Legalize Prostitution

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

That was kind of my point. Not everyone uses their brain, which increases the risk of STDs spreading to innocent people.

If I ride a bike without a helmet, I'm certifying nobody else aside from myself responsible for my own head injuries if I were to fall. The same for not wearing one's seatbelt, or deciding to climb a mountain.
You can't protect a person from being an idiot and not using the proper equipment - if that were the whole of the cake then nobody should be allowed to do anything.

If any such legal institution was open, I'd sure as hell be able to grab a complimentary condom on the way in.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Its sort of like checking for voltage before sticking your hands on a electrical duplex.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

This might be an interesting addition to this topic. Apparently, prostitutes in Nevada have less STD's than porn starts in LA.

 

[Andiferous]

Prostitutes do not act "against their will?" There is no such thing as "slavery" in our age?

Legalising prostitution will do nothing to eliminate the 'world's oldest profession,' but may allow for government-enforced regulations to protect the prostitute in question, and by extention, the "unsuspecting male client" by the wayside.

I've heard many arguents, but I can hardly see prostitution as much more than slavery. Sorry. No many how many times I imagine myself put in their place, I can't see any other result.

With governent licensing and protection, they've got a better chance of living beyond their vocation and tackling a higher vocation within society, with a chance better securing themselves for the future.


By the way, if you feel up to the argument, compare "A Vindication for the Rights of Whores" to "A vindication for the Rights of Women" (Mary Wolstonecraft). I still go with Ms. Mary to this day.

This argument isn't about the effects on men clientà¨le, after all.

 

[Jotto999]

Unfortunately, people sometimes toss out things like "X is immoral", or "X violates our rights!". But if someone was going to actually buy that, it would either require them already sharing your priors anyway, or them being very impressionable. It's not much more clear than saying "I think X is bad!"

"Prohibition violates our rights to do what we want with our bodies/money" - type arguments are therefore irrelevant.

To those arguing "Prostitution is exploitation", please read this:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_worst_argument_in_the_world/

I think claiming prostitution is exploitation is a blatant example of this. The relevant question is "Why is exploitation an argument against prostitution?". If I am too poor or nonacademic to go to college, the military may "exploit" me in my unfortunate situation. But to be relevant I would have to show exactly why them "exploiting" me that way is such a bad thing - especially since they never forced me to join (if you're a time traveler from WW2, do celebrate; the draft ends up being unnecessary for decades).

Early in the discussion, Aught3 stated "There have to be reasonable alternatives [vague, undefined and unrealistic] available if you what to claim that a free choice is being made." My criticism is in green. That you consider it exploitation is irrelevant. Please explain why that matters.

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.

Some people were once forced to pick cotton. Instead of giving them rights, we should have made cotton picking illegal.

..Or we could do something about coercion, and not some other thing.

What does the data say about the conditions for non-coerced prostitutes in developed nations versus where it is illegal? Surely that's more relevant than a bunch of people with their vague, rhetorical constructs.