[Eugene Volokh, September 20, 2005 at 1:13pm] Trackbacks
Services of Prostitutes -- From Crime to Government-Funded Entitlement in One Generation:

1973: Denmark substantially eases prostitution laws:

1999: Denmark fully legalizes prostitution, though apparently with the proviso that prostitution not be the prostitute's sole source of income.

Today: "[A] government campaign . . . pays sex workers to provide sex once a month for disabled people."

SP:
It's good to know that, if I was in Denmark, my inalienable right to receive oral sex is guaranteed, even if I am disabled.

Does colorblindness count?
9.20.2005 2:20pm
Medis:
I've always thought this was one of the best policy arguments in favor of legalizing prostitution (that it serves the legitimate needs of those who are unlikely to be able to have sex without paying).
9.20.2005 2:26pm
SimonD (www):
Problem with that slippery slope is that it's dang slippy.
9.20.2005 2:56pm
rbj:
Heck, I have to wear glasses, certainly that is a reduced function of a bodily organ.
9.20.2005 3:52pm
Attila (Pillage Idiot) (mail) (www):
If the feds provide these services (don't ask me which clause of Article I, section 8), then just wait till some poor disabled guy catches an STD. Is the US liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, or is it a discretionary function? Or, more fun, does Title IX require equality in the amount of sex offered to male and female disabled people? Stop me before I hypothesize again!
9.20.2005 4:10pm
Goober (mail):
Boo, SimonD! [chuckling in spite of myself]
9.20.2005 4:36pm
AppSocRes (mail):
If you want to see the ultimate slippery slope check out prostitution article

Germany's legalization of prostitution, combined with a very reasonable set of regulations regarding maintenance of unemployment benefits, has essentially led the government into the position of becoming a procurer/pimp.
9.20.2005 4:40pm
Andrew Weevlos (mail) (www):
Nice job AppSocRes, linking a fake news story that was debunked ages ago. Way to be a meme sheep.
9.20.2005 4:55pm
AppSocRes (mail):
I'm blushing!
9.20.2005 5:04pm
Scipio (mail) (www):
Wait, is AppSocRes implying that unless there are government brothels the welfare state is not a pimp?
9.20.2005 5:12pm
Ken Willis (mail):
Will Denmark see people throwing themselves in front of buses or jumping off rooftops in order to qualify for lifetime free sex?
9.20.2005 5:25pm
markm (mail):
It depends. What do government-provided prostitutes look like? (***WARNING - actually trying to visualize this may cause permanent damage to your libido***)
9.20.2005 5:52pm
Zed Pobre (mail) (www):
Has anyone found independent verification of this story? I suspect it is not entirely factual. Some poking around finds this:

http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/world_2001/gandm-010905.html

... but this isn't the government paying for prostitutes; those are paid for by the individuals out of their pensions. (A side note: that article references putting porn on the internal television system every Saturday, but if the television system gets the same channels as the rest of Denmark, then it's simply the standard broadcasts which happen to include late-night porn in much of Europe).
9.20.2005 6:37pm
Thor:
"Hello, Mr. SP, my name iss Thor, and zee Government hass sent me to give you your monthly oral sex [tugs his beard and winks]."
9.20.2005 8:28pm
Anon.:
Well, SP, it is a government program. What exactly were you expecting?
9.20.2005 8:30pm
open (mail):
Opportunity is a fine tbing, but not subject to uptake.
9.21.2005 12:45am
Alan K. Henderson (mail) (www):
Hammertoe is a disability, right? How about lazy eye?

Somehow, a FEMA for fixing up people on blind dates makes me wary.
9.21.2005 3:33am
TomFromMD (mail):
Does being ugly count as a disibility? How about being a dork? I mean, if the point is that everyone has the right to get laid, a fat, ugly, smelly dork probably has less chance than anyone...
9.21.2005 8:49am
Duncan Frissell (mail):
The downside of government prostitutes (and perhaps legalized prostitution in general) is that sex discrimination in employment is banned so the customer will not be able to choose the sex of the prostitute.

In the United Airlines(?) case, didn't the Supremes determine that customer preferences didn't establish a BFOQ. So you would be stuck with what you get.

And as with 3rd-party payments for Viagra and birth control the story also raises the issue: Is once a month enough? How does a 3rd-party payer determine how much is enough? Do we have medical guidance on this?
9.21.2005 11:50am
roy solomon (mail):
"The downside of government prostitutes (and perhaps legalized prostitution in general) is that sex discrimination in employment is banned"

Not quite true. Hooters prevailed in declining to hire men for server jobs, as would any strip club.
9.21.2005 1:08pm
Houston Lawyer:
If prostitution were legalized here, would prostitutes organize into unions? Would the most senior prostitute then have priority in choosing assignments? If the prostitutes went on strike, would the politically correct pro-union people really want to refer to strike breakers as "scabs"? Would the customers be prohibited from discriminating among prostitutes based on any of the usual suspect categories? Would the prostitutes be prohibited from discriminating among customers based on any of the usual suspect categories? Would pimps and madams be prohibited from recruiting at Harvard? Where's Rodney Dangerfield when you need him?
9.21.2005 1:30pm
SimonD (www):
And, per reasoning in this thread, why isn't there a constitutional right to prostitution? Surely, if you buy into unenumerated rights, the due process clause contains a right to free conduct in one's intimate life (Lawrence) and a right of free contract (Lochner), and if morality is no rational basis for laws, why couldn't a protitute challenge anti-protitution laws in court, presenting the question of which legitimate state interest(s) is or are anti-protitution laws rationally related to? Then Justice Breyer could explain to us how getting shafted is every American's inalienable constitutional right.

Or, as George Carlin more bluntly put it, "selling is legal, f*cking is legal, why isn't selling f*cking legal?"
9.21.2005 3:20pm
c.b. (mail):
sayeth weevlos:

"Nice job AppSocRes, linking a fake news story that was debunked ages ago. Way to be a meme sheep."

Heaven forfend that AppSocRes should put stock in a story reported by several mainstream newspapers! What a tool!

However, visiting Weevlos' bile-soaked and self-important blog -- wherein he links for attribution of his questionable facts to, inter alia, that time-proven news authority "JewishSightseeing.com" -- I do indeed get the sense that the purpose of his post was more for obtaining the pathetic thrill of insulting a stranger than anything else.
9.21.2005 10:47pm