PDA

View Full Version : Legalised Prostitution


Astor
09-17-2009, 08:44 AM
I figured that if we are going to have this debate, i'd kick it off. :)

I dunno about you, but Nederland has had prostitution legalized for quite sometime, and from I what I've heard (), it's been well regulated by the government. IIRC, prostitution is a licensed trade, with solicitation limited to designated and government-inspected brothels, and compulsory STD tests, etc. In fact, just a year ago several brothels were closed by the government in order to curtail and outright eliminate any threat of organized crime corrupting the trade

In short, to say that prostitution can't be a well-regulated and respectable business is a folly.

(I've probably started an outright new topic; feel free to fork this into a separate thread )

All I can say is I agree. I don't know all that much about the issue, but it would surely be better to have the 'world's oldest profession' out in the open, in a safe, well-regulated institution than down a back-alley where anything could happen.

Although it is legal to offer sex for money in the UK, it is illegal to run a brothel, solicit for sex, and to kerb-crawl. I'm quite sure that if it were regulated properly, and prostitutes were subjected to proper checks and regulations, it's quite possible that the Suffolk Strangler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Ipswich_murder_investigation) wouldn't have been able to murder five prostitutes in the space of two months.

Of course, this wouldn't completely eliminate the problem of 'streetwalkers', but i'm sure that many would gladly exchange a dark, miserable street for a safe environment.

I imagine that it would also go some way in preventing human trafficking as well, but I doubt it would completely stop that trade either.

JediAthos
09-17-2009, 09:14 AM
Really the only example here in the States would be in Nevada where the industry is heavily regulated, all workers are subject to weekly checks for STD's, condoms are mandatory, and it is confined to licensed brothels.

I don't really see an issue with having it legalized. To be perfectly honest it's been around for who knows how long, and will continue to be around no matter what is done to curb it. As has already been said I would much rather see it be conducted in a regulated in environment then in back alleys, truck stops, and seedy hotels.

jonathan7
09-17-2009, 09:26 AM
I figured that if we are going to have this debate, i'd kick it off. :)

All I can say is I agree. I don't know all that much about the issue, but it would surely be better to have the 'world's oldest profession' out in the open, in a safe, well-regulated institution than down a back-alley where anything could happen.

Although it is legal to offer sex for money in the UK, it is illegal to run a brothel, solicit for sex, and to kerb-crawl. I'm quite sure that if it were regulated properly, and prostitutes were subjected to proper checks and regulations, it's quite possible that the Suffolk Strangler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Ipswich_murder_investigation) wouldn't have been able to murder five prostitutes in the space of two months.

Of course, this wouldn't completely eliminate the problem of 'streetwalkers', but i'm sure that many would gladly exchange a dark, miserable street for a safe environment.

I imagine that it would also go some way in preventing human trafficking as well, but I doubt it would completely stop that trade either.

Well, I may add in drugs to this debate as I have much the same view on legislation regarding them as I do prostitution.

As a Christian, I myself do not agree with prostitution, however it is a sad fact of life that regardless of any legislation both prostitution and drug taking will happen. So the question becomes do you push it underground or do you legalize it and make it safe.

I think the latter is a far better responce, not only can you bring in STI tests, (quality control, in the case of drugs) but you can tax it, thus generating income for the Government. You break the crippling hold organized crime has on vice; by legalizing it you can shut down a lot of organized crime. The vast majority of prostitutes in the UK are addicted to drugs, and are in a vicious circle where they need money to fund their drug use, and then use drugs to escape the methods they used to get the drugs. Legalizing it protects these women; ultimately I think that society should be judged on how it looks after those who are most at risk within it. The UK is quite frankly failing these woman at the moment; the government has no official responce to look after these woman - its only charities who do anything about the problem currently.

I have a similar view on drugs; most drugs in themselves don't have bad side effects, its what drug dealers add to them that causes the problems, as such I would argue for quite a few drugs being legalized. Though some such as heroin should always be illegal due to the extreme effects on health the drug has.

The counter argument is that by legalizing it you condone it, maybe or maybe not - however I think those that use drugs and prostitutes will do so regardless of if it is illegal or legal. I think it is of more benefit to society to have a controlled and regulated industry such as this, rather than an underground one. If the behaviour is "condoned" or not is to be frank irrelevant to my generation, in Europe at least right or wrong, the old morality has gone. If you really wanted to fight things such as drugs and prostitution, I would argue that trying to teach the current generation would be more beneficial. In all honesty it shows a great out of touchness with todays generations that you think something being illegal or legal influences most of them much. As such i think it makes far more sense, legalizing prostitution, regardless of my own opinions on the matter.

j7's shiney two cents...

