Legalize Prostitution

[Dogma's Demise]

Okay let's face it, the main reason why prostitution is illegal in so many countries is religion, particularly Christianity in USA and Europe. Which is the stupidest reason to outlaw anything because if you were consistent, you'd outlaw all premarital sex - but that wouldn't sit too well with European countries or USA would it, considering almost all Christians ignore the prohibition of fornication.

And then you have the radfems in Sweden. :roll: What a disgrace. They're a majority irreligious country and a liberal country, yet they still cling to this stupid outdated medieval idea that if an ADULT woman provides sexual services, BY HER OWN DECISION, she's being exploited. Radfems this stupid really do deserve the title "bitch". Not only that but they're hypocritically going after the clients only and ignoring things like: gay prostitution, lesbian prostitution and heterosexual male prostitution. All of them exist. (Just to clarify I'm not anti-feminism, but I'm sickened how this has been hijacked into a privilege seeking dogma.)


Well aside from that, I think it's stupid and a gross violation of privacy. I think all private sexual activity between consenting adults should be a human right, regardless if money is exchanged or not and the government has no business in it, apart from maybe some regulation to ensure that things go smoothly, but prohibition should be out of the question, it doesn't work, it has never worked and just to give you an example, I live in Romania, prostitution is illegal (in theory), in practice, most prostitutes are never caught even when they openly advertise it online because the authorities know how pointless it is. And even if the police started cracking down, they would just disguise the language and make convictions next to impossible.


Another reason they keep bringing up: STDs! Well, let's put it this way. If you're a republican or libertarian, but you happen to oppose prostitution, I'm just gonna stop you right there, you should stop bringing up it. If you don't want government run healthcare because it's "socialism", then it's none of your business what STDs people get. If someone decides the benefits outweighs the risks, who are you to say otherwise, how do you fit into this equation? You don't. Besides, how the hell are you "pro-free market" if people are not allowed to profit from what their bodies can do? I don't buy it, you're hypocrites.

Now to the rest, you do realize we have STD prevention in this day and age don't you? And secondly, you're going to get extra money from this (by taxation) while also cutting police efforts (since it's not illegal anymore). But still, the most important part here is freedom. Freedom to live your private life on your own terms as long as you're not affecting someone else's freedom and prostitution DOESN'T. STDs can be spread by many other means (unprotected non-prostitution sex, regular relations, one-night stands and the risk goes up quite a bit if it's anal sex), yet they're not illegal. Unhealthy eating habits are not illegal either even though they cost health services a lot and examples go on.

And finally, and nobody seems to have pointed this out, some people just either can't get laid or can't get laid ON THEIR OWN TERMS: socially awkward people, old people and possibly some people with severe physical disabilities, people living in countries with a fucked up gender ratio like China etc. All of these factors can limit your ability to find a suitable partner or prevent you altogether.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Penn said it best:

Outlawing prostitution is biasing consent to only one kind of people - the ones who are beautiful, charming, or lucky enough to be on their A-game - and, in the words of Hytegia, it's specifically slated against men.
I've never had to use a prostitute, but by all admissions I've seen many men go home empty-handed night after night after taking a swing at everything in the bar and club.

I'll keep the reasoning for the latter to myself - but I'll just note that I've never heard the phrase "jumping on the grenade" used for a woman sleeping with the ugly guy so that her friend can catch the hotter guy. Mainly because I have a flight to catch in a few.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

I've never had to use a prostitute, but by all admissions I've seen many men go home empty-handed night after night after taking a swing at everything in the bar and club.

And what does it say when one does not swing at all? In the context of your original quote, of course......

*****Edited for clarity.

 

[PAB]

Okay let's face it, the main reason why prostitution is illegal in so many countries is religion, particularly Christianity in USA and Europe.

.....is it ? enlighten me

And then you have the radfems in Sweden. :roll: What a disgrace. They're a majority irreligious country and a liberal country, yet they still cling to this stupid outdated medieval idea that if an ADULT woman provides sexual services, BY HER OWN DECISION, she's being exploited. Radfems this stupid really do deserve the title "bitch". Not only that but they're hypocritically going after the clients only and ignoring things like: gay prostitution, lesbian prostitution and heterosexual male prostitution. All of them exist. (Just to clarify I'm not anti-feminism, but I'm sickened how this has been hijacked into a privilege seeking dogma.)

