[sunitaishot]

	Originally Posted by ummon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sexual activity between teacher and student, employer and employee, and client and worker should all be illegal. This is because they either allow for unfair advantages through sexual favors or they allow exploitation of workers. Now, since a prostitute is a worker and the person who pays the prostitute is a client, sex work falls under the above classification and should be illegal.

How is this the case, when not all prostitutes are exploited?

[Midhiel]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes; you FAIL.

Your logic is astounding. I'm in awe of your superior intellect.

Now, do you actually have an argument or are you going to continue to make assertions without evidence?

[Birdy]

	Originally Posted by ummon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sexual activity between teacher and student, employer and employee, and client and worker should all be illegal. This is because they either allow for unfair advantages through sexual favors or they allow exploitation of workers. Now, since a prostitute is a worker and the person who pays the prostitute is a client, sex work falls under the above classification and should be illegal.

The assumption that you rely on for your views on prostitution is flawed. According to your logic, somebody who works for Facebook cannot have sex with someone who has a Facebook account since it is a client/worker relationship. Secondly, exploitative relationships should be banned, but consensual sex, whether that be between student and teacher or employer and employee, is not exploitative as each party is getting what they desire. It would be exploitative if, for example, the teacher or employer coerced the student or employee into having sex by threatening to hurt their grade or career. But, that situation is hardly consensual. You falsely assume that making such relationships illegal will somehow eliminate bias (under the assumption that sex necessarily leads to bias, which I argue) when one can have bias without engaging in sex with the student or employee. The burden would also rely on you to prove said bias, which is incredibly difficult. In the situation you described, you'd also have to prove that sex between student/teacher or employer/employee is taking place. This is very difficult as well without rushing into other legal issues. You'd have to have one of the parties admitting to sex and supply the proof as well.

[eagleseven]

Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Don't think it won't go this far, because it will... and farther. I don't think people are thinking about where this all leads. Just one example: Your honey regularly hookin' up with "pro's" won't be grounds for divorce, and if you don't want Herpes (or worse) you'd better use protection... always. If you finally get disgusted and leave, you will leave with nothing, because "they didn't do anything wrong".

By that logic, you should also support the prohibition of adultery. Should people serve prison time for cheating on their spouse? Is this what supporting marriage requires?

For that matter, do you think divorce should be banned? That would truly make marriage til death do us part.

---

And while we're on the topic:


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



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


In 2012, no law will stop a dishonest spouse from cheating on you.

[ummon]

	Originally Posted by sunitaishot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How is this the case, when not all prostitutes are exploited?

I said it would allow exploitation and/or unfair advantages, not that all such relationships are exploitation.

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

The assumption that you rely on for your views on prostitution is flawed. According to your logic, somebody who works for Facebook cannot have sex with someone who has a Facebook account since it is a client/worker relationship. Secondly, exploitative relationships should be banned, but consensual sex, whether that be between student and teacher or employer and employee, is not exploitative as each party is getting what they desire. It would be exploitative if, for example, the teacher or employer coerced the student or employee into having sex by threatening to hurt their grade or career. But, that situation is hardly consensual. You falsely assume that making such relationships illegal will somehow eliminate bias (under the assumption that sex necessarily leads to bias, which I argue) when one can have bias without engaging in sex with the student or employee. The burden would also rely on you to prove said bias, which is incredibly difficult. In the situation you described, you'd also have to prove that sex between student/teacher or employer/employee is taking place. This is very difficult as well without rushing into other legal issues. You'd have to have one of the parties admitting to sex and supply the proof as well.

Somebody who has a Facebook account is hardly a direct client of someone who works for Facebook. But a sexual relationship between a student and teacher or employee and employer might not be exploitative, but might result in unfairly high grades or career advancement...

It's precisely because it's so hard to prove said bias that I suggest it should be always banned. It would be like a bureaucrat accepting a bribe, err "gift" and then claiming that he isn't biased.

