Legalized prostitution

[iceberg]

What are your thoughts and feelings on prostitution? Should it be legal? If so should it be regulated? Taxed? Morally wrong?

[Provoker]

What are your thoughts and feelings on prostitution? Should it be legal? If so should it be regulated? Taxed? Morally wrong?

I'm against it. Someone will probably post in support of it by saying that persons should have full sovereignty over their bodies including the right to engage in sexual activities for profit. To this end, I think that at some point individual liberties become harmful to the collective and that this represents a step backwards for humanity rather than forward. Indeed, we have to draw the line somewhere: if weed is legalized then the coke-sniffers will be pushing harder for legalization; if coke is legalized then heroin-shooters will think their interests should be met. In the case of prostitutes, most are not there by choice and many are completely enslaved and indebted to their pimps. If anything, it would be nice to see the government allocating money toward programmes that help prostitutes get out of their plight rather than regulations that institutionalize it. I bet if I started a thread called "Legislative Proposals for Curbing Prostitution" it wouldn't get nearly the same attention that a timely thread like this gets because people would rather eek out a pretext to crystallize the status quo than fight for progress in the right direction.

[Stargazer]

Below are my thoughts on the subject that I posted in another thread.

It is absolutely a business.
I live in Nevada where prostitution IS legal. Each house is a well-run business. It has all of the traditional aspects of business and must be managed as such. I agree much with the "philosophy" of the late George Carlin: "Why is it illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away?"

The choice is an individual choice and I personally am all for limiting the intrusion of government or religion into the personal life. The sale of sex is no different than the sale of services provided by a maid (or any other service or work). It is simply expendature of energy. You are paying for sweat, for a lack of better words. The only differences are what is accomplished by such an expendature of energy, how the parties benefit and whether or not it is enjoyed sexually. The moment the expendature of Calories becomes sexual, the religious doctrines of the past centuries suddenly cloud the issue.

Our entire heartburn over the issue is that it is morally questionable. And why is it morally questionable? Because the church and government says that it is. Yet, by definition, morality is what is considered decent by the majority of a population. And populations tend to follow and PUBLICLY proclaim that they follow the opinions of religeous and government figureheads. If they do not, they risk being ostrasized. Yet, in a related subject, pornography is a booming industry that grows larger every year and caters to almost every desire a person could imagine. This would tend to suggest that the population does not have as big an issue with it as is generally made to be believed.

It is rather unfortunate that prostitution is illegal and immoral in most places. The trafficing of sexual slaves, spread of infectious sexually transmitted diseases, and the stigma induced for participating in a natural human desire and nessecity, would be significantly reduced, which most certainly would be beneficial to the population.

While prostitution is usually considered an occupation for women, it must be said that men should also be allowed into the occupation. First off, it's a matter of equality. It is only by continuing out-dated male domintated thinking that it is generally an occupation to serve men. In addition, our society is evolving to include non-traditional lifestyles and this is not a bad thing, only a natural thing. Acts of homosexualism can be found throughout nature, so it is not confined only to humans. Looking back in history, these very relationships were widely accepted. In the age of the Roman Empire sexual relations with children was even accepted and practiced--not just by the emporer Caligula as most people are familiar, but by the population as well.

If a person of free will chooses to engage in such activities for profit, then so be it. Who are we to say that they should not? It does not violate any fundamental law of nature. And if someone whishes to pay for such services, then why not? The same criterion applies. Rather long winded, but it is my opinion.

[Caesar]

Against.

[Jughead]

I'm against it. Someone will probably post in support of it by saying that persons should have full sovereignty over their bodies including the right to engage in sexual activities for profit. To this end, I think that at some point individual liberties become harmful to the collective and that this represents a step backwards for humanity rather than forward. Indeed, we have to draw the line somewhere: if weed is legalized then the coke-sniffers will be pushing harder for legalization; if coke is legalized then heroin-shooters will think their interests should be met. In the case of prostitutes, most are not there by choice and many are completely enslaved and indebted to their pimps. If anything, it would be nice to see the government allocating money toward programmes that help prostitutes get out of their plight rather than regulations that institutionalize it. I bet if I started a thread called "Legislative Proposals for Curbing Prostitution" it wouldn't get nearly the same attention that a timely thread like this gets because people would rather eek out a pretext to crystallize the status quo than fight for progress in the right direction.

I think everything should be legal as long as it doesn't endanger other people. I say legalise prostitution (and all drugs, then regulate their use, but we're not talking about that.) I don't see how it would be a "step backward for humanity" and I think you're making a rather large generalisation by claiming that most aren't there by choice. Even if it were true, legalising prostitution would make those enslaved into it have more power over their condition - it's harder to enslave people into legal things.

[Provoker]

I think you're making a rather large generalisation by claiming that most aren't there by choice.

When you say "you're making a.." please note that this is not "my" opinion per se. No, this is the opinion of the majority of prostitutes who themselves argue that they are trapped in their plight and had no choice. Perhaps in the initial stages it was a choice for some to take drugs from a pimp in the first place, but once they become indebted to their pimps and addicted to cocaine they are trapped and some die before they get out of it.


I think everything should be legal as long as it doesn't endanger other people. I say legalise prostitution (and all drugs, then regulate their use, but we're not talking about that.