Have you met many prostitutes ? I unfortunately grew up around drug dealers and prostitutes and none of them simply became a prostitute because they woke up one morning and decided to be one. The general trend was poverty (goes for drug dealers too) and they sold themselves for sex because it was easy money which they needed for one reason or another , whether it was to feed a drug habit or to feed their children. However your argument has some basis among that small minority of 'high class' prostitutes that charge tens or hundreds of thousands to rich men (or women). But in general those 'radfems' are right, prostitution is exploitation, this doesn't mean the client is necessarily the exploiter though, but the prostitute exploits herself and if she has a pimp or if she works in a brothel they also aid in her/his exploitation.

In general i would support legalizing prostitution, locking some up or giving them a fine doesn't solve the problem. And having the problem of prostitution criminalized only makes it more dangerous.

 

[Aught3]

Okay let's face it, the main reason why prostitution is illegal in so many countries is religion, particularly Christianity in USA and Europe.

That's a genetic fallacy, just because the rules had their origin in Christianity doesn't say anything about current reasons for keeping those same laws.

stupid outdated medieval idea that if an ADULT woman provides sexual services, BY HER OWN DECISION, she's being exploited.

There have to be reasonable alternatives available if you what to claim that a free choice is being made. A homeless person may, in some sense, choose to sleep under a bridge rather than in a bus shelter or on a park bench but that doesn't mean he prefers to sleep there rather than in an apartment. Some prostitutes may make those kinds of properly free choices but others will make them in order to buy food or pay for shelter. If you think about the reasons why certain people become prostitutes the reason for calling it sexual exploitation becomes clear.

Well aside from that, I think it's stupid and a gross violation of privacy. I think all private sexual activity between consenting adults should be a human right, regardless if money is exchanged or not and the government has no business in it, apart from maybe some regulation to ensure that things go smoothly

This is a strange and contradictory statement. You put all sorts of legal requirements on this supposedly private act that requires the government to be involved. The acts have to be between adults, so we need a legal definition of adult which can vary in time and place. There is a need to consent which requires a definition of consent and a way to resolve disputes over whether consent was given or not. Plus you also want some government regulation to ensure things go smoothly. This is not my definition of a private act where the government has no business, even you accept that the government has quite a lot of business here. Libertarian arguments always have this kind of flaw which is why I try not to use them.

but prohibition should be out of the question, it doesn't work, it has never worked

I think I would agree that if a law is not enforced, which sounds like the situation you are describing, then it probably shouldn't be on the books. Obviously a failure to stop every incidence is not an argument against the law itself. It's not a sensible position that just because we continue to have murders there shouldn't be a law against murder.

Another reason they keep bringing up: STDs! Well, let's put it this way. If you're a republican or libertarian, but you happen to oppose prostitution, I'm just gonna stop you right there, you should stop bringing up it. If you don't want government run healthcare because it's "socialism", then it's none of your business what STDs people get. If someone decides the benefits outweighs the risks, who are you to say otherwise, how do you fit into this equation? You don't. Besides, how the hell are you "pro-free market" if people are not allowed to profit from what their bodies can do? I don't buy it, you're hypocrites.

Yeah, libertarians are weird that's why I'm not one.

Now to the rest,

Oh 'the rest' you mean non-libertarians like me?

you do realize we have STD prevention in this day and age don't you? And secondly, you're going to get extra money from this (by taxation) while also cutting police efforts (since it's not illegal anymore). But still, the most important part here is freedom. Freedom to live your private life on your own terms as long as you're not affecting someone else's freedom and prostitution DOESN'T. STDs can be spread by many other means (unprotected non-prostitution sex, regular relations, one-night stands and the risk goes up quite a bit if it's anal sex), yet they're not illegal. Unhealthy eating habits are not illegal either even though they cost health services a lot and examples go on.

Arrrrgh! If I'm not a libertarian why would I accept a libertarian argument? Basically you are saying that if you are a libertarian you should accept prostitution and if you are not a libertarian you should accept the libertarian argument.