Yes, proving that sex between the employee and employer, student and teacher, or client and worker occurred is also difficult, but certainly easier than proving an unfair promotion or grade, as it's not a subjective thing.

[Birdy]

	Originally Posted by ummon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Somebody who has a Facebook account is hardly a direct client of someone who works for Facebook.

According to your logic, it is a valid example. A prostitute is a worker and one who seeks their services is a client. An employee of Facebook is a worker and one who uses their services is a client. Both, under your logic, should be banned. If you're looking for a direct relationship only, then, under your logic, I would be forbidden to have sex with the employee of the local grocery store I shop at. A female CEO would be forbidden from having sex with with her employee who is also her husband.

	But a sexual relationship between a student and teacher or employee and employer might not be exploitative, but might result in unfairly high grades or career advancement...

If it is bias you're concerned about, you ought to punish the bias, if evidence can be found for it. Bias can happen regardless of the existence of any sexual relationship, however. What do you say about the situation in which a heterosexual male professor has a pretty girl in his class? After all, he may be biased.

	It's precisely because it's so hard to prove said bias that I suggest it should be always banned. It would be like a bureaucrat accepting a bribe, err "gift" and then claiming that he isn't biased.

In order for something to be banned, you have to be able to provide evidence of someone's guilt for committing said action. Otherwise, you risk punishing the innocent. If a bureaucrat has received a bribe, he may or may not be biased. You have to assume that he is not, until evidence is presented to support the alternative. By assuming he is biased without evidence, you have presumed guilt, rather than innocence. The legal system of Western nations presumes innocence. Your ideas contradict this. If you deem presumption of guilt acceptable, say so.

	Yes, proving that sex between the employee and employer, student and teacher, or client and worker occurred is also difficult, but certainly easier than proving an unfair promotion or grade, as it's not a subjective thing.

If you want to ban sex between client/worker, student/teacher, etc. with the assumption that there could be bias, then you're effectively preemptively responding to a crime that may or may not be happening.

[Monte314]

	Originally Posted by eagleseven To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	By that logic, you should also support the prohibition of adultery. Should people serve prison time for cheating on their spouse? Is this what supporting marriage requires? For that matter, do you think divorce should be banned? That would truly make marriage til death do us part. [/URL]

Friendly fire? You are too smart to have so completely misunderstood my post.

I am agreeing with you, eagleseven. I am not proposing these things... I am completely opposed to these things, which are the very consequences you oppose.

What I have said is that these awful things are where we are headed.

Check the uniform before you start shooting.

[Typhon]

It should be legalized. At least then there can be industry standards for both clients and workers. Oh, and I've hired a sex worker before.

[anticlimatic]

Decriminalizing it helps only the johns. Making it legal and socially acceptable helps only the johns, and the pimps. Regulation, much like Obamacare, puts most of the burdens on the bottom step of the ladder, in this case the "workers." Some questions I think are relevant:


Who, exactly, is going to regulate this industry, and from where will they receiver their financial support? The government, aka everyone? How would this go over with a public that overwhelmingly condemns the practice?

Who is going to eat more fines and lawsuits, as a consequence of legal implementation and social acceptance? The men who (for whatever insane reason) violate common sense protocol (like beating the girl, which would still be "assault" regardless of enforcing prostitution's legality), or the women who fail to meet code standards for a working girl?

Are the pimps more likely to just to swallow all the costs of upkeep (tests, paperwork, etc), or are they going to knock down buffy's pay from 30% to 15% instead? Making the johns pay for it isn't going work, if Slick McSlizzy down the street doesn't...whole competitive market thing.

What effect would a competitive public market have on the industry? Look what capitalism does to just normal workers in the united states-- Walmart is a perfect example of how a prostitute's "benefits" would work under all the bureaucracy.

How many american working girls would lose their jobs as a result of a mass influx of vastly prettier and more desperate girls being brought in at much lower wages from more impoverished countries?


