|
Do Americans need to grow up?
Jeff in England writes:
While Muslims are invading and sometimes trying to kill us, while Hispanic continue their takeover of America, while violent crime is out of control (despite better statistics), while 12 year old girls regularly get pregnant, while people are taking every drug under the sun, some of us are worried if Spitzer went to a prostitute. This panic about going to a prostitute (and a high level one at that) smacks of hysteria and moral self doubt. People should grow up.
Now it may not be the nicest thing to do if one is in a marriage. But let’s get perspective here. So many politicians have had mistresses or women on the side. That is far worse as another woman besides the wife can get hurt. Prostitution run in a sensible clean way can be beneficial for society. I would hope that even the wives of these politicians see that. The men pay and then go home to the wife, not some mistress. Family disruption is kept to a minimum.
In other cases, some single men can’t get a woman and prostitution means those men are not going to walk the streets thinking of raping someone. Most men have got to have it so to speak so why not make it easier for them to do so.
The problem is that at street level prostitution is dirty, nasty and often dangerous which is why I support the legalisation of it, where it would then be overseen by the state like an abortion clinic etc. In other words certain minimum standards would be adhered to.
LA replies:
1. The weakest, lamest argument anyone can ever make is: “There are so many important things happening right now; why are people wasting their attention on this issue that doesn’t add up to a hill of beans in this crazy world?” People care about the issues they care about. People don’t say, “Oh, the fact that our happily married with three children multimillionaire ultra purist crusading governor has been using multi-thousand dollar prostitutes for the last ten years doesn’t matter, because we also have a problem with terrorism and illegal immigration. So let’s all just ignore the fact that the FBI caught the governor of New York as a steady customer of a prostitution ring.” The world doesn’t work that way. The issues that matter, matter, and complaining that there are other issues that matter more never changes that fact.
2. It is true that in one of your happy European countries where prostitution is legal, Spitzer could have been spending half his time in a whore house or had a stable of mistresses and it would make no difference. But this is not Europe.
3. Prostitution, though it is illegal in most of the U.S. (not in Nevada I believe), is nevertheless widely winked at (just look at all the escort services that openly advertise in the New York City Yellow pages). So the needy men you are concerned about are not forced to use street services. However prostitution does remain illegal, showing that society disapproves of it. (Prior to the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision which declared all state laws against homosexual activity to be unconstitutional, it was the same with homosexual sodomy; most states had laws against it, expressing society’s disapproval of homosexual acts, but these laws were not actively or regularly enforced.) If it’s a choice between (1) society declaring that prostitution is wrong while enforcing the law inconsistently or hypocritically, and (2) society officially embracing European style amorality, then hypocrisy/inconsistency is better, as it leaves the basic moral principle in place, even if not consistently enforced.
4. Spitzer himself never attacked the prostitution laws or sought their repeal. To the contrary, he prosecuted prostitution rings in the past and condemned them in harsh language for their exploitation of women. In fact he carried out such prosecutions while he was using prostitution services himself.
5. It’s the totality of his behavior that destroyed his credibility and left him no option but to resign. Most stunning was the fact that as attorney general for eight years he ruthlessly went after people for minor or ambiguous offenses, attacking his targets as unethical and immoral, seeking to harm them, while he himself was systematically breaking the law, all during his two terms as attorney general. If he had not been the Ruthless Mr. Clean all these years, his use of prostitutes would not have had the staggering effect it has had. And this was on top of an entire year in which his credibility has been shattered by his other shenanigans as governor.
6. To show you that Americans are not knee-jerk moralists that you think we are but deal with these things on a case by case basis, consider the matter of U.S. Senator David Vitter of Lousiana. In early 2007 it came to light that he had used the services of a madam in D.C. He issued this statement:
“This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible. Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there—with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way.”
In fact, he had several times used prostitutes when he was a member of the House in 1999 and 2000. It was in the past, he took responsibility for it, and his constituents forgave him, and he’s still in the Senate.
And that’s not even to mention the fact that more than half the American people gave President Clinton a pass (to their everlasting shame, in my opinion, but from your angle, it ought to show they are not moralistic nutcases).
7. The Spitzer case is different from the Vitter case in multiple ways, e.g., his own long career as hyper law enforcer making frenzied attacks on the most minor malefactors; his systematic use of prostitutes during those same years, at least back to 1998, according to reports; his transportation of them across state lines in violation of the Mann Act; his concealed and illegal transfer of funds; other weird behavior such as the use of a close friend’s name when checking into the hotel where he met the prostitutes; his own previously damaged credibility from his refusal to come clean on Troopergate, and on and on and on. It is the stunning totality of all of this that sunk him.