JediAthos
09-17-2009, 10:39 AM
I've always wavered on the drug thing because they have so many detrimental effects. I understand that, like prostitution, there will always be drug users and I understand the ability to generate government revenue as well, but I don't believe that drugs such as heroin, cocaine, meth, etc... should ever be legal. They are just too dangerous.

As far as the morality of it...well...that debate will always exist regardless of whether it is legalized or not, but I'll say this...I would be willing to bet that if the revenue from licensing fees, taxes etc...paid for a few new schools, road maintenance, or any number of other things that states require I think there would be a lot less protests.

It should be noted in Nevada, brothels do not pay the state's entertainment tax, and there is no state income tax there. They do pay fees, and federal income tax though, and Nevada refused to levy the entertainment tax on brothels even after owners petitioned to be taxed.

mimartin
09-17-2009, 10:50 AM
I do not condone it or support it in any way, shape or form.

I do not believe it is possible to legislate morality. Making moral issues illegal only pushes them underground and allows things like organized crime to flourish. I’m not planning on visiting a prostitute or partaking in harmful drugs, so why should I care if they are legalized, regulated and more importantly taxed.

Ztalker
09-17-2009, 11:02 AM
I do not condone it or support it in any way, shape or form.

I do not believe it is possible to legislate morality. Making moral issues illegal only pushes them underground and allows things like organized crime to flourish. I’m not planning on visiting a prostitute or partaking in harmful drugs, so why should I care if they are legalized, regulated and more importantly taxed.

Prostitution has nothing to do with morality, imo. It's a job people choose to do. No-one forces you to go there and buy the 'service.'
But simply saying 'I don't care because I won't go there' isn't a valid argument.

Because, in return, I could say something similar about drugs. "I don't use them who cares." But I do suffer the consequences when drug addicts do their thing. Recently a teacher was randomly killed by a drug user here.

If it's taxed you at least show it's there. It's visible. Which is the whole point, to draw the poor illegally imigrated sex slaves and child prostitutes, pimps and what not criminal stuff out.

Q
09-17-2009, 11:04 AM
The thing is, a large part of any elicit trade will tend to stay underground just to avoid the tax, which is most likely going to be heavy. Legitimizing it would also have the effect of merely substituting the government for organized crime, which isn't too far of a stretch already, IMO.

mimartin
09-17-2009, 11:05 AM
Guess you must have missed the regulated part.

@Edit - Sorry Evil Q, it was not directed at you. You were just faster at responding than me.

Q
09-17-2009, 11:08 AM
No, I didn't; I just believe that more than enough is "regulated" already with no tangible benefit aside from more revenue for our already boated and corrupt government (woohoo), and that if people want to behave in an immoral fashion they deserve what they get, even if that means death or body parts rotting off. It's called accountability.

Doesn't anyone think that letting the government profit from corruption more than it already does sends the wrong message?

jonathan7
09-17-2009, 11:17 AM
Prostitution has nothing to do with morality, imo. It's a job people choose to do. No-one forces you to go there and buy the 'service.'

Morality is a different subject, suffice to say however, if you accept religion as the pretext for morality, then prostitution is clasified as "amoral". If of course humans are just animals, than there is no such thing as morality.

But simply saying 'I don't care because I won't go there' isn't a valid argument.

Because, in return, I could say something similar about drugs. "I don't use them who cares." But I do suffer the consequences when drug addicts do their thing. Recently a teacher was randomly killed by a drug user here.

If it's taxed you at least show it's there. It's visible. Which is the whole point, to draw the poor illegally imigrated sex slaves and child prostitutes, pimps and what not criminal stuff out.

If the trades are regulated as they are in Holland I think you would see a reduction in the problems - as shown in Holland illegal vice activites, while not entirely stopped have greatly decreased.

The thing is, a large part of any elicit trade will tend to stay underground just to avoid the tax, which is most likely going to be heavy. Legitimizing it would also have the effect of merely substituting the government for organized crime, which isn't too far of a stretch already, IMO.

This hasn't prooven the case in Holland, indeed I fail to see how this argument holds - and legalisation hits into the illegal side of the market no matter which way you try and swing it. So even if there are people who would still choose the illegal option, you at least hit the human trafickers, and decrease their market. You can also concentrate police officers on a smaller illegal market, and them have to police the legal side less. So all in all I fail to see how your argument holds.