And finally, and nobody seems to have pointed this out, some people just either can't get laid or can't get laid ON THEIR OWN TERMS: socially awkward people, old people and possibly some people with severe physical disabilities, people living in countries with a fucked up gender ratio like China etc. All of these factors can limit your ability to find a suitable partner or prevent you altogether.

Yeah that sucks but it's not like anybody needs to have sex.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I've never had to use a prostitute, but by all admissions I've seen many men go home empty-handed night after night after taking a swing at everything in the bar and club.

And what does it say when one does not swing at all? In the context of your original quote, of course......

*****Edited for clarity.

It means that you, like me, go out to have raw fun. Or, well, you're gay and hitting on people I think that you're just talking to and I can't tell from the other side of the room.

I've got a 1.000 batting average - though I'm pretty sure the fact that women jump on military men with war stories and battle scars like fleas on honey may be considered cheating by some length.
But I mostly go out to have fun with my various female and non-female compadres alike.

 

[Visaki]

In Finland we probably have one of the most bizarre prostitution legislation in the world. Selling sex is legal. If you are not doing it in a public place. Buying sex is legal. Unless the prostitute is a victim of human trafficking (because it's really easy to tell apart those who are victims of trafficking and those who are not). Pimping is illegal. So you pretty much can't do a prostitutes taxes, can't rent her an apartment for her work, can't hire prostitutes to work for you and let alone run a brothel. Which basically means prostitutes always, by law, have to be private, singular, entrepreneurs.

I don't think I've ever seen a good reason why prostitution, in general, should be illegal. Of the reasons given every one can be used against other jobs that are viewed low end; cleaners, shop assistants, trash collectors etc. It's just the sex part people get hanged on. I'm not saying that problems aren't there, but why is prostitution the only line of work where the solution to those problems seems to be a ban on that industry? It's like saying "oh yeah, the cleaners are usually poor women who get very low pay and have no choice but to start selling their body as a cleaning apparatus so lets ban providing cleaning services".

And before some nut asks me if I wanted my sister to be a prostitute I'd answer "no", but that doesn't mean I don't recognize their right to do that for a living.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

For a somewhat controversial take on prostitution, watch this episode of HardTalk, Brooke Magnanti: Prostitution was empowering.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

My take on prostitution is the same as my take on selling drugs: You can't stop it from happening so legalise it, regulate it and make it as safe as possible for those involved.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Have you met many prostitutes ?

Can I plead the 5th? :lol:

I unfortunately grew up around drug dealers and prostitutes and none of them simply became a prostitute because they woke up one morning and decided to be one. The general trend was poverty (goes for drug dealers too) and they sold themselves for sex because it was easy money which they needed for one reason or another , whether it was to feed a drug habit or to feed their children.

However your argument has some basis among that small minority of 'high class' prostitutes that charge tens or hundreds of thousands to rich men (or women).

These are the two extremes you're presenting, the street hookers (that often do tend to be associated with drugs and crime) and the super high class. There are also prostitutes that work in apartments, often independent of any pimp, and charge more reasonable fees such that most people could afford it - well assuming they don't have some other debts or vices. (And aren't tied to drugs necessarily.)

Maybe this is a minority too, it's hard to get some clear statistics on this, but my point is a relatively safer environment could be easily recreated.

But in general those 'radfems' are right, prostitution is exploitation, this doesn't mean the client is necessarily the exploiter though, but the prostitute exploits herself and if she has a pimp or if she works in a brothel they also aid in her/his exploitation.

Exploits herself?

Well, to address a few things you've brought up: first the drugs. It's true that some women (and maybe some men too) may be prostituting themselves to feed their drug habits, but it's also true that many non-prostitutes also engage in other even more dubious behavior to pay for drugs: crime, selling off things in their house, stealing from parents etc. Let's not single out prostitution here. By the same logic I could say that prostitution money can be used to pay for a good rehab program.

Now if it's poverty or the need to take care of someone, I don't see it as anything more than taking a job. Some people may be drawn to taxi driving because they're poor and can't do anything else, but we don't call that exploitation. I think that if we want to de-stigmatize this profession it needs to be treated like any other profession.