8. Your simplistic “anti-moralist” stand—which is really a form of moralism—shows that you are not familiar with these issues. You really ought to read the New York papers of the last three days.
- end of initial entry -
Emily B. writes:
Whenever these prostitution scandals emerge, American women get dealt a blow: multitudes of their men take to the airwaves or Internet to say “Prostitution is just fine,” and if really bold, some of them expound about “open marriages.” Completely putting aside philosophical and moral arguments about prostitution, do any of these men notice that it is only other men nodding in agreement? That the women are fantasizing about shooting them?
Emily continues:
One quick thing, I realize that Jeff is in England and I spoke of American women and their men. While I do believe in natural law, I don’t presume to speak for European women and generally, it is American men talking about American current events. In other words, we American women are mostly having to put up with brutish views of some of our own men (however, foreign men joining in is resembling a pile-on!).
Laura W. writes:
If Jeff had a daughter, I presume he would have no qualms about her going into the “sensible and clean” business of legalized prostitution. If he would have a problem with it, perhaps he might hesitate to make it easier for other men’s daughters to go into the business by supporting legalization. Since Jeff sees this issue purely from a male angle, despite his claim to have the interests of women at heart as well, I urge him also to think of men as fathers, rather than simply as clients of whores.
From: Jeff in England
Subject: IF YOU GOTTA GO, GO NOW
I’m not arguing that Spitzer didn’t do badly in various other ways nor that he wasn’t a hypocrite. But on the “visiting a prostitute” issue alone I would not insist he resign. In itself, it is not nearly the worst thing in the world and one could argue that it compares favourably to adultery.
However, when added to several other things, then I can see where he had to resign.
Mark K. writes:
Jeff in England writes concerning the Spitzer affair:
“In itself (visiting a prostitute), it is not nearly the worst thing in the world.”
By what authority does Jeff consider visiting a prostitute “good,” “bad,” or “not so bad?” Why would Jeff’s opinion, subjective as it is, count? If Jeff were coming at this from a Judeo-Christian perspective, then he would realize that the law is one—breaking the law in one aspect is breaking the entire law. There are many references to this in both the Old and New Testaments and they constitute the authority for believers.
For future reference, could Jeff please tell us by what authority and through what set of principles he has determined that visiting a prostitute is “not nearly the worst thing in the world?” Is it a subjective thing, an objective thing, a social consensus … what exactly is his moral foundation?
Jeff replies to Mark K.:
If you want to put a label on it, feel free to call my views, views. In other words I don’t believe in objective or subjective views—there are just views. Views in the Bible (Old and New Testaments) are written by people. Do you ask that question to everyone who has a view on any moral issue?
I love and respect the Bible (both the Old and New Testament) but there are many “views” in it which I disagree with. I’m sure you disagree with a few too. Plus I’m sure you feel some “laws” in the Bible are unjust. I’m sure you break a law or two as well. Jesus certainly did.
By the way, how do you feel about polygamy (not allowed in Christianity, though it often had a place in Judaism including the Torah).
Polygamy certainly helps to reduce prostitution. Of course for men who absolutely can’t “get a woman” prostitution is the most sensible solution. I’m sure God would agree.
I reiterate that anybody who condemns Spitzer solely for the reason that he went to a prostitute is being infantile and dare I say it, ungodly! Many of the major historical political figures would have been removed from their posts if prostitution laws and marriage laws (Biblical or secular) were rigidly adhered to.
LA replies:
Jeff has often said he believes in God, yet he also says that the basic moral positions of the Bible are just “views.” This sounds like what Alan Roebuck said recently about liberals, that they may believe in “some kind” of god, but reject the God of the Bible, the one who actually says to do certain things and not to do certain things.
Of course to say that the moral commandments of the Bible are not just views but are authoritative, doesn’t mean that we accept everything exactly as it appears in the Bible. Thus the fact that the biblical Patriarchs had more than one wife has never been exemplary for Jews (as Jeff surely realizes), and also Orthodox Jews do not follow the Torah by itself, but the Torah as explicated by the Talmud. As for Christians, ever since Peter’s dream in Acts 10 where a voice from heaven tells him that all foods provided by God are clean, Christians do not follow the Jewish kosher laws. Christians do not follow the Jewish law against making images of a divine person, because Jesus brought a new dispensation, and because he came as man, it is appropriate to portray him as man.