No, I didn't; I just believe that more than enough is "regulated" already with no tangible benefit aside from more revenue for our already boated and corrupt government (woohoo), and that if people want to behave in an immoral fashion they deserve what they get, even if that means death or body parts rotting off. It's called accountability.

Doesn't anyone think that letting the government profit from corruption more than it already does sends the wrong message?

So I take it you have been campainging to have smoking and alchol banned, you don't wish the government to tax them - and I presume you don't smoke considering that second hand smoke effects the health of others? Rather than sex, which just directly effects the individuals involved.

Q
09-17-2009, 11:25 AM
Maybe you don't see anything wrong with having the government profit from crime in the same manner as the mafia, but that level of corruption really bothers the hell out of me. Legitimizing bad behavior doesn't suddenly make it right.

God; the parallels! Once again, I'm reminded of another situation...

EDIT:
So I take it you have been campainging to have smoking and alchol banned, you don't wish the government to tax them - and I presume you don't smoke considering that second hand smoke effects the health of others? Rather than sex, which just directly effects the individuals involved.
Those activities aren't illegal, and by your logic we should legalize drugs as well, which I would be far more in favor of.

Oh, and is putting words in my mouth like that really necessary?


EDIT #2: Aside from all of that, you do have a point regarding the weakening of criminal elements, even though the idea of the government profiting from vice (other than by criminalizing it) makes my skin crawl.

mur'phon
09-17-2009, 11:47 AM
Maybe you don't see anything wrong with having the government profit from crime in the same manner as the mafia, but that level of corruption really bothers the hell out of me.

It's only a crime because the law says so, once it's legalized, it's no longer a crime.

Legitimizing bad behavior doesn't suddenly make it right.

I'm not sure what you think is bad behaviour in this situation, the prostitution/drug use/sale or the goverment (or criminals) profitting from it. Either way, who is to say what is right and what isn't?

Q
09-17-2009, 11:50 AM
You're right. If people want to behave like pigs, they should be allowed to do so as long as they're not hurting anyone else.

I reserve the right to call them pigs, though. ;)

jonathan7
09-17-2009, 12:10 PM
Those activities aren't illegal, and by your logic we should legalize drugs as well, which I would be far more in favor of.

Oh, and is putting words in my mouth like that really necessary?

I wasn't meaning to put words in your mouth, but I don't agree with smoking, and I would argue that a) The government gets much more money from that and b) It causes far more harm to the nation than Prostitution (just because its far more widespread). So I was querying where you stood on them. However despite the fact I don't like smoking, I think it would be counter productive to make it illegal - you would great a whole new vice trade...

EDIT #2: Aside from all of that, you do have a point regarding the weakening of criminal elements, even though the idea of the government profiting from vice (other than by criminalizing it) makes my skin crawl.

I would personally argue its a neccecary evil - I don't like it, and I don't agree with it, however you may as well make "the best" of the situation.

Your right to do that is reserved ;)

Q
09-17-2009, 12:25 PM
As far as the smoking thing goes, I quit 4 months ago after 20 years of being chained to it and I'm pretty much against smoking in places where other people are forced to breathe second-hand smoke.

Darth InSidious
09-17-2009, 01:35 PM
I'm slightly shocked that no-one here apparently has a problem with prostitution's inherent exploitative nature and the deep connexion between people trafficking and prostitution.

Needless to say I am firmly against any legalisation of this most repulsive trade.

jonathan7
09-17-2009, 01:38 PM
I'm slightly shocked that no-one here apparently has a problem with prostitution's inherent exploitative nature and the deep connexion between people trafficking and prostitution.

This is the main reason I'm for legalizing it is to stop the above; regulation would mean registering those involved - and as such would stop people being forced into the trade (though why anyone would choose to do it is beyond me).

Darth InSidious
09-17-2009, 01:41 PM
Oh, please. The legalisation of prostitution would only increase the use of trafficking.

These aren't arguments, they are special pleading to excuse evil. I suppose it's typical of libertarians that the only liberty you appear to be interested in is the liberty to think solely with what's between your legs.

Q
09-17-2009, 01:50 PM
These aren't arguments, they are special pleading to excuse evil.
Thank you. That's precisely the problem that I have with the entire idea, along with the government's profiting from said evil.

jonathan7
09-17-2009, 01:52 PM
Oh, please. The legalisation of prostitution would only increase the use of trafficking.