In general i would support legalizing prostitution, locking some up or giving them a fine doesn't solve the problem. And having the problem of prostitution criminalized only makes it more dangerous.

Yeah I agree with this.

That's a genetic fallacy, just because the rules had their origin in Christianity doesn't say anything about current reasons for keeping those same laws.

True, but from what I can tell, people are just feeding their confirmation bias. They've been conditioned to oppose prostitution because of their religion and/or culture so now they look for any reason to keep it illegal, even when all the bad stuff associated with it is so BECAUSE it is illegal. By keeping it illegal they've created a black market (which, being underground, cannot be regulated at all or enforced, so any agreement in this business is enforced by violence) that's run by crooks and lowlifes.

Or they don't... I mean in my country prostitution is illegal (although rarely enforced in practice) precisely because of the church's opposition. It's not even a secret or a conspiracy, some politicians even said they won't legalize it because they have to take into account what the church says (they don't, it's a secular country, but they pretend otherwise for their own interests).

There have to be reasonable alternatives available if you what to claim that a free choice is being made. A homeless person may, in some sense, choose to sleep under a bridge rather than in a bus shelter or on a park bench but that doesn't mean he prefers to sleep there rather than in an apartment. Some prostitutes may make those kinds of properly free choices but others will make them in order to buy food or pay for shelter. If you think about the reasons why certain people become prostitutes the reason for calling it sexual exploitation becomes clear.

I don't agree with this interpretation. It's not society's fault, nor the clients' fault that some people (whether by choice because they didn't study or circumstances beyond their control) ended up in a position where offering sexual services is the only way to earn an income.

And yes there is a free choice. There are plenty of jobs for people with no qualification. If they don't want that either, too bad, we can't all be middle class folk in an ultra-safe office environment, somebody has to do the risky shit and the menial shit too. Would you say being a janitor is being "exploited" because there are no other "reasonable alternatives"? I don't think so, and even if you would, I don't think you would argue that being or hiring a janitor should be illegal.

Speaking of free choice, there is also a choice within this profession as well. You can improve your service and earn more money. The faster you earn the sooner you can leave, or you can fund your studies meanwhile although I know of one case where someone with a higher education still does this job by choice (maybe not representative but still... it can happen).

This is a strange and contradictory statement. You put all sorts of legal requirements on this supposedly private act that requires the government to be involved. The acts have to be between adults, so we need a legal definition of adult which can vary in time and place. There is a need to consent which requires a definition of consent and a way to resolve disputes over whether consent was given or not. Plus you also want some government regulation to ensure things go smoothly. This is not my definition of a private act where the government has no business, even you accept that the government has quite a lot of business here. Libertarian arguments always have this kind of flaw which is why I try not to use them.

Okay I might need to refine my trail of thought here but to answer your concerns:

1. Adult: I'll just go by the standard understanding of adult which is anyone 18 or higher.
2. Consent: Most rape laws I think cover this already. It doesn't need to be any different for prostitutes. The main issue I could think of here is when a client refuses to pay (even though it's often payment first) and this I think can be treated as the same as going to a restaurant or the barbers and not paying (fraud).

Keep in mind that a libertarian would agree that government has the right to interfere in case of fraud (a property violation).

I think I would agree that if a law is not enforced, which sounds like the situation you are describing, then it probably shouldn't be on the books. Obviously a failure to stop every incidence is not an argument against the law itself. It's not a sensible position that just because we continue to have murders there shouldn't be a law against murder.

Only you cannot compare the two. There is nothing redeemable about murder, it's a wholly destructive act, that's why tolerating it is out of the question. Prostitution by itself is not, there are some problems around it which I think can be handled without outlawing it entirely.

Secondly, you actually have a much MUCH better chance to solve a murder and this does deter other acts of murder. Most of the time you'll at least know it happened, it's not that easy to hide or dispose of a body and even if you do someone will probably know he/she's missing. Most prostitution transactions you won't even know happened, let alone able to convince a judge or jury it happened.

Yeah, libertarians are weird that's why I'm not one.