Please note that in the real world both prostitution and drugs have in many instances endangered people. I could check off a series of correlations but trust that drugs and crime correlate and prostitution and spread of disease correlate, etc.

Even if it were true, legalising prostitution would make those enslaved into it have more power over their condition - it's harder to enslave people into legal things.

Really? I guess this logic explains why the brutal slavery in America was was constitutionally legal for such a long time. :rolleyes:

[Beery Swine]

What are your thoughts and feelings on prostitution?
It's good for what ails ya.
Should it be legal?
F'sho.
If so should it be regulated?
If you mean should prostitutes get regularly tested for various diseases, along with those hiring prostitutes presenting clean bills of health as well, then yeah. I think there should also be severe penalties for anyone who lies about it/forges medical records.
Taxed?
Sure, why not?
Morally wrong?
Depends on your morals, but intrinsically immoral? No.

[Jgib5328]

No real reason why it should be legal. Just make some brothels. It would be much more efficient, safer, and people would get more enjoyment about it. What's wrong with selling sex? Nothing, people have a moral problem with it. If you made it into a business, it'd limit the STDs, allow prostitutes to have more freedom and possibly health insurance, and it'd just be all around cleaner. I see no good reason for it to be illegal, although I think it is petty to pay for sex.

[Beery Swine]

...if weed is legalized then the coke-sniffers will be pushing harder for legalization...

A bit off-topic, but when was the last time you heard a story of police having to chase down a suspect who was hopped up on marijuana? Or going into a marijuana-fueled rage? Or being in any way violent while on marijuana (and no other intoxicant). Or dying of a marijuana overdose? Or killing a family in a head-on car collision while high on marijuana?

I'll only say two more words on the subject: Carl Sagan.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I think it's a great idea. If the government got involved it would change the dynamics of the business and very probably end up making it safe and lucrative for the prostitutes. Those that actually wanted to stay in the business. Think of the revenue for the goverment. Just like the legalization and regulation of alcohol......there are still problems, but they are generally lessened.

[L30]

An intelligent, freedom loving person is always against law-imposed morality... until he has met enough fools to convince him that it is needed, to protect people from their own idiocy.

[Jughead]

When you say "you're making a.." please note that this is not "my" opinion per se. No, this is the opinion of the majority of prostitutes who themselves argue that they are trapped in their plight and had no choice. Perhaps in the initial stages it was a choice for some to take drugs from a pimp in the first place, but once they become indebted to their pimps and addicted to cocaine they are trapped and some die before they get out of it.

I'm not trying to sound confrontational, but where are you getting this from? How do you know it's a majority of the prostitutes? Here's a manifesto (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) from a society of Indian prostitutes (prostitution is illegal in India, as well) who explain what it is like to be in the trade. They even address the issue of some people being tricked into the profession (which I do not support at all.)

Please note that in the real world both prostitution and rugs have in many instances endangered people. I could check off a series of correlations but trust that drugs and crime correlate and prostitution and spread of disease correlate, etc.

Prostitution is indeed related to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, but this is mainly in developing countries, and is because of a lack of education. According to Wikipedia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._situation), "In Australia, where sex-work is largely legal, and registration of sex-work is not practiced, education campaigns have been extremely successful and the non-intravenous drug user (non-IDU) sex workers are among the lower HIV-risk communities in the nation. In part, this is probably due both to the legality of sex-work, and to the heavy general emphasis on education in regard to Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs). Safer sex is heavily promoted as the major means of STI reduction in Australia, and sex education generally is at a high level. Sex-worker organisations regularly visit brothels and home workers, providing free condoms and lubricant, health information, and other forms of support."

Really? I guess this logic explains why the brutal slavery in America was was constitutionally legal for such a long time. :rolleyes:

You misunderstood my point. Prostitutes "enslaved" into their profession are threatened into it, and the threat is compounded by the illegality of it. If prostitution was legalised, the pimps would not have such a hold over the prostitutes.

I think it's a great idea. If the government got involved it would change the dynamics of the business and very probably end up making it safe and lucrative for the prostitutes. Those that actually wanted to stay in the business. Think of the revenue for the goverment. Just like the legalization and regulation of alcohol......there are still problems, but they are generally lessened.

My point exactly.

[Reon]

I don't particularly like the idea of a woman selling her body, but if she wants to she shouldn't have to do it illegally. If you made prostitution legal or make brothels, it will help keep STDs in check and such.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I don't particularly like the idea of a woman selling her body, but if she wants to she shouldn't have to do it illegally. If you made prostitution legal or make brothels, it will help keep STDs in check and such.
Who said it was exclusive to women?

[pinkroger]

I'm for it, because I really don't care what people do with themselves. In fact, if I want a whore, I'd like to not have to worry about the police after I'm done.

[SiMey]

I'll go to one of my favourite phrases: Prohibition is the problem; the solution is control and regulation.

A policy for the control of prostitution should be effective at reducing harm and maximising wellbeing. Prohibition maximises harm.

Prohibition is likely to exacerbate problems associated with prostitution and create barriers to addressing underlying reasons why people enter such a profession, or are forced to.

I don't have any moral judgment on such behaviour at all.