These aren't arguments, they are special pleading to excuse evil. I suppose it's typical of libertarians that the only liberty you appear to be interested in is the liberty to think solely with what's between your legs.

Darathy! You know this isn't true of me so why say it? Because I'm a Christian I will wait untill marriage, my thing between my legs has no influence on my thoughts, I find prostitution abhorrent. However, speaking as some who has friends who are prostitutes they would be an awful lot safer under legislation that not (they are drug addicts with very sad tragic stories).

Furthermore prostitution laws such as Holland mean a prostitutes identity has to be established for them to register, via ID; as such it would helo to stop people trafficking.

Darth InSidious
09-17-2009, 01:58 PM
Furthermore prostitution laws such as Holland mean a prostitutes identity has to be established for them to register, via ID; as such it would helo to stop people trafficking.
I doubt it. The situation in Holland is still far from the ideal that you make out; at best that is only a reduction, and as usual this claptrap assaults only the end result and not the cause.

To top it all you still refuse to address my point that it is an inherently exploitative industry.

Q
09-17-2009, 02:03 PM
...it is an inherently exploitative industry.
Of both prostitute and client.

Jae Onasi
09-17-2009, 02:57 PM
Let's see who the typical prostitute is. A young girl/woman who is likely addicted to drugs, and has a high probability of having been sexually abused at some point in her life, usually starting at a young age. Prostitution just exploits the problems she already has and puts her in an unsafe situation on top of it. Does anyone here honestly think that the johns (male and female) are going to confine themselves to safe sex practices? Does anyone here honestly think people with a variety of fetishes that could seriously harm the prostitute won't carry them out? This is far more than just a 'business decision'. I don't know any young girl who's picked 'prostitute' as her future career.

Furthermore, it contributes to breakups of family. If someone has an affair with a prostitute, it puts the entire family at risk, not only emotionally but physically. Just because the prostitute tested negative for STDs yesterday doesn't mean she won't test negative today. There is no guarantee that condoms are used 100% of the time even if they are 'required by law'. This is in addition to the emotional and financial problems it causes for the spouse who got cheated on, and the family's money being used to pay for the prostitute when it should be getting used to take care of the family.

I see absolutely no good in legalizing something that contributes to further abuse of an already exploited woman (or man), encourages human trafficking, and contributes to family breakups and spread of STDs--no contraceptive is 100% effective at preventing STDs.

jrrtoken
09-17-2009, 04:20 PM
Let's see who the typical prostitute is. A young girl/woman who is likely addicted to drugs, and has a high probability of having been sexually abused at some point in her life, usually starting at a young age.That's definitely a probable cause, I agree with the thesis that most prostitutes in the modern world are victims of prior abuse and manipulation. That, however, is under the basis of illegal and underground prostitution in the majority of the world; if prostitution was legalized, I feel that there might be a large "reformation" of standards in several decades post legalization.

For example, like any other illicit drug, illegal prostitution is created out of the "need" of a user, so to speak, and when the user's need has not been "satisfied", the user could resort to outright violence. However, if the "drug" in question is legalized and stringently regulated, there's a very good chance that users will not resort to violence and abuse to obtain what they want, seeing as obtaining the "drug" will not cause the user to be subject to the law and its consequences. Therefore, the average user will legally and properly obtain what he wants, without government retribution as a provoker for the user to resort to violence.Prostitution just exploits the problems she already has and puts her in an unsafe situation on top of it. Does anyone here honestly think that the johns (male and female) are going to confine themselves to safe sex practices? Does anyone here honestly think people with a variety of fetishes that could seriously harm the prostitute won't carry them out?If the government dictates which practices are and are not safe and acceptable, then I feel that there can definitely be a consensual and physically safe window for services offered. Again, consent is the key word, and it is necessary for both the client and the practitioner to make each other privy to what are both legal and desired practices.This is far more than just a 'business decision'. I don't know any young girl who's picked 'prostitute' as her future career.I'm sure that no one wants to be a "municipal waste specialist" either, but some people are just that, and if one enjoys their line of work, then more power to them. Money is money, and it's a necessity in Western civilization; I'd just rather see people collect money through safe and legal paths rather than illicit ones.Furthermore, it contributes to breakups of family. If someone has an affair with a prostitute, it puts the entire family at risk, not only emotionally but physically.Affairs in general always put marriages at risk; I don't see why the profession of one's lover should contribute to the moral standing of it.Just because the prostitute tested negative for STDs yesterday doesn't mean she won't test negative today. There is no guarantee that condoms are used 100% of the time even if they are 'required by law'.Agreed, and under a legalized system, that should be made privy to both client and practitioner. It should be much like warning labels on medication containers, flammable liquids, and other risky products on the market; the dangers should be made clear to the consumer, and the consumer should understand that the product is not 100% safe and reliable. Additionally, with oversight and regulation, the "product" can also become much safer and efficient over time, much like with any other newfangled product.This is in addition to the emotional and financial problems it causes for the spouse who got cheated on, and the family's money being used to pay for the prostitute when it should be getting used to take care of the family.Right, but that's their choice, and if one is not privy to their own actions and their according consequences, then they cannot blame anyone but themselves.

