Mayor Oscar Goodman says we should be able to have a conversation about legalizing prostitution in Las Vegas. We happen to agree. So let’s do it.

First, let us make one observation: While we suspect Goodman’s heart may be inclined in the direction of legalized brothels in Sin City, it’s clear he’s not going to put his money where his mouth is on the issue. Goodman said at his regular news conference today that Las Vegans have too many moral or religious objections to prostitution to legalize the practice, which is legal in certain counties in Nevada, including nearby Nye County. (In order to be legalized in Las Vegas, the state Legislature would have to approve it.)

"It’s a legitimate topic to be discussed," Goodman says, noting that illegal prostitution is going on all around us every day. "To pretend that it doesn’t exist is to be an ostrich," he added.

OK, fine. We’re perfectly willing to admit that there’s as much prostitution going on inside high-class hotels on the Strip as there is on Fremont Street. It’s just that Fremont Street gets more police attention, one of many myriad hypocrisies that attend this issue in Las Vegas.

After going through some of the benefits of legalized prostitution (we’ll go into more detail below), Goodman concluded "My constituents aren’t ready for it, though. … Rational people could conclude that legalization is fine, except for the religious and moral aspects."

OK, fine. We can deal with that right now: If you have religious objections to prostitution, don’t visit prostitutes. Discourage your friends and associates from visiting prostitutes, too, if you’d like. Protest on the sidewalk out in front of a brothel, if you feel very strongly about it. Ditto for those with non-religious moral objections.

So, what’s the problem?

Our take on the mayor’s stance is this: He’s right in saying the issue should be discussed. But if he’s already decided that religious and moral objections are too great to allow for the legalization of prostitution in town, why should we have a discussion about it? It’s a waste of time, unless that discussion is going to lead to more education, more enlightenment and the possibility of eventually legalizing brothels in Clark County.

And here’s why we think we should do that. (Call us a misogynist if you will; we’ll deal with that later.)

1.) Ending exploitation. Anti-prostitution advocates are swift to note that women — especially underage women — are often exploited by human traffickers and sexual slave traders. Far from choosing to use their bodies to make money, these women are exploited and used by others for profit. But the reason is that prostitution is illegal; if it were a legal, licensed and regulated business — as it is in some other counties in Nevada — there would be far less profit in sexual slavery. Moreover, violence against women by pimps would be eliminated.

2.) Public health and safety. Currently, if a man wants to use the services of a prostitute, he cruises down to a stroll, pulls over, negotiates a deal and trades money for a sex act. (This is what we hear, you understand, and see on TV. With our incredible good looks and sexy bald head, we’ve no need of prostitutes. Not that we’re condemning it or anything.)

In this process, the customer risks catching a sexually transmitted disease, getting robbed by either the prostitute or her pimp, being extorted for even more cash, not to mention being arrested and having his name and booking photo become a public record.

If prostitution were legal, the sex workers at brothels would be regularly tested by the state for STDs, and would be required to practice safe sex. Customers would feel much more comfortable in legal, regulate brothels, which would have special privileged licenses granted by the state. License holders (similar to gambling license holders) would have a built-in incentive to avoid any kind of crime in their establishments, including drug use by sex workers, lest they lose a lucrative license. And underage prostitution, like underage gambling, would be virtually wiped out.

3.) Tax revenue. It’s guaranteed that all the money changing hands between illegal prostitutes and customers is untaxed revenue; licensing brothels would eliminate that problem. Goodman said at his news conference that he’s had casino owners tell him that, if prostitution were legalized, they’d build nice brothels. If you gaze at some of the nicer strip clubs around town (which we never do; we’re off the market, ladies!) we totally believe that’s true.

4.) Hooker "strolls." There would be no need for prostitutes to congregate on street corners or in certain areas of town, dragging down redevelopment efforts and property values. Business would be conducted in legal, licensed establishments, the way gambling and drinking is conducted now. How many illegal craps games or moonshine operations did police have to investigate this year? Not a lot, we’d guess, when you can legally gamble and drink inside places built for those purposes.

5.) Proven track record. Everything we’ve said up until now isn’t just us popping off, as usual. We have a real-life, American example of these things at work, in Nevada’s legal brothels. The model used there could easily be expanded to other counties, with similar results.