[ScottH]

For.

For all the reasons stated above.

It seems the only reason it is outlawed is moralistic. When it was believed that few had sex freely and outside marriage, it seemed morally right to outlaw prostitution (to somebody).

Now that the "sexual liberation movement" has come and gone, and large segments of the populace embrace recreational sex, it seems a good time to redress the idea of prostitution.

Keeping it illegal, in my opinion, only embowers pimps, increases abuse, robs a "working girl" of seeing herself as a business person and puts people in jail (johns and prostitutes) where others could instead be.

[Reon]

Who said it was exclusive to women?

Sorry, I forgot to edit my post. Its supposed to be Wo/man and S/he respectively

[void]

An intelligent, freedom loving person is always against law-imposed morality... until he has met enough fools to convince him that it is needed, to protect people from their own idiocy.

Why is it necessary to protect idiots from their own idiocy? I say, let Darwin have a field day with them. All the better for society.

Notice also that once an intelligent, freedom loving person favors law-imposed morality, they sacrifice their own freedom for the benefit of knuckle-dragging simians who revel in ignorance.

[Homini Lupus]

I think that the problem is that their work is underrated. It could be a job like any other if people didn't threw in morals. I'm pro-legalisation since it would help prostitutes to get a decent health care against sexual transmitted diseases and in defending their rights. Brothels would make moralists happier (even if they would go on endlessly complaining) since they would no more have them around in the street and you could walk around without being litteraly hooked. The real problem is not prostitution but forced slave-labour like prostitution.

[SirJac]

Consider the dangers that exist because it is illegal, and the fact that as long as people are willing to pay for sex there will be prositiutes. If it is impossible to do away with them completely, then the only socially responsible answer is to work towards harm reduction. Legalization would be the first step of harm reduction since it is impossible to regulate a black market. But stopping there would also be foolish. What needs to be created is an entire infrastucture of regulators and health workers to support and oversee the industry. It's not just about protecting the johns, but also the prostitutes themselves. Licencing prostitutes to screen for STD's and educating them prior to employment. Requiring borthels to be well maintained, enforcing use of condoms, and having additional staff available to protect workers from potentially violent customers.

Given the choice between going to a maintained brothel with licenced prostitutes who are regularly tested for STD's or picking one up from a street corner, I would think that the vast majority of johns would go with the safer option. By diverting the demand to a controlled and regulated industry, the black market sex trade won't be nearly as lucrative as it is currently. Less risk for johns, safer work environment for prositiutes, the only people who lose are the pimps.

[True Rune]

Sugar coated fornication ftl. What should be the age limit for a prospective "businesswoman"? How many women take pride in this field? I'd keep it illegal for moral reasons. But I guess if we can't do that, I don't care what they do, but expect opposition. Nobody wants to pay to support something like that.

[SirJac]

Sugar coated fornication ftl. What should be the age limit for a prospective "businesswoman"? How many women take pride in this field? I'd keep it illegal for moral reasons. But I guess if we can't do that, I don't care what they do, but expect opposition. Nobody wants to pay to support something like that.

People already pay for it. Criminalization is not free. Enforcement is paid for in tax dollars. Not to mention the non-tax costs such as increased crime and lower property values. Ignoring the existing costs when looking at the costs of legalization is a big mistake.

Also you need to look at the potential gains that could be made through taxation, which could end up paying for itself and actually cost less then keeping it illegal.

[blueback]

I think it should be legalized.

If it was legal it wouldn't do anything for the prostitutes directly, but it would do a lot for the pimps.

Prostitution is ALWAYS a money making business. That is why it is called the oldest profession and why it exists everywhere. If it was legal the business owners would be able to run their business legally. The prostitutes would be employees, the johns would be customers, etc. That would mean that everyone involved in the business would be free of the requirement that they deal with people who work outside the law.

When you tell a business owner that they cannot do business legally they will have to turn to criminals. If they want capital, they will have to borrow it from loan sharks or get investment from mobsters. If they want office space they will have to rent it from criminals or steal it. If they want employees they will have to hire those who, for one reason or another, won't talk to the cops.

The only negative result I can think of if prostitution is legalized is that a lot of people will be morally outraged. I can live with that.

[SiMey]

While in my state prostitution has been illegal, the police have worked under a containment policy. I used to live in a mining town where one street, in a business area, was essentially a street of brothels. Bus tours would take you down the street to look at the girls in the doorways and the local madam was a visible identity who would appear at times in the paper.

I mean it was obvious what the girls were there for, there could be no way the police were unaware of the activities. I think they were walking distance from the cop shop, like one street over?

Compare this to the city where, again, people know which street, in a residential area, the street workers are on. I had to go to this street once at night (I think I was searching for a baby in a bin or something) and pulled over and had women leaping out of bushes running towards the car offering sexual services. I was worried the cops would arrest me as a kerb crawler and it was difficult to explain to the women that I was not there looking for sex. They didn't believe me. How crap would it be to live on that street.

Our government is working towards regulation in the face of a fair level of opposition from some sectors, but with support from others. In general it seems the cops want certainty, rather than to have a situation where they ignore illegal behaviour and perhaps cops might be paid to turn a blind eye on the basis of "containment" .