jonathan7
09-17-2009, 05:47 PM
I doubt it. The situation in Holland is still far from the ideal that you make out; at best that is only a reduction, and as usual this claptrap assaults only the end result and not the cause.

So whats a better means of stopping the cause?

To top it all you still refuse to address my point that it is an inherently exploitative industry.

Because I don't disagree with that; it's a horrible, vile and exploitative industry; but the legislation I would argue for would stop those most at risk from doing it. I hate pornography for the same reason, it exploits young and naive girls and the men I would argue are harming themselves.

Let's see who the typical prostitute is. A young girl/woman who is likely addicted to drugs, and has a high probability of having been sexually abused at some point in her life, usually starting at a young age.

These are just the type of people legalized prostitution is designed to protect, as they won't qualify for a licence. If your using drugs you get disqualified from qualifying for the licence. The whole reason I would be in favour of its legalization is to help the above people. They are the most at risk, and I know the UK government does nothing to help them.

Prostitution just exploits the problems she already has and puts her in an unsafe situation on top of it. Does anyone here honestly think that the johns (male and female) are going to confine themselves to safe sex practices? Does anyone here honestly think people with a variety of fetishes that could seriously harm the prostitute won't carry them out? This is far more than just a 'business decision'. I don't know any young girl who's picked 'prostitute' as her future career.

Well, they can't do the above in a government run establishment, and keeping things confined to one area means you can concentrate on the individuals who do the above.

Furthermore, it contributes to breakups of family. If someone has an affair with a prostitute, it puts the entire family at risk, not only emotionally but physically. Just because the prostitute tested negative for STDs yesterday doesn't mean she won't test negative today. There is no guarantee that condoms are used 100% of the time even if they are 'required by law'. This is in addition to the emotional and financial problems it causes for the spouse who got cheated on, and the family's money being used to pay for the prostitute when it should be getting used to take care of the family.

But these guys are still going to use a prostitute regardless of if its legal or illegal; surely the added protection at least protects the wife from physical harm (STI's), though the emotional impact will never be lessened.

I see absolutely no good in legalizing something that contributes to further abuse of an already exploited woman (or man), encourages human trafficking, and contributes to family breakups and spread of STDs--no contraceptive is 100% effective at preventing STDs.

But again, legalisation is designed to stop people trafficking and the individuals involved being exploited.

Darth Avlectus
09-17-2009, 05:53 PM
NV, yeah it has a lot of this going on. While I would imagine it is subject to laws and regulation, government and enforcement can't be everywhere all the time.

Much the same as the adult film industry: there may be security screening companies and organizations, but even that is not foolproof. Stuff still slips between the cracks on this kind of watchdog security.

It is rather weird to see someone you've known from elementary school dressed up and working as a lady of the night. But then again, women of all walks probably do it. Sadly this includes mothers, daughters, cousins, neices, aunts, sisters... I doubt abuses will go away. Since this is a "behind closed doors" sorta thing, there will be a lot of he-said she-said bit going on.

When it comes down to soliciting 15 year olds, that is just plain wrong. 14 is Japan's age of consent? Great, go to Japan if that's what you want. ::

Anyway, I knew of an underage girl about this age being influenced and pulled into working for one of those fellas who likes to "manage" this sort of thing. I knew her family. The manager guy was a very aggressively opportunistic type. I (more precisely some homeboys, their family friends, and I) accompanied the irked family members of this girl to have a "meeting" with this "manager" and to let him know we did not appreciate what he was doing. That he would cease and decist immediately.

So I have seen the weasel scumbag side of this business and dealt with it pretty much face to face. While arguments in favor of prostitution are hard to deny, the flipside is the ugly underground of that world.