The repercussions are endless, and too much of the conversation being had in this thread runs about as deep as a dixie cup of kool-aid.

[catzmeow]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes; you FAIL.

In what way, Monte? Infidelity isn't illegal. Morals and laws aren't the same thing.

---------- Post added 07-27-2012 at 12:02 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What I have said is that these awful things are where we are headed. Check the uniform before you start shooting.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! (and it's all the fault of the evil sex workers).

[Zsych]

	Originally Posted by catzmeow To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How do you feel about it? Should it be legalized? Would you hire a sex worker? How would you feel if your partner used the services of a sex worker? There's a great show about sex workers in Australia called Satisfaction. Very interesting show. I find the subject really interesting, personally.

Well, I think everything should be regulated to some degree. And if you can't ban something, partial control is better than none... Plus increased safety.

I don't think that its something that should ever be glamorized, since the real value of the service is minuscule.

Also, I think it causes more disruption and harm in smaller cities and closer societies. In big cities where most people are independent and relationships are often weaker anyway... I doubt it does much harm. Just another source of entertainment and relaxation.

	Originally Posted by catzmeow To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In what way, Monte? Infidelity isn't illegal. Morals and laws aren't the same thing.

Ah, but infidelity used to be illegal. And its really questionable whether it shouldn't be. The world might be a better place if you could more implicitly trust people, even if that's because the culture and laws supported the development of the mindset that made it possible.

[catzmeow]

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ah, but infidelity used to be illegal. And its really questionable whether it shouldn't be.

Because?

[Zsych]

	Originally Posted by catzmeow To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because?

Too much disruption and unwanted side-effects. Problem with not enforcing standards is that people start being fine acting like immature children.

At its core, good is what makes societies stable and better able to work together and trust each other.

[Ender]

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

Think a little more "big picture." To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. should help. "Ordinary people believe that, in calling for legalization or decriminalization of prostitution, they are dignifying and professionalizing the women in prostitution. But dignifying prostitution as work doesn't dignify the women, it simply dignifies the sex industry." "The argument that legalization was supposed to take the criminal elements out of sex businesses by strict regulation of the industry has failed. The real growth in prostitution in Australia since legalization took effect has been in the illegal sector. Since the onset of legalization in Victoria, brothels have tripled in number and expanded in size; the vast majority having no licenses but advertising and operating with impunity (Sullivan and Jeffreys: 2001). In New South Wales, brothels were decriminalized in 1995. In 1999, the numbers of brothels in Sydney had increased exponentially to 400-500. The vast majority have no license to operate. To end endemic police corruption, control of illegal prostitution was taken out of the hands of the police and placed in the hands of local councils and planning regulators. The council has neither the money nor the personnel to put investigators into brothels to flush out and prosecute illegal operators. "

Not sure I understand the point here. Sounds like, "The system of laws in Australia failed to regulate prostitution when it was legalized. Therefore, prostitution should not be legalized anywhere."

It should also be noted that they're saying the number of brothels increased after decriminalization (e.g. more brothels were now in the open where they can be tallied). This says nothing about the actual total of brothels before decriminalization, considering that the true numbers would likely have been difficult to record.

Granted, I didn't explore the website extensively. For all I know, it's about as credible as some wikipedia articles.

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The repercussions are endless, and too much of the conversation being had in this thread runs about as deep as a dixie cup of kool-aid.

I didn't know that having an opinion on an issue meant you needed to have the ability to design a working regulation system. That's what the existing institutions are there for. The burning question here is: Would System A (legal) be better overall than System B (illegal)? I don't give a fuck if System A has problems because every system does - the crux is in what the problems are for each and the extent of their severity. Which is not a question that you can answer by quoting websites and claiming vague, hypothetical repercussions.

I'd just like to know how exactly the illegality of prostitution is benefiting sex workers. Of course, knowledge will likely be limited to anecdotes, considering that illegal actions try to avoid being recorded; kind of difficult to assess something you can only half see, which is part of the problem in addressing the legality of prostitution as an issue.

