PAHRUMP, Nev. – When it comes to the world’s oldest profession, how much regulation is too much? More to the point, perhaps, how much regulation is not enough?
Last July, SeekingArrangement.com, a “sugar dating” site (an online service where wealthy men may connect with adventurous young women in need of financial support) published a blog post purporting to offer four differences between sugar and prostitution.
A few months later, Jeremy Lemur, a spokesperson for the legal Nevada brothel Sheri’s Ranch, posted a response on the brothel’s blog, countering the sugar website’s assertions in a post entitled “Seeking Arrangement: Sugar Dating is Prostitution.”
Late last week, Sheri’s fired another salvo in the war of words, issuing a press release that echoed the points in the October blog post. [We, too, thought the move was overkill. –Ed.]
While it might seem odd for the operators of a brothel to call out a sugar dating website for promoting prostitution, the situation seems less strange when one consider the thrust of Sheri’s argument.
“The staff and courtesans of Sheri’s Ranch, Nevada’s premier licensed bordello, believe that prostitution should be legal throughout the United States,” Lemur wrote in the October post. “But until prostitution is regulated across America like it is in Nevada, we cannot support unlawful prostitution.”
Lemur argues without government regulation of prostitution “there is an absence of rules and standards in the sex work industry, creating an environment that can too easily exploit underage women, invite human trafficking and violent crime, and allow for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.”
In Lemur’s view, sites using the sugar dating concept represent “nothing more than a callous action taken by opportunistic, morally compromised entrepreneurs who appear to have found a loophole that will dissuade law enforcement from taking action against them.”
Whatever one might think of the points made by either side in this peculiar and very modern public relations spat, the reasons for taking the positions each has are quite clear.
Precisely because prostitution and the promotion thereof are illegal virtually everywhere, it’s obviously crucial from the perspective of the people operating sugar sites for such sites to be perceived as something other than prostitution.
However questionable their argument may be, and however fine the distinction between a “sugar daddy” and a “john” may be in the context of the debate, no one can reasonably expect a sugar dating site to do anything but take the position there’s a massive difference between what they do and pandering.
On the other side of the ledger, as much as I agree with some of Lemur’s points, my inner cynic can’t help but wonder if there’s more than concern for sex worker safety and a sincere belief in a manifest need for regulation of prostitution inspiring the anti-sugar campaign.
Lemur hinted at such himself, when he suggested in last week’s press release the bad acts of sugar dating sites might have consequences for legal operations like Sheri’s.
“We’re concerned that sugar dating websites, platforms promoting prostitution and operating without interference from law enforcement, may one day negatively impact our legal prostitution business,” Lemur said.
While this sounds reasonable, my hunch is joints like Sheri’s have a more immediate concern regarding sugar sites: They represent unregulated and unfettered competition.
This is not to say I doubt the sincerity of Lemur’s other concerns, or those of his employer. I’m sure they do worry about the risks and dangers illegal prostitution presents to those who in participate.
The same risks and dangers have always existed, however, and despite Lemur’s reference to alleged murderess Alix Tichtman and her use of SeekingArrangement.com, it’s frankly inane to suggest meeting prostitutes or Johns through a website is somehow riskier than meeting them on a street corner or in a bar.
To be fair, Sheri’s is clear in its opposition to all forms of illegal prostitution and not just web-furthered illegal prostitution — but I can’t help noticing brothel didn’t distribute a press release in conjunction with a blog post about other forms of illegal prostitution.
Even if one accepts the premise sugar sites promote illegal prostitution, it’s unarguably true they are not alone in doing so. Online and off, a wide variety of platforms, outlets, mediums and conduits have served and will continue to serve as means of promotion.
I don’t doubt for a moment prostitutes use sugar sites to ply their trade, nor do I doubt many of the sugar daddies haunting such sites would be more appropriately considered johns. I also figure at least some sugar site users fit better into the categories sugar site operators would like to think all of their users fall into: sugar daddies and gold-diggers.
I think this dichotomy actually forms the core of why Sheri’s is so worked up about sugar sites: It’s not just the exploitation of a loophole, it’s that the exploitation actually might work. If the loophole holds up to legal scrutiny and sugar sites develop a reputation as a place where there’s a valid wink-wink workaround of the prohibition on prostitution, this could lead more and more potential Sheri’s customers to cut out the middleman.
To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with Sheri’s campaign against sugar sites, even if the sole motivation were concern for their own bottom line. Objecting to circumstances in which your competition doesn’t have to follow the same rules you do often is what an “unfair competition” lawsuit claim boils down to, after all.
What I’m not as sold on is the idea government must be involved in regulating any and every transaction that can be construed as prostitution.
Personally, I shudder to think what such a requirement might lead to, given how much difficulty legislators often have in crafting narrow statutory definitions. If we’re not careful, Congress might budget $200 million a year for the FBI to prosecute unlawful lap dances….