I also really don't look forward to having to hurt people to make my point of: "stay the **** away from minors". The reason it's called underage and minor is b/c that person is not to an age where she can fully understand nor process the consequences and scope of her actions.

El Sitherino
09-17-2009, 06:10 PM
Oh, please. The legalisation of prostitution would only increase the use of trafficking.

I have to ask for proof of this. It's pretty well known that a market that provides legal prostitution shows a decrease in the use of trafficked workers. With set standards and regulations for any environment, be it factory work or prostitution, there are minimums set that prevent exploitation of the worker. Are you saying that US Motorola factors pay the same as Motorola production factories in the third world? I'd argue that the small Malaysians producing the circuitboards get far less pay and human rights than the average bottom-line American assembly line operator.

It also allows a means to report abuse, since you can no longer be arrested for being involved in matters that are otherwise seen as obscene.

I personally don't like hookers, they're generally unseemly people, but considering that they get no rights by either legal representatives or their pimps, they get quite an unfair shake and to me that seems even more distasteful than a handjob in a parking lot from a girl named Candee.

I don't know any young girl who's picked 'prostitute' as her future career.
So you think giving her a criminal record is going to improve her ability to provide herself with a decent lifestyle that doesn't incorporate exploitive practices?

I can assure you every girl that is arrested for prostitution returns back to it, not just because it's the only thing they know, but because you can't get a real job when you're arrested for being a prostitute. Do you think the male manager at Target is going to give you a job as a check-out girl and not at least hold you to the idea that you'd still blow him in the back office, that is should he actually give you the job.

Women are exploited regardless of being prostitutes, I'd suggest not arguing societies downfalls as the reason to avoid benefiting those that get hurt by the legality the most. Soliciting a prostitute carries far less of a legal fine than being the prostitute. So lets say your daughter gets kidnapped, drugged, raped, and sold for only a night to a man that happens to be an undercover cop. He smacks her in the head, sends her to jail and in 3 years should she behave well, gets released with a criminal record and is now trying to get a job legally at some place like Target. Her likelihood of being hired is pretty much zero. Her "pimp" is already a criminal and is not looking to legitimize his life, so he'll serve his sentence and get "respect" in his natural environment.

I suggest some of you step outside of your white-bread bubble and look at how society actual works on the other side of the road. Legalizing won't solve all of the problems, but at least it shows that we as a society recognize there is a problem. That people are being abused and they have no means to help themselves without losing everything. And even when they do try to help themselves and lose everything, it changes nothing. The people that are exploiting them are going to move on to exploiting others, meanwhile this persons life has been ruined, in both their options for career and in their health.
I'm not excusing evil, I'm looking to remove douchebaggery.


Also, Jae, for the record, more cases of marital infidelity take place with someone like a co-worker, student, or otherwise someone known even to the spouse themselves. Prostitution is so small in the scale of cheating that it'd be well to say just as many marriages are ruined by sex with animals.


Think of this like when they legalized homosexuality. Now that it's no longer simply a crime to be homosexual, homosexual couples find themselves capable of better recieving healthcare as well as illness prevention, they can report domestic abuse, and they can recieve their due rights to otherwise protect themselves as they no longer have to worry about being arrested for saying "I was with my boyfriend when..."

Det. Bart Lasiter
09-17-2009, 10:31 PM
Oh, please. The legalisation of prostitution would only increase the use of trafficking..Maybe, although you can't prove this. In any case, trafficking and underage prostitution would still remain illegal, so your point is somewhat inapplicable. Your argument that prostitution is exploitative is null for a similar reason: legalized prostitution would have regulations, and any business that doesn't comply with those regulations would be illegal. This leaves your final argument, "I don't like it", left, and I won't bother with that.

Let's see who the typical prostitute is. A young girl/woman who is likely addicted to drugs, and has a high probability of having been sexually abused at some point in her life, usually starting at a young age. Prostitution just exploits the problems she already has and puts her in an unsafe situation on top of it.And imprisoning her will solve those problems? Most likely the answer to that is 'no', and to add on to that, imprisonment will most likely agitate those problems.

Does anyone here honestly think that the johns (male and female) are going to confine themselves to safe sex practices?If they don't that would appear to be a violation of the regulations mentioned earlier.

Does anyone here honestly think people with a variety of fetishes that could seriously harm the prostitute won't carry them out?We're not talking about legalizing assault, attempted murder, rape, or anything else other than prostitution. And if you think that doesn't happen already, you are quite mistaken.