[anticlimatic]

	Originally Posted by Ender To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'd just like to know how exactly the illegality of prostitution is benefiting sex workers.

It generates less of them is how.

	Originally Posted by Ender To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I didn't know that having an opinion on an issue meant you needed to have the ability to design a working regulation system.

Thats ok, it's an INTJ thing: Hatch plots in haste, get screwed by the overlooked details later...

[eagleseven]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Friendly fire? You are too smart to have so completely misunderstood my post. I am agreeing with you, eagleseven. I am not proposing these things... I am completely opposed to these things, which are the very consequences you oppose. What I have said is that these awful things are where we are headed. Check the uniform before you start shooting.

So do you support legalization of sex work? Or oppose it? I support the legalization of prostitution, as I've outlined earlier in this thread.

I fail to see how the legalization of prostitution will change the behavior of a chaste Christian spouse. Does a Baptist seek alcoholic drink merely because it is legal to sell? Does a non-smoker seek cigarettes merely because they are legal to sell?

---

Perhaps you would understand the argument better if compared with gun rights? Banning firearm ownership is like banning prostitution...you criminalize a large number of people who harm no-one without actually resolving the problems involving organized crime.

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If prostitution is legalized, will criticism of sex outside of marriage on philosophical, moral or religious grounds become "hate speech"?

That depends upon the country in question.

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This has already happened with "homophobic speech" in Great Britain, where you can be arrested (and people have been arrested) for uttering such speech in public, even in jest.

You can be arrested for far more than that in Britain today. The problem of which you speak is one of statism and its growing power. In contrast, legalizing prostitution would decrease government power, as would legalizing narcotics.

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Another prescient example is the United Nations Treaty on the Rights of the Child. It's approach is typical of compulsory social engineering initiatives: proponents are not content with merely "liberalizing" public policy; they want to criminalize opposition.

Then how can you support criminalizing prostitution? I say legalize it all and let individuals decide what is best according to their own moral code. Government shouldn't be in the business of controlling what people do in their bedrooms, nor what people believe about sexual behaviors.

You want to end prostitution? Stop throwing prostitutes into jail, and instead teach men to choose monogamy.

For that matter, did Jesus ever legally force people to follow him? There's a reason why he didn't forge an earthly empire like Mohammed.

[Ender]

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It generates less of them is how.

So the only benefit to the illegality of prostitution is exclusivity and higher income as a result? Because that's not a lot to cheer about - more so when you consider how feasible it is for pimps to take most of the earnings for themselves. Ever heard of the "
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"? This is the kind of stuff we get when we fail to regulate and leave matters in the hands of greedy business owners.

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Thats ok, it's an INTJ thing: Hatch plots in haste, get screwed by the overlooked details later...

Type has nothing to do with the legality of prostitution, but I suppose you'll say that this statement is an INTJ thing.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[superflax]

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ah, but infidelity used to be illegal. And its really questionable whether it shouldn't be. The world might be a better place if you could more implicitly trust people, even if that's because the culture and laws supported the development of the mindset that made it possible.

Comments like that make you look so ignorant it's embarrassing. Like really embarrassing.

Here are some quick facts for you:
1) Anthropologists that have studied 100 civilisations throughout our human history have confirmed that although long term monogamous relationships are preferred, divorce is present in every single one of those civilisations.
2) Anthropologists and other scientists alike have also confirmed that no animal mates for life. Not even swans, though people still spread this misconception.
3) Marriage in terms of human history is a relatively new concept.

Now why's that?

It was used as a way of controlling population. If you forced 2 people together, they would make tonnes of babies and you would also know who the father is (so there would be no doubt whose responsibility for providing for that child would be).

Now, why would "religion" and "society" want to outlaw infidelity? Well like I said above to control population growth.

Trust should have nothing to do with the issue because as I have just shown above, humans, in general, are not even capable of monogamy and never have been.

