Shades of Gray
By: William, Dollar Bill
Tags: Life, Prostitution, Culture, Psychology, Life Lessons

Recently, I discovered a sugar daddy/baby website that functions just like a dating site with the exception that the listed ladies are mostly college girls looking for “sponsorship.” While sex isn’t necessarily part of the deal, the fact remains that boys will be boys — and the great majority of the time we can assume it’s implicit in the transaction in much the same way it is for straight-up escort directories. And it made me think that sexual prostitution is not as clearly defined as Webster’s might have you think.

“Prostitution” (according to Webster’s) is the act of selling sex for money. We get that.

But what about the college girls in the aforementioned site? And consider women who put out for the material things “boyfriends” they care nothing about buy for them? Shouldn’t they be considered prostitutes as well — even if greenbacks themselves aren’t passed directly from one hand to another? And if all but the obvious are prostitutes, wouldn’t it follow that prosecuting one subset while letting the others off the hook is an act of hypocrisy?

It all seems so meaningless. What I don’t get is why any of these pursuits are against the law — especially the one form that gets prosecuted.

What the law sees as prosecutable prostitution is a straight-up business deal. “I do this and you do that.” That’s easy. But what about the woman who pretends she cares…relieving the clueless bastard of mountains of money…all while knowing it’s all about robbing the guy of not just his cash — but his dignity as well?

Prosecutable prostitution stands on reasonably high moral ground (at least for me). Hoodwinking a guy into thinking the woman upon whom he heaps currency in the form of clothing, jewelry, etc. is in love is immoral. There’s your reprobate right there — not the girl who says upfront “you want sex…I want money. Let’s make a deal!”

We all know that the criminalization of traditional prostitution is based on religion and fear. Zealots who are convinced there’s a deity are afraid that He would condemn such an act. But why? Is it any worse than selling some stupid widget nobody needs at a 200% profit and then blowing the proceeds on some vice?

Then there’s the fear factor. Most guys don’t want to think that their girlfriends have experienced thousands of guys before them. It makes dudes insecure. And given that it’s mostly men who write laws (though admittedly, that’s changing), it follows that those men attempt to legislate against such activity as if it’s going to change anything.

If there’s any pursuit more futile than the government’s war on drugs…it’s got to be their war on prostitution. Trafficking, where it exists is something different. I’ll give ya that. But selling “it?” Who in his right mind cares?

Consider the disease rationalization. Prostitutes spread disease. True enough — but no more than having sex with some chick you met at a bar — or anywhere else for that matter. Having sex spreads disease. That is a documented fact. How one gets that sex is beside the point. And if you think that the pay for play trade spreads disease more often per union than in any other venue, wouldn’t it make sense to legalize the trade so all girls are licensed and checked by doctors periodically?

Maybe someday…somebody will see the light. Ya know…like out in Nevada where citizens vote on the business’s legality on a county by county basis? But I don’t hear anything about New York entering the 21st century! Aren’t we supposed to be enlightened? Haven’t we legalized same sex marriage?

It’s high time that those who would make our laws realize that providing sex for a fee isn’t that much different from giving a guy a haircut. It’s a service. And when performed honorably, professionally, and expertly, it’s one that some find more therapeutic than a visit to a psychiatrist. And often cheaper.

So what’s the big deal? Decriminalize all of it. Let law enforcement catch criminals who hurt people. Not those who help them.