This is far more than just a 'business decision'. I don't know any young girl who's picked 'prostitute' as her future career.This isn't an argument.

Furthermore, it contributes to breakups of family. If someone has an affair with a prostitute, it puts the entire family at risk, not only emotionally but physically. Just because the prostitute tested negative for STDs yesterday doesn't mean she won't test negative today. There is no guarantee that condoms are used 100% of the time even if they are 'required by law'. This is in addition to the emotional and financial problems it causes for the spouse who got cheated on, and the family's money being used to pay for the prostitute when it should be getting used to take care of the family.There's no guarantee condoms will be used ever, but there is a guarantee that prostitution will be around, a percentage of married people will have affairs, and that some people will contract STIs. Secondly, marital infidelities aren't any of yours or the government's business.

I see absolutely no good in legalizing something that contributes to further abuse of an already exploited woman (or man), encourages human trafficking, and contributes to family breakups and spread of STDs--no contraceptive is 100% effective at preventing STDs.Once again, you're extending the discussion to the legalization of things that are illegal on their own, or would exist whether or not prostitution was legal.

In addition, neither you nor anyone else can prove that legalization of prostitution would cause an increase in marital infidelity, the spread of STIs, or even the number of people who solicit the services of prostitutes.

Jae Onasi
09-18-2009, 10:14 PM
This is far more than just a 'business decision'. I don't know any young girl who's picked 'prostitute' as her future career.
This isn't an argument.No, it wasn't. It was commentary for discussion.

And imprisoning her will solve those problems? Most likely the answer to that is 'no', and to add on to that, imprisonment will most likely agitate those problems.This is missing the point. It's not just about the prostitute. Also, if incarceration gets her past the drug addiction and into some appropriate training and care, it can actually help. Ideally we'd identify these women for help _before_ they got into prostitution rather than after, but until that time, we need to help get the women and men who are stuck in this horrific situation out of it, not legalize it.


I never said legalizing prostitution would increase STDs/infidelity/etc, although the consequences would increase proportionally to the increase in the activity.

We know that prostitution is bad for the prostitute in terms of enabling drug addiction and other unhealthy behaviors, can be bad for the john (spread of STDs), is bad for the john's family (if s/he has any--destruction of family relationships and using money intended for the family to pay the prostitute instead), contributes to divorce, contributes to human trafficking and mob activity. Most activities deemed 'illegal' are in that category because those activities are destructive to a person, group, or entire society. Explain to me what possible benefits society gains by legalizing such a destructive behavior. If you want to talk money, the amount of tax dollars we'd end up spending on regulation and the negative social consequences from prostitution would far outweigh what the gov't would take in. There is zero benefit to legalizing prostitution, and plenty of negatives for both the people directly involved and the people around them who are indirectly affected.

jrrtoken
09-19-2009, 12:24 AM
No, it wasn't. It was commentary for discussion.
This is missing the point. It's not just about the prostitute. Also, if incarceration gets her past the drug addiction and into some appropriate training and care, it can actually help.The current correctional facilities in the US are focused towards towards confinement rather than rehabilitation. Even if years in prison would open the window for change, it does not enable it.Ideally we'd identify these women for help _before_ they got into prostitution rather than after, but until that time, we need to help get the women and men who are stuck in this horrific situation out of it, not legalize it.Why? If they are comfortable with their work, as long as it is a respectable, well-paying, and fairly low-risk, then why criminalize it even further? Shall we execute the offender for merely scraping enough spare change by any means whatsoever, in order to only survive in a uncaring environment? Where is the compassion, the justice in that?I never said legalizing prostitution would increase STDs/infidelity/etc, although the consequences would increase proportionally to the increase in the activity.You implied that prostitution alone, regardless of legality, contributes to the problem in question. I say that if it is legalized, and well regulated mind you, then those negative atrributes can be curtailed, if not outright prevented.We know that prostitution is bad for the prostitute in terms of enabling drug addiction and other unhealthy behaviors,Simple; enforce mandatory drug screenings. Every other licensed trade profession requires this by now, why should prostitution be exempt from this if it is legalized?can be bad for the john (spread of STDs)Require contraception; the city of Amsterdam does.is bad for the john's family (if s/he has any--destruction of family relationships and using money intended for the family to pay the prostitute instead), contributes to divorce,All of these can be caused by any co-worker, friend, or any other acquaintance; even today the amount of prostitution contributing to adultery is unnoticeable.contributes to human trafficking and mob activity.Again, Amsterdam has taken many measures to enforce the opposite of what you perceive as a side-effect.If you want to talk money, the amount of tax dollars we'd end up spending on regulation and the negative social consequences from prostitution would far outweigh what the gov't would take in. There is zero benefit to legalizing prostitution, and plenty of negatives for both the people directly involved and the people around them who are indirectly affected.So, to summarize, you're not willing to debate the topic at hand, and simply regurgitate your own currently baseless opinions. I, as with others in this thread, have given you arguments enforced with factual evidence; you have not addressed the points as of now, and have repeated your same arguments yet again. If you're not willing to actively counter the points made in opposition to your own, then you may kindly excuse yourself from this debate, please. Thanks in advance.

