A reader writes:
The Daughter Test rings awfully sexist to me. All I see is a man basing his opinion on how far the government should go about policing behavior on how much individual freedom he thinks his daughter ought to have. That seems like a veiled way of saying government is for controlling certain people "for their own good." And those certain people have been judged as lacking the ability of self-governance. It's rationalizing oppression, since presumably he loves his daughter and thus it is only out of love. But why not The Son Test? Because the son, like the father, possess the ability of self-governance.
Another writes:
Your readers make some good points, but how about the fact that Levitt calls it the "daughter" test (as opposed to the "son" or "child" test) in the first place? Sure, as Chris Rock points out, all dads want to keep their daughter off the pole (or, in Douthat's parlance, from becoming a "streetwalker".) But do you suppose Levitt, or most voters, would have a similar reaction if their little Steven or Ross Jr one day became a John and entered into the other side of the streetwalker's contract? Would they want law enforcement involved then?
To flip the script, it's date rape when your son plies a girl with booze until she's too drunk to say no, but would we call it that if it was our daughter doing that to a man? We might still recognize it as wrong, but would it evoke the same level of consternation (i.e. would we want it to be illegal)? Maybe, maybe not. Gender-based standards are inherently amorphous.
And as others, including Ross, have acknowledged, their parenting standards differ from mine. What you deem acceptable for your daughter I may not, and visa versa. Why should you be able to impose your parenting standards on me? Of course, the answer is that you are not. The Supreme Court has even recognized the right to have and raise children the way we want as a fundamental right, sacrosanct and subject to strict scrutiny (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205). So if we don't allow the government to tell us how to raise our children, why should we subject ourselves to a rule of law that is essentially a referendum on how other people would have us raise our children? Simple, we shouldn't.
Another:
How about this for a better "Daughter Test": An activity should be illegal if you do not want your daughter participating in the activity AND you feel comfortable calling the police if you find out she is participating in that activity. Frankly, the original is the product of a laziness and sloppiness of thought which borders on offensive.
Another:
I know this is not what the author of the article means, but this story about a 40-year-old female surgeon in Saudi Arabia not being able to marry is probably the end result of the "The Daughter Test" being taken to the extreme. My problem with the original author's well-meaning paternalism is that it has often been the excuse for an inexcusable smothering of liberty in this country, and still is the excuse in places like Saudi Arabia. I don't consider myself a libertarian by any means, but you do see their point in that even the most human instinct to "preserve and protect" can end up making a mess of things when backed by force of law. This will always be true as long as there are people who are willing to act in bad faith and abuse the system.
Another is on the same page:
Levitt's daughter test sounds like an excellent argument for Sharia law, and it reminds me of a discussion our Intelligence Officer (himself a Muslim) gave us back in my army days. After dispelling the obvious canard that Muslims simply hate freedom, he acknowledged that the Muslim world's priorities as to freedom are weighed differently than the U.S.'s. Whereas the U.S. generally values individual freedom more highly over than the ability to impose morality (particularly on one's family), the Muslim world generally prizes the ability to impose that morality above individual freedom.
So the U.S. ends up with marti gras and Girls Gone Wild because of an attitude of, "I don't approve of my daughter doing that, but it's a free country." Meanwhile strict Muslim communities may impose the hajib due to an attitude of, "I'd like the freedom to dress how I would like, but I'll sacrifice that freedom to restrict my daughter from being able to make a choice I disapprove of."
And lastly, a somewhat dissenting reader:
I think what many of my fellow readers are missing is the relationship between legalization and encouragement. While I personally am for legalizing marijuana, and at least some form of decriminalization of prostitution, I worry about what will result. Although legalization is not itself encouragement of a practice, there is a danger that it will be perceived that way, and perception is always more important than reality. When would we see the first prostitute-themed reality show on MTV effectively glamorizing and encouraging the lifestyle for impressionable young women?
Also, just because there are prostitutes in every city does not mean that criminalization of prostitution is ineffective. For all we know (and I think we can assume this), if it were not criminalized, there would be MORE prostitutes in every city. Presence alone is not determinative of success – quantity of presence matters too.
Similarly with marijuana, just because one can order it easily online or via the phone in almost any city across the country does not mean that the drug war is necessarily a complete failure (the drug war is a failure because of incarceration-practices). For every person who ignores its illegality, there are countless others who stick to drinking alcohol because they don't want to break the law, or are generally nervous about doing so.
The Dish 