I like to read about random current events sometimes. This weekend, one in particular got me laughing and fortunately, or unfortunately, for you, contemplating.
In case you did not know, Friday was a dreadfully distressing day for some choice people in Taipei. It was there in central Taiwan, where the county’s last legal brothel, Ai-Le, was closed down after the death of its 87-year-old pimp, leaving his two prostitutes, aged 40 and 50, unemployed. No real damage, right?
This story could be no more outrageous. Why was time and energy even spent writing about a used-up pimp and his two old prostitutes in a distant Asian country?
I honestly now think it was for amusement more so than current events reporting. Why did I think it was funny? Well, the thought of a 40- or 50-year-old prostitute is quite entertaining. Did they have a thriving business? How would those two now face adversity? Pimpless, how would they compete with younger, more attractive women?
The more I thought, the more I began to realize the implications of my mirth. I did not even see these women as humans. They were merely “prostitutes.” I became intrigued with the fact that instead of thinking something like, “Gee, well I sure am mighty glad; with no more legal brothels there will be a damper on that bad, bad prostitution,” I thought, “This does not even matter. There were only two prostitutes involved, and I am sure this will have no significant impact on the industry.”
In fact, the closing of the last legal brothel did not mark the end of a prostitution-filled era. The Taiwanese government estimates that there are 30,000 minors in prostitution in Taiwan. CEO of the Garden of Hope Foundation Chi Hui-jung even estimated that there are 60,000 female child prostitutes from ages 12 to 17 in Taiwan, with most of these being sold into prostitution by their own parents.
So, this begs the age-old question about the oldest profession: If prohibition is obviously not working for prostitution in the world and in the United States, why does it remain illegal?
In 2004, the federal government articulated its position: “The United States government takes a firm stance against proposals to legalize prostitution because prostitution directly contributes to the modern-day slave trade and is inherently demeaning.”
The government claims legalizing or tolerating prostitution creates “greater demand for human trafficking victims,” and yet, prostitution is legal in parts of Nevada, where, by the way, there is no influx of foreign sex slaves. And have we forgotten about Eliot Spitzer, the former governor of New York, and his prostitution ring?
Whether you are a liberal or conservative, if you take any minute amount of time to Google prostitution, you will find that our diligent prohibition system is just not working.
In fact, it has almost always seemed that way. Think about the times of alcohol prohibition. It was then that the price of alcohol skyrocketed, not to mention the considerable amount of tax dollars lost from bootlegged alcohol. Quality and safety were not regulated, spending by the Bureau of Prohibition tripled from about $4 million to $13 million, jails became filled with the creation of a new class of criminals and government spending to pay for the housing and maintenance of these criminals rose.
So, here is a really simple question you can ask yourself: Is a prostitute a human? I do not really agree with abortion. That being said, I cannot deny that before Roe v. Wade, a staggering 17 percent of all deaths due to pregnancy and childbirth were as a result of illegal, unregulated dangerous abortions. Before that decision, there were as many as 5,000 deaths a year. Sadly, they were not any less common than today, just much more dangerous to those that did not have a certain amount of financial and medical resources.
While I do not agree with prostitutes’ careers and certain moral decisions, I do realize that lots of them still need medical security and mental and physical protection from their clients, pimps and sometimes even by law enforcement.
And what better way provide this protection than through taxation to fund counter-education and regulation. There may be better ways, and if so, I am open to that too. I know that there are grays in this world; everything is not always black or white, but for contemplative purposes leave my article thinking about this: Which is more pro-life: the implementation of prohibition and cold neglect or the managing of the crisis through medical and social interventions coupled with regulation of the industry?
Julio Cespedes is a junior majoring in biological engineering. He can be contacted at
[email protected].