Arrrrgh! If I'm not a libertarian why would I accept a libertarian argument? Basically you are saying that if you are a libertarian you should accept prostitution and if you are not a libertarian you should accept the libertarian argument.

I might have to clarify something here, I think that a consistent libertarian would be in favor of prostitution so I didn't really mean to attack libertarians in general. I'm mainly referring to all those right-wingers who are often associated with the religious conservatism. The kind who talk about freedom, free markets and how horrible socialized medicine is, while at the same time holding a lot of socially conservative views.

And yeah, I believe this position (legalization, with some minimal regulation so I'm not exactly a full libertarian on this issue) is the best position society can take.

Yeah that sucks but it's not like anybody needs to have sex.

By the same logic, you don't really need anything other than food and water. How about you let people decide their own needs and let them pursue those if they work to obtain those needs. Some people don't need sex, others need it so badly they develop all sorts of psychological problems when they have no outlet. Involuntary celibacy is not something to be taken lightly.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Yeah that sucks but it's not like anybody needs to have sex.

By the same logic, you don't really need anything other than food and water. How about you let people decide their own needs and let them pursue those if they work to obtain those needs. Some people don't need sex, others need it so badly they develop all sorts of psychological problems when they have no outlet. Involuntary celibacy is not something to be taken lightly.

I believe the point Aught3 was making was that one can always resort to self-stimulation.

Sex, per se, is not the be-all and end-all of a real relationship after all.

One also is taking for granted here that letting people decide their own "needs" - of which some (including this) are actually merely "wants" - are within the law.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Sex, per se, is not the be-all and end-all of a real relationship after all.

BINGO..... Winner, Winner..... Chicken Dinner.

It can be an important part and in some cases a very important one. The two important questions that arise out of this could be.....

1. Does this characteristic differ from individual to individual? And what could happen to individuals where this desire marker is different than say the people that are trying to push the issue. Could an individual become 'put off' or experience 'performance anxiety' when exposed to TOO much? And if we really wanted to dive a little deeper into the subject one could ask the follow up questions as to why these desire markers could be different. Physical stimulus or lack thereof? Emotional stimulus or lack thereof? Intellectual stimulus or lack thereof? I'm thinking all of these things can stimulate or dampen desire. And can this also depend on individual preferences? Meaning could one of these characteristics carry a larger meaning or have more importance to one person as compared to another person? Perhaps one that is stimulated more intellectually could lead to a higher desire? Just a quick thought on the subject.

2. How much does TV, advertising, marketing, and media effect this statement. How much do we as individuals ALLOW these things effect our perception of these real events.

 

[Aught3]

True, but from what I can tell, people are just feeding their confirmation bias. They've been conditioned to oppose prostitution because of their religion and/or culture so now they look for any reason to keep it illegal, even when all the bad stuff associated with it is so BECAUSE it is illegal. By keeping it illegal they've created a black market (which, being underground, cannot be regulated at all or enforced, so any agreement in this business is enforced by violence) that's run by crooks and lowlifes.

It's certainly a moral issue and lots of people derive their morality from religion so I suppose I can see what you are saying.

I don't agree with this interpretation. It's not society's fault, nor the clients' fault that some people (whether by choice because they didn't study or circumstances beyond their control) ended up in a position where offering sexual services is the only way to earn an income.

If a society of plenty is not arranged in such a way that people regardless of their circumstances cannot access the basics of life such as food, shelter, warmth, etc then it absolutely is society's fault that prostitution becomes the only option. At least in richer developed nations there are plenty of ways for societies to focus on full employment or provide a safety net for those who can't do other kinds of work.

And yes there is a free choice. There are plenty of jobs for people with no qualification. If they don't want that either, too bad, we can't all be middle class folk in an ultra-safe office environment, somebody has to do the risky shit and the menial shit too. Would you say being a janitor is being "exploited" because there are no other "reasonable alternatives"? I don't think so, and even if you would, I don't think you would argue that being or hiring a janitor should be illegal.

There's always an unemployment rate so unless the government has engaged a works program there are not always jobs available. The way cleaning services are run is absolutely exploitation. Long hours, low pay, back-breaking work, and a demeaning environment. The only way they get people to do it is because they have a lack of reasonable alternatives. But like you said 'somebody has to do the risky shit and the menial shit too' a functioning economy needs people to work in coal mines and clean lavatories but it doesn't need people whose sole employment is to be a temporary repository for penises and other objects.