[kasbekz]

i support a persons right to be a prostitute. yes, i think it's morally wrong, because i think humans should be monogamous, but if someone is willing, i don't think they should be stopped. perhaps as far as a regulation, all prostitutes caught working should be sterilized. yes. that is a good idea.

[Provoker]

For legalized prostitution!!!(until it's your own daughter telling you she wants to be a professional prostitute). Then you realize that this law is there for a reason. Thanks.

Also, if this were to be legalized I'd love to see a big recruitment campaigne launched by the government to gain employees and maybe lure a few of your daughters into it - after all it would be a legal profession. They'd probably go into the poorest regions to prey on the weak just like they do for the military. Soldiers and prostitutes would have something in common both working for a pimp (government) that uses them as means to an end. Again, as long as it's not your daughter right?

[Brutananadilewski]

For legalized prostitution!!!(until it's your own daughter telling you she wants to be a professional prostitute). Then you realize that this law is there for a reason. Thanks.

Also, if this were to be legalized I'd love to see a big recruitment campaigne launched by the government to gain employees and maybe lure a few of your daughters into it - after all it would be a legal profession. They'd probably go into the poorest regions to prey on the weak just like they do for the military. Soldiers and prostitutes would have something in common both working for a pimp (government) that uses them as means to an end. Again, as long as it's not your daughter right?.

I could care less of what my daughter did so long as she was happy and safe. I'm in no place to think anything of what she does provided she's old enough to decide for herself what it is that she wants, and what it is that makes her happy. She'll always be loved unconditionally. There's absolutely nothing wrong with prostituion in ther first place.

[Provoker]

I could care less of what my daughter did so long as she was happy and safe. I'm in no place to think anything of what she does provided she's old enough to decide for herself what it is that she wants, and what it is that makes her happy. She'll always be loved unconditionally. There's absolutely nothing wrong with prostituion in ther first place.

And how old are you?

Anyways, by your logic your daughter can shoot someone "so long as she's happy and safe...she'll always be loved unconditionally". You really provide no argument in support of your assertions. Do you just want to make pot-shots or do you want to back your assertions up with reasons?

Brutananadilewski, you do realize that this is the type of dogmatic thinking that enables governments to mobilize entire nations to support their retarded war campaignes (ex, Nazi Germany, US invasion of Iraq, etc).

[SirJac]

What makes it any different then if your daughter wanted to be a porn star? It's not illegal but it's still effectively the same, money for sex. The only difference is the money isn't coming from the person your fucking. Should the government make porn illegal too because people don't want their daughters to be porn stars but don't care enough to be a good parent and raise them to make better choices for themselves?

[fonmaneal]

And how old are you?

Anyways, by your logic your daughter can shoot someone "so long as she's happy and safe...she'll always be loved unconditionally". You really provide no argument in support of your assertions. Do you just want to make pot-shots or do you want to back your assertions up with reasons?

Brutananadilewski, you do realize that this is the type of dogmatic thinking that enables governments to mobilize entire nations to support their retarded war campaignes (ex, Nazi Germany, US invasion of Iraq, etc).

What are you saying?

How do you think one has to do with the other?
It is no more than a service, are techs included in your ideas as well?
Is your doctor a whore? Your doctor sell you very, personal service.
What of your clergy? They sell you GOD.
What of your wife? Is not matirmony legalized whoring?(I will give you this ring, if you will give me some.)
Is it that wives dont want freelancers in there bussness?

[blueback]

People should be free to make deals to mutual advantage. As long as all the stakeholders in a deal are happy with the deal what reason is there to interfere with it?

Before you go there, I'll expand on this idea. I am not saying that people who conspire to rob a bank should be left alone. In that case the stakeholders in the deal are also the bank itself and the customers of the bank present at the time of the robbery. Because the bank and its customers do not agree with the terms of the deal it does not fit into the mold I outlined above.

In terms of the discussion, the only people involved in the prostitution deal are the john and the prostitute. The pimp isn't a stakeholder because he has his own deal going on between himself and the prostitute. Neither is the john's wife a stakeholder because she has her own deal between herself and her husband. Don't confuse the deals.

I admit that this would seem to lead to a problem. It would appear that this philosophy ignores the fact that people exist in a network of deals and that one deal will obviously affect other deals. However, that is just on the surface. The simple fact is that people accept risk in all areas of their lives, including the deals they make. That a person might misrepresent themselves or break the terms of their deal at some point in the future is not a reason to interfere with the deal. It is a reason to enforce the idea that people should be honest and keep their promises. It is the "soverign's" job to enforce the standards, like not breaking deals freely entered into, not to tell people what deals to make or not make. As long as all the stakeholders agree to the deal the soverign should stay out of it.

[ScottH]

People should be free to make deals to mutual advantage. ...

This is more than a "should," it's a right, called the "right to contract."

The trick is, some don't like the idea of others selling sex. I can see a collection of reasons (surely a subset of the total sum):

1) They are morally "right", so they ignore the fact that humans are NOT monogamous (shown scientifically) and pretend that non-manogamy is un-natural

2) They are afraid of their partners (or perhaps themselves?) enjoying another through this mechanism

3) They have bought into one of the media's claims that prostitutes (or their customers) are somehow victimized by the act

In fact, if you remove the moralistic judgment, what remains makes prostitution as natural as sharing a good conversation or a hug.