6.) Elimination of a fiat crime. Ever notice that neither person involved in a prostitution transaction calls the cops? That’s because there’s no direct "victim" in this crime, save for the peace, dignity and morals of the state. That’s why cops have to do "stings" to catch the perpetrators, who are consenting adults who’ve come to a mutually agreeable business transaction. There’s no real victim here.

(Some will argue that wives who are cheated on and families that disintegrate because of prostitution are victims, and that’s true in a moral sense, if not a legal one. But by that standard, we should also outlaw adultery, since it has the same effects.)

7.) Philosophical consistency. If you say you’re "pro-choice," you have to mean more than just "in favor of abortion rights." You have to mean that you believe a woman (or a man, for that matter) should be able to do with her body what she wishes. If that means being a homemaker and stay-at-home mom, fine. If that means posing for Playboy, fine. So long as the choice is free and not coerced, then being pro-choice means respecting the choices that women make. Goodman said as much when he noted that "I believe a woman has a right to choose."

So, what to make then of New York Times columnist Bob Herbert’s column slamming Goodman and Las Vegas for mistreating women? (Our hearty thanks to the Las Vegas Gleaner for posting the text which is ordinarily available only to rich Times subscribers.)

"There is probably no city in America where women are treated worse than Las Vegas," Herbert begins. "The tone of systematic, institutionalized degradation is set by the mayor, Oscar Goodman, who told me in an interview that the city would reap ‘tremendous’ benefits if a series of ‘magnificent brothels’ could be established to cater to johns from across the country and around the world."

Now, we’ve had our differences with Goodman, but not on this issue. Here, we must ask: What degradation? Unless, of course, you believe that all prostitution is de facto degrading to women. Some people believe that. (We suspect that a bill to legalize the practice in Nevada would not get the votes of several prominent female, pro-choice, pro-women lawmakers for that very reason.)

The other side of the coin may just as easily be argued: Prostitution, along with stripping, posing for Playboy or other work in the sex trade, is empowering to women, so long as the choice is truly theirs. It’s when the choice is not entirely voluntary that demoralization sets in. As Goodman said at his news conference: "If a woman is forced into it, psychologically or otherwise, it would be degrading." But if not? Then why not?

It’s true that Las Vegas tends to objectify women, turning them into sex objects. It’s true that many men come here for cheap, meaningless sex with anonymous strangers, knowing (or hoping) that what happens here stays here. But that won’t change with the legalization of prostitution, and it won’t change if prostitution remains illegal. And we think it’s simply wrong to accuse Goodman of misogyny just because he thinks it might be better if prostitution were legal.

Part of the debate should have to do with the city’s image, but we’d be remiss if we didn’t note that the city’s advertising campaigns virtually promise sex to every visitor, male or female. Otherwise, why would anybody care if what happened here went elsewhere? Would some visitors not come (or be banned by their wives or girlfriends from coming) if prostitution were legal? Perhaps. But a person inclined to cheat will find a partner and a place to cheat, whether prostitution is legal or not. Conversely, a faithful person wouldn’t cheat even if lodged in a legal brothel.

Now, we must say we don’t agree with the mayor’s rhetorical excesses in the wake of Herbert’s column, such as threatening (in a sidebar in today’s Review-Journal) to break Herbert’s head with a baseball bat. NRS 170.060, in fact, provides for a complaint and warrant of arrest to issue against "…any person who has threated to commit an offense against the person or property of another." While Goodman may argue, as outlined in NRS 170.080 that there is "no just reason to fear the commission of the offense," it’s still not a good idea to go around threatening people, especially if by "people" you mean, "New York Times op-ed columnists with millions of readers."

In explanation, Goodman could only offer "If I really meant it, I wouldn’t have said it," and added, "baseball bats aren’t used on people’s heads, let’s put it that way." We suppose that might be an attempt at an apology, but we can’t be sure.

Anyway, Goodman has (had?) nothing to apologize for with respect to his views on prostitution. It may seem wrong to Herbert, and to anti-prostitution researcher Melissa Farley, who has a new book examining the issue (in a bad way) in Las Vegas, whom Herbert referred to in his piece. But that doesn’t mean it is bad. It just means there’s another side to the discussion that Goodman says should happen. To that end, we’ve ordered Farley’s book, and will examine that as well as talk to local researchers and advocates for their views. We’ll report back what we find.

Because if nothing else, Goodman’s right about one thing: This is worth discussing seriously. Anybody else have a view to share?