A Dialog on Child Prostitution Dmytro Taranovsky Dec 3, 2004 Slightly modified on Dec 3, 2007 Please note that this document contains controversial viewpoints. If the lines are too long, open the file in a text editor with word wrap. The setting is a panel on child prostitution. A is the chairman. B and C are panelists. A: Child prostitution is an unmitigated evil that must be eradicated. Is there anyone among you who will defend it? B: May I speak in its defence? Even if child prostitution is wrong, we will better appreciate its wrongness by examining arguments for it. A: You are welcome to do so. B: In third-world countries, millions of children live in dire poverty. For many street children, having sex for money is the only way to survive. C: We know it, and that is very unfortunate. I think that the war on child prostitution must involve the war on child poverty. B: Imagine that you are assigned as a guardian of such children, but not given enough resources to feed them. Would you allow the children to earn money through sex or would you force the children to starve to death? C: I would not force the children to starve to death. A: I would ordinarily try to prevent prostitution, but in cases of life or death, I would have to consent. B: Would you agree then that for many children, prostitution is the best choice? C: Unfortunately, yes. A: I do not think that the children have a choice. B: But remember that it is often children who solicit for prostitution. The children are free to die, and some choose death. It is not, in any sense, an enviable choice--I have pity for these children--but it is a choice. In saying that the children do not have a choice, you mean that prostitution is the best choice because other choices are even worse. A: Apparently so. B: Next, think about prostitution from the point of view of some wealthy travelers to third-world countries. For some, having sex with children amounts to extraordinary joy. Consider this: If a wealthy adult derives great joy from having sex with a child and in return the child gets the money he or she needs to survive, then both benefit compared to the case in which there is no interaction. If the later case--which is the default--is ethically acceptable, then should not some child prostitution be ethically acceptable as well? A: I think that child prostitution is contrary to human rights. It violates the right of children to be free from sexual exploitation. C: Mutually beneficial conduct can also be unacceptable as unfair. That is why, for example, some countries have minimum wages. B: It is documented that most child prostitution is unfair to the children, but does not unfairness simply mean that the affected do not get enough in return? C: It does. B: So if the children get enough money in return, and proper precautions are taken to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, then the deal is fair. My proposal is this. Child prostitution should be regulated to ensure safety, fairness, and emotional well-being of the chidren, but should not be prohibited. This proposal I think is preferable to the current situation of unenforced and unenforceable--often to the point of being meaningless--complete prohibitions of child prostitution. Many wealthy tourists accept a small risk of jail to achieve the joy of sex, and would certainly agree to pay say $10 to the child instead of (which is common today) $1 or $2 to achieve sex legally. This proposal may in fact reduce child prostitution because if children are paid twice as much, then they need to have sex half as often to survive. A: I still think that child prostitution is unacceptable as a violation of human rights. The benefit of human rights is often hidden and subtle yet extraordinary. Repeal of human rights often leads to unforeseen horrors. We cannot let well-being of the children get in the way of legal protection of fundamental rights. B: I do not dispute the necessity of human rights. Much of prostitution--such as forcing people to work in brothels--is undoubtedly contrary to human rights, and the governments are often negligent in their efforts against such acts. However, for the cases I have in mind, the child gets to choose whether to have sex and with whom, so the current laws do not protect the rights of the children but restrict them. A: I agree. However, protective restrictions are often necessary, particularly in children. We restrict children from using alcohol. Moreover, some protective restrictions, such as the restriction against selling organs, are akin to human rights, for a major purpose of human rights is to protect what must be protected. B: But protective restrictions are predominantly used to improve people's welfare. Besides, the bodily harm of organ removal is irreversible, while sex can be done over and over again. A: That is so. B: And we agreed that much of child prostitution is good for children. C: We did. The eventual goal is to eliminate the need for child prostitution, but we cannot achieve this goal now. B: Moreover, the proposal would protect the children from sexually transmitted diseases and other harms. A: Quite right. However, it would not protect children from the horrors of having sex. B: Horror is a subjective word. You find adult-child sex horrible, but what is relevant are the findings of the child and the adult. Clearly, the adults involved do not find such sex revolting. And the children often find it acceptable. C: Do you have a proof? B: For children above puberty, sex is normal, so for them there is need of proof. A number of children have sex to get things they do not really need, like fine clothes. Social workers who try to give children alternatives to prostitution are sometimes offered free sex by children because the children like them. Children who have experienced sex are often active at trying to get more sex. A: You are correct. Child sexuality is poorly documented, but the evidence that some children enjoy sex is undeniable. Much rather like my disgust at the taste of certain foods does not make eating these foods immoral--either by people having no such aversion or by people having nothing else to eat--we should not let our disgust over adult-child sex get in the way of the well-being of the children. B: I agree. The vast majority of child prostitutes do not have sex for the sake of joy, and there are human rights issues involved, but they certainly do not rise to the point of trampling children's welfare. Besides, controlled legalization would make it easier to give psychological counseling to prevent emotional harm. C: I concur. Child prostitution is ethically acceptable and should be legal with restrictions. It may still be wrong--much rather like the New Testament says it is wrong for rich people not to give away their wealth to the poor--but is better than letting the poor children starve. A: Our meeting went very well, and we will meet next time to work out the details of the proposal. B: Before we leave, I will note an important theme of our meeting: Logical thought and impartial examination of the evidence can lead to surprising and seemingly abhorrent results that are true.