Then we get to a section where there was some misunderstanding so moving along to...

And yeah, I believe this position (legalization, with some minimal regulation so I'm not exactly a full libertarian on this issue) is the best position society can take.

So you're not a full libertarian on the issue, what does that mean? It sounds like you accept the libertarian argument up to the point where it becomes uncomfortable and then you reject it. If it's not the libertarian argument then why do you think it is the best position society can take?

How about you let people decide their own needs and let them pursue those if they work to obtain those needs.

Unfortunately we live in a society and a society has rules. You can't always get what you want.

Some people don't need sex, others need it so badly they develop all sorts of psychological problems when they have no outlet. Involuntary celibacy is not something to be taken lightly.

I would need to see evidence before I accepted that psychological problems would result from a lack of access to prostitutes, but I would concede this as a valid argument for some legal prostitution if such evidence could be provided.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

If a society of plenty is not arranged in such a way that people regardless of their circumstances cannot access the basics of life such as food, shelter, warmth, etc then it absolutely is society's fault that prostitution becomes the only option.

Remind me again, how many societies actually function like that and I mean flawlessly function like that? Even in the most developed nations on Earth there are still homeless people with nothing to their name. Sometimes it's just bad circumstances, but other times it can be your own fault, for example if you gambled everything or ended up with so much debt all your properties were foreclosed.

At least in richer developed nations there are plenty of ways for societies to focus on full employment or provide a safety net for those who can't do other kinds of work.

And yet there's not a single country without prostitutes, even if you were to have the greatest welfare system on Earth (and the ability to sustain it), some people would still be drawn to prostitution. The basics (food, shelter, clothing) aren't enough, people want more.

Now if you want my opinion on this, given the nature of this profession, no I wouldn't refuse someone welfare just because he/she refused a job at a brothel because it's clear that not everyone would be suited to sex work even if technically "anyone" can have sex (that goes for the legal porn industry too which quite frankly is just prostitution with a camera on). I just want people to have that free choice to get into this line of work without the risk of being arrested for it.

There's always an unemployment rate so unless the government has engaged a works program there are not always jobs available.

And some countries (like mine for example) have a very shitty welfare system and it's only going to get shittier, so what good does it do to fine or jail people for trying to earn an income? These guys over here could be taxing it and getting some extra funds for state budget.

The way cleaning services are run is absolutely exploitation. Long hours, low pay, back-breaking work, and a demeaning environment. The only way they get people to do it is because they have a lack of reasonable alternatives. But like you said 'somebody has to do the risky shit and the menial shit too' a functioning economy needs people to work in coal mines and clean lavatories but it doesn't need people whose sole employment is to be a temporary repository for penises and other objects.

Again, stop trying to decide what people do or do not need. That's for people to decide. You don't really need coal either, just go back to the farm life and raise your own crops, why the need for all this technological stuff? :lol:

Then we get to a section where there was some misunderstanding so moving along to...

So you're not a full libertarian on the issue, what does that mean? It sounds like you accept the libertarian argument up to the point where it becomes uncomfortable and then you reject it. If it's not the libertarian argument then why do you think it is the best position society can take?

It doesn't have to be either full freedom or prohibition (although I tend towards the freedom part). I want prostitution to be able to function as an industry while limiting some of the obvious problems often associated with it, just like most other businesses. I'm sure you could find many problems associated with alcohol trade, but we don't ban it entirely do we? No, what we do is allow to operate (because we generally value freedom even if we might personally find alcohol objectionable) within certain bounds (for example in my country you can't sell it to a minor or drink it on the sidewalk or sell it on the night of a football match if you're in close proximity to the stadium - not necessarily my opinion but still I'm just giving you examples here, I'm sure there's similar stuff in your country).

Unfortunately we live in a society and a society has rules. You can't always get what you want.

I don't mind rules, just not stupid rules that are excessively restrictive, especially those that, at the core, are based on an outdated worldview from an era in which contraception or proper healthcare was not widely available.