But notwithstanding these changes and differences within the common Judeo-Christian moral tradition, there are basic moral laws that Christians and Jews understand as coming from God, and that have been passed down through the Jewish and Christians traditions. (See also the appendix of C.S. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man, where he lists objective moral laws, objective values, common to all religious traditions.) These things are not just “views,” i.e. subjective opinions. If you don’t believe in them, no one in today’s world is going to force you to believe in them. But you don’t have the right to call them nothing but someone’s opinions. When you speak that way, you’re speaking the language of liberalism.
Rob H. writes:
You wrote: “However prostitution does remain illegal, showing that society disapproves of it.”
This is the crux of the issue. I remember some time ago reading an article from Germany about an unemployed woman. She got a phone call from the department of employment saying that there was an “opening” in a local brothel and that if she didn’t accept the position, her unemployment compensation would be cut off. So at the end of the day, the state attempted to force a citizen into prostitution.
Thus is the legalization of prostitution taken to its logical conclusion. To legalize it would be to legitimize it. It would be seen as a viable career option for all young women, and those who argue for it would have no logical reason to hesitate when their daughters go to work in brothels. Nor would they have any logical reason to stigmatize the world’s oldest profession.
LA replies:
Yes. What the modern liberal state first makes a right, it ultimately makes an obligation. Thus:
- Homosexual conduct is made a right; ultimately Catholic adoption agencies are required to adopt children to homosexual couples, under the Sexual Orientation Regulations in Britain.
- Abortion is made a right; ultimately (as under a law proposed by the soon to be ex-Gov. Spitzer of New York), all health agencies, even Catholic hospitals, must provide abortions.
- Prostitution is legalized; ultimately it becomes an obligation on a German woman receiving unemployment to work as a prostitute.
LA writes:
Note: Apparently the German story, which was reported by the Telegraph in 2005, is not true, or at least is not entirely true. It’s rather complicated to explain but I’ll try to post something on this later.
Adela G. writes:
Jeff in England writes:
“This panic about [Spitzer] going to a prostitute (and a high level one at that) smacks of hysteria and moral self doubt. People should grow up.”
I was unaware of any panic here in the heartland but of course, we’d all have been hysterical had Spitzer gone to some low-level streetwalker. Luckily, we were very reassured by the high-toned name of the whorehouse, “Emperor Club VIP” that he chose to frequent (pun intended). Why, it could almost be mistaken for one of Beethoven’s piano concerti!
Meanwhile, whilst avoiding panic and hysteria, we were nonetheless a bit perturbed at an elected government official breaking laws he publicly swore to abide by and to uphold. Perhaps Jeff is unaware that prostitution is illegal in most of the U.S., including those parts in which Eliot was allegedly playing (pun again intended)?
Many here, even those of us who have for decades have considered themselves all growed up, kind of felt like lawbreaking was … well … illegal. Indeed, we went out on a real moral limb and felt that elected government officials were not above the laws they pledged to uphold.
Of course, should it emerge that Spitzer was in fact breaking the law as a form of political protest against the exploitation of prostitutes (or “sex workers” as I believe the Brits call them), all will be forgiven—at least, it doubtless will be by Silda, who apparently doesn’t have the sense God gave a goat.
Mark K. writes:
Since Jeff from England refuses to categorize his beliefs as either subjective or objective, how does his “view” that “people should grow up” help VFR readers? Without providing an intellectual base for his “view,” how and why should one assent to his “view?” “Growing up” means developing a mature outlook through a reasonable exchange of ideas—some which are subjective, others which are objective, reached in time through social and historical consensus. Most VFR correspondents, whether they believe in God or not, accept Judeo-Christian morality as the foundation of their morals and ethics (as stated by Lawrence Auster in the response above using C.S. Lewis). Visiting a prostitute violates that standard. How can one “grow up” in violation of one’s moral foundation and standards?
Laura W. writes:
What a strange pipe dream Jeff has, to think the West can adequately defend itself against Islam and against runaway immigration without first recapturing its soul. What a delusion! The West can’t defend itself until it becomes itself. That self is moral, not just some economic or cultural machine.
Laura W. writes:
Even if the German story regarding a woman being forced to work in a brothel is untrue and even if the state would never force a woman to become a prostitute, the point remains that if prostitution were legalized many women who would prefer not to go into the business would end up there. What grounds would a woman who is really hard up then have for not going into it?
