In the wake of Spitzer's fall, Ann Althouse asks, "
If it was legal, would you want to be a prostitute?"
The question is how harmful is the work — if you consider what it would be if it were legal? So thinking about whether you would want to do it — when you are not a weak or desperate person — is a decent test of whether it is so harmful that the law should be used to protect people from it. Admittedly, this is only looking at whether the prostitute is harmed by prostitution, but let's focus on that. Would you consider a career in prostitution? Assume reasonable benefits: great pay, excellent health care, a safe, well-run workplace, interesting colleagues. Would you?
Several straight men in the comments have offered hearty affirmatives, but such answers are of little value since the demand for straight male prostitutes is, I imagine, nil.
My answer: F*** no. And I imagine that most other straight women around my age would answer the same. In fact, I found the question absurd. I think that answer is obvious and not only due to the negative moral implications of prostitution. Let's look at prostitution from a purely secular perspective. Let's look at it in terms of economics. Here's what I wrote at
Althouse:
Putting aside the not inconsiderable moral implications, prostitution is a bad deal economically.
Most women will, at some point, want to marry and start families. In pursuit of this, they will want to secure the most desirable mates possible.
Any advantages they have that would allow them to be highly paid prostitutes; such as youth, beauty, good conversational skills, etc.; would also be advantages in securing especially desirable mates.
Being a former prostitute, however, is likely to be an extraordinary disadvantage in securing a desirable mate as most men will find this trait highly undesirable. It may even be the case, generally, that the more desirable the mate, the more undesirable that mate will find former involvement in prostitution to be.
So for a few years of highly paid prostitution, the prostitute loses an enormous amount of market value in securing someone who may be her mate for the next fifty or more years and who will, therefore, be highly determinat[ive of] her financial, emotional, intellectual, and familial well being.
In short, don't be a ho if you don't want to marry a schmo.
Sound advice, I think.