I would need to see evidence before I accepted that psychological problems would result from a lack of access to prostitutes, but I would concede this as a valid argument for some legal prostitution if such evidence could be provided.

Well I'm no psychologist, but some studies seem to show that involuntary abstinence can lead to anger and depression.

http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwexa/news/archive/2001/01_0724-invcelrel.htm

Now, I'd much rather these folk solve their frustration at a local, easily accessible brothel than gradually turn into psychos.

Ever wonder why a sexually repressed country like Pakistan leads the world in google searches for "animal sex", "child sex" and "rape sex"? :lol:

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

 

[tuxbox]

I am pretty surprised that has not been mentioned up until now, but a truck load of girls ( and I do mean girls) and women are forced into prostitution against their will. Which in my mind makes laws against prostitution perfectly legititmate.

 

[Visaki]

I am pretty surprised that has not been mentioned up until now, but a truck load of girls ( and I do mean girls) and women are forced into prostitution against their will. Which in my mind makes laws against prostitution perfectly legititmate.

I disagree. That is not, in my opinion, a good reason to ban prostitution alltogether. It is, however, a good reason for laws and regulations to be put in place to combat human trafficking, then again we already have those and I think that forcing someone into prostitution (specially underage persons) is pretty much illegal in most civilized countries. Here in Finland it's illegal to buy services from an underage (below 18) prostitute and I think that's one of the rare thing the Finnish prostitution legistation gets right.

The question really is if the side effects of prostitution (like human trafficking, forced prostitution and underage prostitution) is a legimate reason to deny the option of becoming a prostitute from those that are willing to consider it without outside coersion? For me the answer is "no". Or do we have members that think that selling sex should be illegal in itself, without even having to consider the negative side effects?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The problem I have with Magnanti's claim that "prostitution was empowering" is that she's basing that on her own experience as a "high-end/class" prostitute. This represents a very small percentage of world-wide prostitution, the vast majority of which would be classed as "exploitation".

The criteria for prostitution - if it were to be made legal - are those of "high-class" prostitution, where the prostitute has total control over three things:

1) choice of client;
2) choice of sex act;
3) whether to use protection or not.

If a prostitute does not have total control over these criteria, then the law(s) should treat those forms of prostitution illegal.

However, there's another side to this - the subjective cost to the prostitute is generally inversely proportional to the cost charged to the client.

A high-class prostitute can make thousands with one client which would take another low-end prostitute hundreds of clients to make.

This can cause the latter to end up feeling loathing for oneself and the clients - or more generally, the opposite sex.

The high-class prostitute tends not to suffer this subjective cost of self-loathing, which is probably why Magnanti, not only said it was "empowering" but that she'd do it all over again if she could go back in time.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dogma's Demise]

I am pretty surprised that has not been mentioned up until now, but a truck load of girls ( and I do mean girls) and women are forced into prostitution against their will. Which in my mind makes laws against prostitution perfectly legititmate.

So let me get this straight. They're forced against their will, so let's put them in jail or fine them? :lol:

I assume you're talking about the pimps who run this business, but even that isn't a convincing case. There are various instances of forced labor in many other professions, but that doesn't mean the response is to ban those professions entirely even when they function by consent.

You want a close equivalent: Making Islam illegal because of the religious fascists within these communities. Even I wouldn't go that far, so I'm sure you wouldn't either.

Look, we already have anti-rape and anti-kidnapping laws and just because the government is too corrupt or too incompetent to implement it right doesn't mean you have to take it out on everyone involved in prostitution. Besides it has never worked, when has prohibition ever worked towards anything other than expanding a black market and fueling the mafias that run them?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

There are already laws against slavery - and those crimes can be bootstrapped with at least 3 others (Kidnapping, Unlawful Imprisonment, Rape, etc.) that would have the person caught doing it meshed up for more than a single charge of prostitution. And slavery still exists on a global scale in thousands of other working classes:
Building, mining, working in shoe factories, cleaning houses, etc. etc. etc.

The world abound is full of human slavery and trafficking, but if you were against that then you simply say that you're against that and not a trade that could be perfectly safe and reasonable between two consenting adults.