Thirty years ago, feminists got into the act of campaigning for legalized prostitution. The absurdity of it dawned on them slowly. Most women in the trade are the pawns of pimps and always will be, whether it is legal or not. It doesn’t occur to many pretty young women to become a whore. Usually the idea comes from someone else, most likely a guy. It’s a heck of a business, isn’t it? Not long ago, three prostitutes were found dead in a ditch in New Jersey not far from where I live. Their throats were slashed, or maybe they were strangled. The details are hazy because there was no public outcry at all.
Jeff in England writes:
As prostitution is illegal in America (it is not technically illegal in the UK) should we be going after every client who used a prostitute with a view to locking them up? And jail all the prostitutes? Of course not. Millions of Americans smoke a spliff every day…. should they be “gone after” and locked up too? Of course not. Let’s stop playing babygames focusing on the legality of prostitution as Larry is doing here. Legality is not the core issue here. The morality of prostitution is.
That Spitzer had to resign for all sorts of reasons I can accept. Especially for his hypocrisy. Especially for his lying. The same applied to Clinton. He had a sexual romp with Monica Lewinsky because he wasn’t getting it with Hillary. That is hardly the worst thing in the world (I say again). It was not grounds for resignation. Again, Americans need to grow up about this sort of thing. But what Clinton did afterwards was reprehensible. He lied (in the most ridiculous of ways) to the American people about the sex he had had. He also seemed to ignore completely the hurt and confusion of Monica Lewinsky who had been very fond of him. If Monica had been a prostitute there would not have been these sort of emotional factors in the equation. Clinton had a far greater reason to resign than Spitzer in the sense TWO other women got hurt and damaged. As well as the American people of course.
As many others have said before me, the strong male sex drive is going to be with us forever. But not all men have happy marriages to give it an outlet. The solution for many men is masturbation which most Americans now accept. But that doesn’t replace the real thing. The “solution” for a small but significant amount of men is to go out and rape strange women. Just short of that, the solution for many men, married, partnered or just out on a casual meeting with a woman, is to act very forcefully to get the sex they need and want. Not quite rape but strong persistence. Many young men do this with inexperienced girls, convincing them that they have to have sex. The “solution” for yet other men is to lie and have affairs on the side. The “solution” for some (Chasidic) Jews and some Muslims is polygamy, despite the fact that it is illegal. But polygamy is often unpleasant for the women involved and is really there to benefit the man only. It can also be very confusing for any children involved. Most Americans would oppose polygamy (and polymory) far more than opposing prostitution.
Other than masturbation (and even that still has its critics), all these “solutions” are unacceptable to most Americans, to say the least. It seems that prostitution, if it is regulated and kept clean and safe, is the least bad solution to the problem. In the case of marriage or committed partnerhood, it would hopefully be done with the wife’s or partner’s knowledge. Love or any sort of attachment would not come into it, therefore the woman would be less threatened. The man would still come home to his wife (and children) at night and no lying or deception would be involved. The American nuclear family would be saved!
Or in the case of many single men, there would be no roaming the street or clubs looking for females to “hit upon” or even worse, force into sex. It would be nice to think that men could “get” sex with a woman without resorting to paying for it but the reality is that many men can’t. Many horny men would be happy to have sex for a not too expensive fee in clean surroundings. They could then get on with useful work; maybe fighting violent criminals or catching terrorists. The American single male would also be saved!
I have just sent you various articles (see
this, this, and this) indicating that prostitution as we know it was not outlawed in either the Old or New Testaments. That is not to say it was encouraged but both books’ writers recognise there were far greater priorities to focus on. And both books’ writers probably recognised the benefits of prostitution, despite its obvious drawbacks. Jesus himself never even mentioned it.
American Christians often have an evangelical take (as opposed to understanding what the Bible is actually saying) on things which certain people would call “stupid.” I wouldn’t use that term but I would say it is time for Americans and in particular many Christians (and Muslims and Jews too) to grow up and accept some things which, while not totally desirable, are beneficial for society in general. Prostitution is certainly one of those things.
Jeff continues:
It’s not really an issue (prostitution) I am very excited about and have only paid deep attention to it because you are interested in it. To me the issue itself (should men be allowed to go to prostitutes without being condemned for it) is a big hullabaloo about nothing. Even the Biblical writers knew that.
However the surrounding “stuff” regarding Spitzer indicate that he should have resigned.
