A Response to Bob Herbert

I just read Bob Herbert's column in today's NYT. he argues that no state should ever legalize prostitution, as some states are considering, because even legal prostitution is nothing more than the sexual degradation of women. Bob is a big hearted guy with whom I often agree. Not this time.

I get the picture that Bob views the inherent act of paying for sex to be degrading. Maybe so, but there are people on both sides of the transaction who would disagree, and there are many prostitutes who would point out folks who do a lot more degrading things for less money. Moreover, whether you like it or not, sex is often linked to the exchange of consideration in a variety of contexts. Prostitution just makes it explicit.

Much of the article is simply a catalogue of prostitution's ills: the usorious pimps, the brutish johns, the element of coercion, the presence of drugs. At one point, Bob states that even prostitutes at legal brothels must respond to their client's call at any time, even late at night. Ummm... Bob... there are some other people who do that same thing ... they are called everybody.

The bottom line to me appears to be that you can outlaw prostitution all you want and it will not go away or even shrink in any measurable degree. And with the status quo all the miseries Herbert describes will remain. The best we could hope for is a legal regime in which we ensure that no one underage is involved in the trade, no one is forced into the trade against their will, that all involved have some legal protections, and that the women in the oldest profession do not have to rely on pimps to provide legal protection in return for the lion's share of the fee.

Bob, capitalism insures that people will do things they find boring, distasteful, or even disgusting for money. There really is no way of getting around that. The best you can do is minimize what economists call the negative externalites.