That it remains illegal, in light of undeniable evidence that the illegality victimizes people, is little more (IMO) than the "right" declaring that they would rather see those they disagree with harmed and victimized than concede their position.

One case risk life and limb in fulfilling a contract, legally. One can get naked, shove things inside themselves on camera and even drink disgusting fluids, legally. But if the act provides immediate joy to another AND involved genitalia of any sort, it's illegal.

How narrow.

[SirJac]

And furthermore, if anything governments and activists should be pushing harder to adopt stricter legislation and programmes to help prostitutes get out of their plight rather than entrench it.

We have the same goal I believe, I just don't think that a harder stance against prostitution with more social programmes will have much of an effect since it doesn't address the root problem. Most prostitutes are on the streets not because the money is good, but because they are forced there by organised crime. Given the opportunity, most would jump at the chance to do something else for a living but the risk of going against their pimps and the gangs they are connected to far outweighs the criminal risks associated with engaging in prostitution. We throw them in jail, organised crime will kill them. Even if we do manage to save some of them and get them off the streets, it only means that their pimp will force a different girl into prositution to take her corner. There is no net gain, by saving one your just putting someone else in her place. They'll ship them over from asia or kidnap them off the streets if that is what it takes.

A legalized, government regulated system has to be better then the organised crime system we have now. At the very least prostitutes wouldn't have to be afraid of being butchered and buried on a pig farm.

[blueback]

A legalized, government regulated system has to be better then the organised crime system we have now. At the very least prostitutes wouldn't have to be afraid of being butchered and buried on a pig farm.
I think you're on the right track, but I don't think the prostitutes have anything to do with it. You just said yourself that they are powerless.

I think it is the pimps who would, in a sense, benefit from legalizing prostitution. If it was legal they wouldn't have to be involved with organized crime. They could be legitimate business owners. That would, in turn, reduce their incentive to act outside the law

[Brutananadilewski]

And how old are you?

Anyways, by your logic your daughter can shoot someone "so long as she's happy and safe...she'll always be loved unconditionally". You really provide no argument in support of your assertions. Do you just want to make pot-shots or do you want to back your assertions up with reasons?

Brutananadilewski, you do realize that this is the type of dogmatic thinking that enables governments to mobilize entire nations to support their retarded war campaignes (ex, Nazi Germany, US invasion of Iraq, etc).


No, my line of thinking has nothing to do with nations, nazism, etc. I'm being supportive of a person's own personal choices, to whom I have no place to judge. Furthermore, your analogy fails, since shooting someone is causing harm to someone, prostitution isn't causing direct harm to another person. The situations are not analogous.

None of those were pot-shots at anyone, they're the truth. I suppose that I'm open-minded enough to look past the choices a person has made and see them as a human being. I suppose that I'm smart enough to realize that my standards and values have no bearing on anyone else but myself. In case you need me to spell it out, these last 3 sentences were indeed pot-shots.

Furthermore, I don't need to outline any reason of why I'd still love my daughter no matter what. It's not an assertion; it's a fact.

Don't you dare to begin to project your personal issues and insecurities on me.

[SirJac]

I think you're on the right track, but I don't think the prostitutes have anything to do with it. You just said yourself that they are powerless.

I think it is the pimps who would, in a sense, benefit from legalizing prostitution. If it was legal they wouldn't have to be involved with organized crime. They could be legitimate business owners. That would, in turn, reduce their incentive to act outside the law

I think your right, but even if you don't get rid of the pimps, cutting the ties to organised crime would still be benifitial to the prostitutes. Their working conditions would significantly improve and their ability to get out of prostitution would be much easier then it is currently.

[Provoker]

I suppose that I'm open-minded enough to look past the choices a person has made and see them as a human being.

Fair enough.

Furthermore, your analogy fails, since shooting someone is causing harm to someone, prostitution isn't causing direct harm to another person.

This is fine but it's a post factum response. Before, you did not differentiate in your general principle. Here, you've added in a 'harm clause' to save your claim. Also, many would make the argument that prostitution may not necessarily be harmful to an individual per se but will be harmful to society as a whole (the collective).


No, my line of thinking has nothing to do with nations, nazism, etc.

Those were really just arbitrary examples - it's supporting someone/something blindly and recklessly that I'm alluding to in this case.


Don't you dare to begin to project your personal issues and insecurities on me.

There's no need for ad homs in this thread. Please stick to the argument at hand rather then personal attacks on me.

[Ytterbium]

Here it's legal to be a prostitute but not to buy sex from one. So it's practically illegal.
I would like to keep that way.

[Supreme Dick]

I agree much with the "philosophy" of the late George Carlin: "Why is it illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away?"


In many countries, there are, in fact, no laws against prostitution per se, but there remain legal prohibitions against soliciting in public.

The sad history of criminalizing behaviour between consenting adults has generally been more about selling newspapers and getting someone elected than anything to do with effectively dealing with a social concern.