LA replies:
Am I the only one who has the impression that while Jeff goes railing on and on he has not read what I said previously? I described the current American situation in which prostitution is illegal but in practice largely winked at. I gave the example of Sen. Vitter who used prostitutes on a few occasions some years ago and was forgiven by his constituents. But that’s not good enough for Jeff. He wants a situation in which the forgiveness would not even be necessary, because prostitution would be completely ok and completely legal. It’s very unlikely that many American states will go that route and make prostitution formally legal.
Funny how Jeff sees no significance in the fact that the Britain that is openly committing suicide before our eyes, with its utter breakdown of law enforcement and its open borders, is also the Britain that has legalized prostitution. Does Jeff think that a healthy Britain, a Britain that believed in itself, a Britain intent on surviving, say, the Britain of 50 or 70 or 80 years ago, would have legalized prostitution?
Mark K. writes:
Prostitution, according to “Kristen,” is “about free spirits connecting with people on all levels.”
Adela Gereth writes:
Jeff in England writes: While Muslims are invading and sometimes trying to kill us, while Hispanic continue their takeover of America, while violent crime is out of control (despite better statistics), while 12 year old girls regularly get pregnant, while people are taking every drug under the sun, some of us are worried if Spitzer went to a prostitute. This panic about going to a prostitute (and a high level one at that) smacks of hysteria and moral self doubt. People should grow up.
Indeed. And while the lights are going out all over Europe (the Lisbon Capitulation will no doubt extinguish a few more), Jeff dithers about American immaturity.
Perhaps we Americans are more censorious about prostitution and marital infidelity because we still have sufficient illumination to see how wrong they are in so many ways.
Van Wijk writes:
Jeff wrote:
“As many others have said before me, the strong male sex drive is going to be with us forever. But not all men have happy marriages to give it an outlet. The solution for many men is masturbation which most Americans now accept. But that doesn’t replace the real thing. The “solution” for a small but significant amount of men is to go out and rape strange women. Just short of that, the solution for many men, married, partnered or just out on a casual meeting with a woman, is to act very forcefully to get the sex they need and want.”
Jeff makes it sound as though the feeding of sexual desire were inevitable, a force against which nothing can stand, so the state may as well provide an outlet for it. Meanwhile, people who have a coherent philosophy realize that not all desires should be satiated; in fact, most should not. Being able to put desires aside for the sake of virtue is part of what separates men from wild animals. The Stoics knew this. Jeff, unfortunately, does not.
The real issue within Jeff’s arguments is that we have many young men and women who are utterly starved for philosophy, and thus are unable to recognize virtue. Changing this is a good place for traditionalists to put their energy. Legalizing prostitution, even dressed up in the hard-nosed pragmatic language that Jeff enjoys, is taking the issue in exactly the wrong direction. He says that the nuclear family and the young male would be saved by his suggestion, when in fact these things would quicken their pace toward annihilation. Laura W. is spot-on in this regard.
As for the state of prostitution in the Old Testament, let’s say for the sake of argument that Jeff is correct. Whores were not treated as valued members of that society. They were treated like whores. They were recognized as being at the bottom rung of society, and were reviled, whether or not that society had more “pressing issues” to think about.
“I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who overcomes his enemies.”
— Aristotle
LA replies:
Smaller point: Jeff seems to make the common error of assuming that everything portrayed in the Bible, especially in Genesis, is exemplary. Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, the sons of Jacob are hardly ideal figures but are brutal semi-barbarians; yet, through God’s purposes, this was the stock from which came the tribes of Israel. The constant theme in Genesis is: God created the world and man, and then man keeps rebelling against God.
Larger point: On why sex is out of control, it’s not just philosophy that is lacking, though it is, but love—non-erotic love. I think a major factor in the destructive excess of lust and sexual frustration in modern society is simply that people lack real love and connectedness with other people, most of all family. People, especially young people, are isolated, thrown back on themselves, emotionally starved. So the sex drive becomes more and more an isolated and obsessive thing unto itself. If people were living more balanced lives emotionally and spiritually, the sex drive wouldn’t have the inordinate power over them that it has. In traditional religious communities sex is not the imperial force running everything that it is in secular society.
Obviously I’m not suggesting that traditionalism, religion, and love would solve the problem of sex, which will always be there, but sex would be more integrated within a human social order and not have the demonic power it has at present.
And of course popular entertainment and advertisements that constantly provoke sexual desire, often of a perverse nature, is a big problem. A morally sound society would not fill its public spaces and broadcast media with sexually charged imagery. This is the mark of a demented and evil society.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 13, 2008 10:54 AM | Send
|