Kristin 'Billie' Davis and Her Alleged Prostitution Ring

According to the New York Post, Kristin 'Billie' Davis has been linked with former governor Eliot Spitzer. Davis is being charged with running a multi-million dollar prostitution ring called "Wicked Models." The police discovered nearly $520,000 during a raid of Davis' apartment. Supposedly, this woman had well over 10,000 clients she had provided services to over the years. Her businesses were not limited to New York; she'd branched out to Pennsylvania and California as well. Moreover, Davis was proud of her business. She was running a MySpace page, and attempting to negotiate her "tell-all" stories as "the world's largest escort agency." If convicted, Davis faces 15 years in prison.

Prostitution is one of the largest and oldest professions in the world, and apparently it is a quite lucrative business if one does not mind using their body in this way. Having 10,000+ sexual partners is concerning, between the danger of contracting a sexually transmitted disease (or transmitting one) and the danger of violence posed to prostitutes. While it is unquestionably potentially harmful to those who perform this service, there is a second question that arises in the conversation about prostitution and women like Kristin 'Billie' Davis -- do these practices corrupt society?

In many places of Nevada, prostitution is legal. The brothels are regulated - with the prostitutes being required by state law to be tested weekly for sexually transmitted diseases and monthly for HIV. Moreover, the prostitutes are required to use condoms during oral sex and intercourse. The prostitutes and madams are required to be registered and must undergo a background check. It would seem, then, if the prostitutes and madams are complying with such laws, that there is no harm done...right?

Maybe - but maybe not. One argument posed for the idea that prostitution is a morally deplorable practice because it perpetuates the objectification of women by treating the bodies of women as commodities. Some feminists may argue that women do not have a choice to do otherwise - and that prostitution is a case where the madams such as Davis fool themselves into thinking they actually like this job that degrades them and their bodies. Another argument posed counter prostitution is the idea that sex is a sacred practice that should occur between two persons of consenting age whom love each other and have made some commitment to one another. A third argument might not deal with the prostitutes, madams, and Johns, but rather the effect on society as a whole. If there are women who chose to sell sex to men, where does that leave the women who do not chose to do such a thing? Women become sex objects, then, as a whole.

On the side for prostitution it could be argued that sex is no more sacred than other things we do as a result of being human beings - eating, sleeping, etc. By elevating sex to a special status, we then participate in a different kind of objectification of women. By allowing women to sell their sex to men (or men to sell their sex as not all prostitutes are female), society then allows prostitutes who might not otherwise be able to make a living join the rat-race. Another argument may state that rather than objectifying the body of the prostitute, the prostitute should have a right to determine what to do with his or her body as an autonomous agent. Regardless of the outlook on prostitution itself, it is daunting to see men in prominent positions (many of them married) purchasing these services. In the Post article on Davis, it was mentioned that Governor Spitzer was not her only high-profile client. In these cases, where people are in the limelight, do we hold a double standard? Is it OK for Joe down the street to visit the local brothel but when a governor or celebrity visits the prostitute it becomes immoral? There are many different facets to consider when discussing the morality of prostitution. Should we allow a means for women who may have no other recourse but prostitution to meet their basic needs (and then some in the case of Davis) or should we ban such a practice because of the demeaning effect it might have on the act of sexual intercourse?