The Swedes have recently shifted their focus to policing and prosecuting the buying of sex more than the selling of sex. In many ways it is simply replacing prohibitive laws based on a traditional morality with a laws based on a feminist morality, but I understand it has had the practical impact of dramatically reducing prostitution!

All I would say is, be careful what you wish for in a police state.

P.S. Gotta love George Carlin - what will we do without him?

[Mechanical Messiah]

fuckin' is legal.

sellin' is legal.

sellin' fuckin' oughtta be legal.

[Provoker]

fuckin' is legal.

sellin' is legal.

sellin' fuckin' oughtta be legal.


With all do respect you've made a grave error in logic. Just because independent parts can be legitimate does not guarantee that, when put together, the whole will be legitimate. As Carson and Suzuki both note, the outcome of pesticide experiements conducted in labs is not necessarily the same outcome as out in the real world - because there are emergent properties. As one of Euclids postulates eloquently states, "a whole is greater than its parts". In the context of your argument, two things (while legitimate on its own) does not guarantee that mixing them will result in legitimacy. There me be negative or illegitimate properties that emerge when fusing these things together.

[blueback]

spoil sport

[NephilimAzrael]

Once regulations regarding pay, charges and STD screening are in place the oldest of professions should be permitted. If it afflicts the morality of the community, consider a localized red-light district. Although less of the red-lights, I was in Amsterdam's red-light and it was rather offensive to my corneas, neons - ouch.

[Mechanical Messiah]

With all do respect you've made a grave error in logic. Just because independent parts can be legitimate does not guarantee that, when put together, the whole will be legitimate. As Carson and Suzuki both note, the outcome of pesticide experiements conducted in labs is not necessarily the same outcome as out in the real world - because there are emergent properties. As one of Euclids postulates eloquently states, "a whole is greater than its parts". In the context of your argument, two things (while legitimate on its own) does not guarantee that mixing them will result in legitimacy. There me be negative or illegitimate properties that emerge when fusing these things together.

That's a damn poor analogy.

"Illegitimate properties"... :laugh:

Prostitution is illegal only because unimaginative people beleive that control via force (gov't) is the only solution to a given problem. What they don't realize is that the cure is much worse than the disease.

Prostitution is dangerous, harmful, exploitative, and nasty. Just like the illegal drug trade. Just like the illegal alcohol trade during prohibition. And for the same reasons.

[Tocsin]

Hell, if it's good enough for the U.S. Congress, it should be good enough for the rest of us.

[Mechanical Messiah]

For the purpose of adding depth and perspective to this discussion, here's a lineup of all the ho's arrested here in Wichita, KS during the past 30 days.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Provoker]

That's a damn poor analogy.

Perhaps it was not the best analogy but it was sufficient to cripple your argument. Your argument rests on the assumption that the outcome of two things independently will produce the same positive results when put together. Yet time and time again scientists have proved that there are new properties that emerge from the collective. So you're dead wrong on that one.


What they don't realize is that the cure is much worse than the disease.

Come on, you can conjure up some jargon better than that, no?

[Claptonian]

This is more than a "should," it's a right, called the "right to contract."

Or, in this case, the "right to contract an STD." *ba-dum, chh*

Seriously, though, good post. I agree 100%.

[MindOverMatter]

Make it legal

My reasons:

1. Everyone has the right to do what they wish to their own body
2. It's easier to regulate and make safer a legal business than an illegal one
3. Prohibition doesn't work
4. It makes more jobs which means more money

The only downside would be some people crying that it's morally wrong.

[SpoonersGhost]

To further a few points already made, it's not just a right to self-contract, but it's a right to individual sovereignty. Telling two adults what they may freely do among themselves while not initiating force or fraud against another is morally wrong. This applies to the War on Sanity (usually referred to as "the War on Drugs"), as well.

My main divergence from the posters who otherwise agree with me is the idea that the answer is strict government control and regulation. I can't think of anything more harmful to free enterprise and natural rights. The problems largely associated with prostitution originate in its prohibition. If a prostitute can not openly ply her trade, then she has no recourse against a pimp or john who abuses her without risking being arrested herself. Regardless of whether it's a john or a pimp/madam who rapes or otherwise assaults the prostitute, she will seek protection from her pimp or other (often male) "protector" in lieu of civil or criminal action, which tends to perpetuate this whole nasty abusive cycle. If I can't go to the police, then where do I go?

"Legalization" (which is personally disgusting, because it implies a state has the authority to actually ban such activity in the first place) is the only solution that will solve for the violence associated with the trade. My problem with Nevada's half-assed system is that prostitutes are not allowed to work for themselves and therefor must be employed at a state sanctioned brothel. There's a fallacy at play here that the state is somehow the only force that can guarantee the cleanliness and health of the women working therein, and indeed they (i.e., the taxpayers of Nevada) are so long as the prostitutes aren't able to ply their trade freely. Don't like the manager of your brothel? Want to be a solo agent? Want to start an LLP or other partnership of your own? Tough shit. You have to hook illegally and assume all the risks of that activity, or pay off the state to do something you have every right to do. It's a regulatory ouroboros. It's patently ridiculous, immoral and reeks of patriarchal domination.

