard, especially given the current distribution of social power and resources. Liberals tend not to focus on whether or not the standard is a male one, but rather on the enhanced opportunities available to women. Throw in class and race issues and bam, you've got quite an issue. Whether it should be illegal - as it is in many states - is another question.
« Older An Outsider's View... | The May 2009 issue of the FBI ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:22 PM on July 22 [3 favorites]