How do I know all of this?
I study so much social science (main interest in intimate relationships) so I have done my homework
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[anticlimatic]

	Originally Posted by Ender To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So the only benefit to the illegality of prostitution is exclusivity and higher income as a result?

Not quite. It A) discourages women from becoming prostitutes in the first place (much moreso than it would if it were legal), B) discourages men from using prostitutes (much moreso than it would if it were legal), and encourages them instead to get laid the old fashioned way-- ie, adjusting themselves, rather than demanding that the world adjust to their needs (there's the INTJ thing you were looking for
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
).

[eagleseven]

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	to get laid the old fashioned way

Making enough money to give a respectable
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
to the father of the girl you want to lay? This practice dates back to the first ever legal system (Babylon) and survives in half of the world today.

The Bible goes as far as to state the specific price of a virgin. And in Thailand, the price of a supermodel (trophy) wife averages $30k.

[anticlimatic]

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

Making enough money to give a respectable To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. to the father of the girl you want to lay? This practice dates back to the first ever legal system (Babylon) and survives in half of the world today. The Bible goes as far as to state the specific price of a virgin. And in Thailand, the price of a supermodel (trophy) wife averages $30k.

Interesting. What were prostitution laws back in biblical times, I wonder? Or in Thailand, to this day?

Can't say I've ever paid a woman's father for the privilege of sleeping with his daughter, appealingly kinky though it sounds. I have, however, paid in time and effort, dinner, wine, event tickets, and patience....you know, the newish old fashioned way.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[eagleseven]

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Interesting. What were prostitution laws back in biblical times, I wonder? Or in Thailand, to this day?

Prostitution is very illegal in Thailand, which is why it's one of the biggest sex tourism destinations.

The Jews of Biblical times made a policy of killing women for having sex outside of marriage. But other cultures were radically different...ancient Rome had state-run brothels filled with slaves.

	Originally Posted by anticlimatic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Can't say I've ever paid a woman's father for the privileged of sleeping with his daughter, appealingly kinky though it sounds. I have, however, paid in time and effort, dinner, wine, event tickets, and patience....you know, the newish old fashioned way. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Should a woman value men based upon the amount of money and time spent on her?

[anticlimatic]

	Originally Posted by eagleseven To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Prostitution is very illegal in Thailand, which is why it's one of the biggest sex tourism destinations.

Did you mean to say "legal?" Just curious.

	Originally Posted by eagleseven To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Should a woman value men based upon the amount of money and time spent on her?

Probably not, no. That sounds a lot like unspoken prostitution-- but if a man has to decide between just working a couple extra hours overtime at his job and paying cold hard cash for a woman...or spending time making himself a bit more courteous, sensitive, receptive, and accommodating-- he will choose the former, regardless of how much the latter would benefit both him, and society, in the long run.

[frontaLobotomy]

Sure, legalise it. Much as I wouldn't partake myself, I've always viewed it as a legitimate service. A significant problem with it is the current state of things; pimping, sex trafficking and so on.

Would legalising the industry make these things disappear? Probably not, as criminals are a bit more resilient than that, and are part of a problem bigger than this single debate. Regulation could go a long way towards protecting people on both sides. Most major cities have some sort of red light district, evidently there's a market for this sort of thing. So why not earn a little tax on it, and in the process make a dent in organised crime?

[catzmeow]

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Too much disruption and unwanted side-effects. Problem with not enforcing standards is that people start being fine acting like immature children. At its core, good is what makes societies stable and better able to work together and trust each other.

I hate to break it to you, but divorces are actually decreasing. People are avoiding marriage, but that's a side effect of trying to regulate morality (try to use legal methods to eliminate divorce, and people choose to cohabit). The comparison of trying to prohibit possession of firearms is particularly relevant.

Get rid of legal firearm gun ownership, or make it more difficult, and only criminals will own guns. You cannot put pandora back in the box.