Getting the state as far away from the contracts of consenting adults is the best solution. The state thugs will still get their money (we have a little thing called a 1040-C/SE for sole proprietorships and if employed "normally", as in a brothel, there's a 1040 just for that, too) and the sex workers will have their autonomy and humanity won't suffer in general from the harms inflicted by prohibition.

Finally, the notion that prostitutes are forced into their trade is very hard to prove, and an addiction to drugs (artificially inflated in scarcity, and therefor price and consequently impurity and danger by, wait for it, PROHIBITION), though being a factor, is merely a symptom of a different problem in many people's lives. I find the notion that even the majority of prostitutes are forced into their work, seemingly out of control of their own lives, disturbingly infantalizing towards women and another symptom of a prudish society that normatizes Christian sexual mores. And if these prohibitions were ended, and sex workers could finally seek redress for abuse without fear of state retaliation, who's to say there would necessarily be more prostitutes?
It never ceases to amaze me how a question of fundamental natural rights can become so skewed by people's desire to control that which they do not approve of, but which causes them no real harm.

[Claptonian]

Brilliant post and equally brilliant username, SpoonersGhost.

[Mechanical Messiah]

Perhaps it was not the best analogy but it was sufficient to cripple your argument. Your argument rests on the assumption that the outcome of two things independently will produce the same positive results when put together. Yet time and time again scientists have proved that there are new properties that emerge from the collective. So you're dead wrong on that one.

You've got some pretty low standards if you reckon that a poorly concieved analogy is all it takes to "cripple" an arguement.

Sellin' is legal when it's voluntary and there's no victim.

Fuckin' is legal when it's voluntary and there's no victim.

Sellin' fuckin' is voluntary and there's no victim.

We've all heard the arguements that whores are often forced into the trade, raped, and otherwise abused.. These are crimes in and of themselves and can be dealt with on their own merits. As spooner pointed out more eloquently than I will... whores have little recourse when they're already hiding from law enforcement.

Have a look at the link I posted, and note the quality of those whores. I'd bet dollars to donuts that legal whores in Nevada are vastly healthier, happier, safer, and better looking than those crack whores. But that's not what the morality police are concerned with. You're only concerned with control.

[127001]

An intelligent, freedom loving person is always against law-imposed morality... until he has met enough fools to convince him that it is needed, to protect people from their own idiocy.

This sentence sums up quite nicely why governments exist, for the most part.

[SpoonersGhost]

You've got some pretty low standards if you reckon that a poorly concieved analogy is all it takes to "cripple" an arguement.

Sellin' is legal when it's voluntary and there's no victim.

Fuckin' is legal when it's voluntary and there's no victim.

Sellin' fuckin' is voluntary and there's no victim.

We've all heard the arguements that whores are often forced into the trade, raped, and otherwise abused.. These are crimes in and of themselves and can be dealt with on their own merits. As spooner pointed out more eloquently than I will... whores have little recourse when they're already hiding from law enforcement.

Have a look at the link I posted, and note the quality of those whores. I'd bet dollars to donuts that legal whores in Nevada are vastly healthier, happier, safer, and better looking than those crack whores. But that's not what the morality police are concerned with. You're only concerned with control.

And that control will likely lead to more corruption. Can you imagine a nationwide blackmarket for samizdat health certificates? Technology is the ultimate double edged blade, because it is forever providing us with unlimited expression and freedom of contract but we must accept the consequences, and for people who are very devout, it may be unconscionable to allow these things.

For me and people like us, it is about individual sovereignty. Nothing more, nothing less. "Keep your hands off, mind your own business" benefits us all. KYFHO MYOB, my friend, KYFHO MYOB.

[NephilimAzrael]

I admire, and sympathise with, your views Spooner.
Your methods may even be the evolutionary ideal,
but unless some form of community exists in connection with such ideas,
they are ideals which are isolated and may be frowned/hostility-prone in the world exo-SpoonersGhost.

[SpoonersGhost]

I admire, and sympathise with, your views Spooner.
Your methods may even be the evolutionary ideal,
but unless some form of community exists in connection with such ideas,
they are ideals which are isolated and may be frowned/hostility-prone in the world exo-SpoonersGhost.

I know, I probably fetishize my ideal. It doesn't make it wrong. Pragmatically, you can "legalize" prostitution and continue a destructive, statist, patriarchal cycle. I'm an idealist in that I believe we own ourselves, and no one else really can. That's flawed in so many systems, but I cling to it because it's the only way I can at least hold out hope for humanity. Anyone can disagree and I will not initiate force, but once they do, then all hell should break loose.

Thanks, man.

[zibber]

Once regulations regarding pay, charges and STD screening are in place the oldest of professions should be permitted. If it afflicts the morality of the community, consider a localized red-light district. Although less of the red-lights, I was in Amsterdam's red-light and it was rather offensive to my corneas, neons - ouch.

That's the ideal of "our" red-light district, but I don't know if it's attainable. So often do you hear stories of girls coerced into (otherwise legal) prostitution in Amsterdam by "loverboys", or sometimes even being sold and transported to Eastern Europe. To put it popularly, that place is shady as hell.

My stance is that ideal prostitution (fully consenting women in no way exploited) is unproblematic, but I'm afraid this scenario is ridiculously unlikely. Not that other sorts of workers aren't exploited (you could say most wage slaves are), but the physical, sexual, wholly intrusive nature of prostitution gives it a unique position in my mind. I hate the thought of anyone seeing prostitution as a last resort, or doing it without fully consenting.

[hypervel]

Hard to tax an event done in private. Study trade laws (I haven't) and you might conclude that illegal trade laws center on the ability of the GUV to collect taxes. You can cite tobacco, booze, sex, "drugs" and I'm sure more that are strongly controlled by GUV. It's about power, not morality. Morality is what TPTB use as brain fuc*s to get you on their side.

[NephilimAzrael]

That's the ideal of "our" red-light district, but I don't know if it's attainable. So often do you hear stories of girls coerced into (otherwise legal) prostitution in Amsterdam by "loverboys", or sometimes even being sold and transported to Eastern Europe. To put it popularly, that place is shady as hell.

My stance is that ideal prostitution (fully consenting women in no way exploited) is unproblematic, but I'm afraid this scenario is ridiculously unlikely. Not that other sorts of workers aren't exploited (you could say most wage slaves are), but the physical, sexual, wholly intrusive nature of prostitution gives it a unique position in my mind. I hate the thought of anyone seeing prostitution as a last resort, or doing it without fully consenting.

Too true, yet it seems that the greed attached to all modes of profit can become dangerous when allowed to flourish. I don't mind prostitution, but in most circumstances, I see it as a manipulative scene.

[blueback]

I don't mind prostitution, but in most circumstances, I see it as a manipulative scene.
Been to a car dealership recently? Or a law firm? Or talked to a politician?

The only reason prostitution seems to be especially manipulative is that it involves sex. Magazines with centerfolds of cars displaying their private parts are okay, but magazines with centerfolds of people displaying their private parts are not okay. There is not objective difference between the two, only the difference that we add on subjectively.

[6dbl5321]

I've been to Vegas a lot and have some acquaintances that are escorts. All of them work for houses and only have sex with 5-15 guys a month. They're tested once a week for STD's and once a month for HIV. That's more frequent than the bar sluts we encounter who sleep with 20-50 guys in a year and maybe get tested every 12-18 months.





6dbl5321 added to this post, 2 minutes and 7 seconds later...

That said, I haven't paid for sex.

I bought a rub n' tug once and I was uncomfortable afterward. I understand why people pay for sex, but I guess the mutual choice feeds my ego in a large part to arouse me.

[NephilimAzrael]

Been to a car dealership recently? Or a law firm? Or talked to a politician?


Ironic you mention these, I dislike institutions like these also.

[Mechanical Messiah]

There are lots of things I dislike, but I generally wouldn't choose to outlaw said 'things' unless somebody's rights are being demonstrably violated.

[NephilimAzrael]

If you are relating to my post, i said nothing about making it illegal, I'm pro-legalization.

[ArchonAlarion]

legalized and unregulated

First of all, what right do you have to assert your subjective beliefs upon other humans interacting in a peaceful voluntary way, which has no effect on those uninvolved?

Those who are for prohibition sicken me to the core.

Those who are for regulation are ignorant of the way markets work to regulate spontaneously due to supply and demand.

[zibber]

First of all, what right do you have to assert your subjective beliefs upon other humans interacting in a peaceful voluntary way, which has no effect on those uninvolved?

Those who are for prohibition sicken me to the core.

Those who are for regulation are ignorant of the way markets work to regulate spontaneously due to supply and demand.

Regulation as I understand it would be intended to protect the women (and men, actually), what kind of regulation do you mean?

I'm not sure whether the world of unregulated prostitution would be as peaceful as you picture it, actually. (Nor as voluntary, for that matter.) Some businesses are better off with a little government regulation. I'm tempted to draw a comparison with something like sport fighting (generally "MMA"), which is heavily, heavily regulated. In areas of work where safe, unforced working conditions are paramount, it's important to ensure these. I'd also like to see (government-sponsored, anonymous) contact points for prostitutes, might problems arise with their employer.

[ArchonAlarion]

Regulation as I understand it would be intended to protect the women (and men, actually), what kind of regulation do you mean?

I'm not sure whether the world of unregulated prostitution would be as peaceful as you picture it, actually. (Nor as voluntary, for that matter.) Some businesses are better off with a little government regulation. I'm tempted to draw a comparison with something like sport fighting (generally "MMA"), which is heavily, heavily regulated. In areas of work where safe, unforced working conditions are paramount, it's important to ensure these. I'd also like to see (government-sponsored, anonymous) contact points for prostitutes, might problems arise with their employer.

Yes some businesses are better off with a little bit of regulation.

That way they can control their market, set wages, prices, and force out competition.

[zibber]

Yes some businesses are better off with a little bit of regulation.

That way they can control their market, set wages, prices, and force out competition.

Government regulation facilitates monopolism? I wish I'd meet a libertarian (right?) who'd sit down and reasonably explain his or her views to me, as this looks like a non sequitur to me. In my view unbridled free markets lead to nasty (nonethical) situations, especially in this day and age.

In any event, again, what kind of regulation do you mean? I was clearly talking about health regulations.

[ArchonAlarion]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[zibber]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Awesome. A self righteous kid explaining why [not his view] is wrong in a mocking tone.