Ztalker
09-19-2009, 06:23 AM
Let's see who the typical prostitute is. A young girl/woman who is likely addicted to drugs, and has a high probability of having been sexually abused at some point in her life, usually starting at a young age. Prostitution just exploits the problems she already has and puts her in an unsafe situation on top of it. Does anyone here honestly think that the johns (male and female) are going to confine themselves to safe sex practices? Does anyone here honestly think people with a variety of fetishes that could seriously harm the prostitute won't carry them out? This is far more than just a 'business decision'. I don't know any young girl who's picked 'prostitute' as her future career.

Furthermore, it contributes to breakups of family. If someone has an affair with a prostitute, it puts the entire family at risk, not only emotionally but physically. Just because the prostitute tested negative for STDs yesterday doesn't mean she won't test negative today. There is no guarantee that condoms are used 100% of the time even if they are 'required by law'. This is in addition to the emotional and financial problems it causes for the spouse who got cheated on, and the family's money being used to pay for the prostitute when it should be getting used to take care of the family.

I see absolutely no good in legalizing something that contributes to further abuse of an already exploited woman (or man), encourages human trafficking, and contributes to family breakups and spread of STDs--no contraceptive is 100% effective at preventing STDs.

Absolutely true. Now a story I heard:
Young girl went to college (20 years old) here in the Netherlands. She once said she enjoyed sex and if she could make money with it (prostitution) she would have no problem with it. If only for a couple of years.

It's not always the same as in your story Jae. And it sounds a bit prejudiced to be honest.

But anyways, I'd like to state I don't like the industry either...in my recent post I'm positive about the legalisation, but that's mainly because I see here in Holland that's it has become a viable job.

Ray Jones
09-19-2009, 08:00 AM
Sex for goods is not uncommon throughout the whole wide world of living creatures on Earth. The reason why it's labeled shady and dirty and whatnot is that the fine people have issues with an ancient natural rite. Also, I don't see how it is a bad thing to have sex with a consent person, regardless whether I paid dinner and 6 cocktails, nothing but a charming smile, or 1000, 50, 10 bucks for it. Plus, I think there is no difference in cheating on your partner with paid or unpaid sex. Needless to say that not everyone who pays for sex is in an actual relationship, or in an relationship where having sex with others is not allowed, or that everyone who does not pay for sex is not in any relationship where sex with others is not allowed.


However, I too see a problem with prostitution often being connected to drug addiction, violence, poverty. These are reasons for "low standards" regarding hygiene and most of all protection against STDs. But then again, the problem of drugs, violence, poverty, low hygiene standards, even trafficking, is not caused by having, selling, or buying sex.

Jae Onasi
09-19-2009, 10:19 PM
The current correctional facilities in the US are focused towards towards confinement rather than rehabilitation. Even if years in prison would open the window for change, it does not enable it.Oh? Tell me how people get drugs in prison, PastramiX. They're forced to stay clean because of their incarceration, and they are required to see social workers. If you are not aware of that, then you need to research the prison system.

Why? If they are comfortable with their work, as long as it is a respectable, well-paying, and fairly low-risk, then why criminalize it even further?You have done nothing to prove that it's well-paying for the average prostitute (high-end ones notwithstanding), nor have you proved that it's low-risk. In fact, stating that it's a low-risk activity is absolutely laughable. Respectable? Don't make me vomit, please.

Shall we execute the offender for merely scraping enough spare change by any means whatsoever, in order to only survive in a uncaring environment? Where is the compassion, the justice in that?Tell me where the compassion and justice is in allowing women to be exploited and used like animals. It would be compassionate to work with them to get them OUT of that environment, to help them get real jobs as opposed to something that forces them to sell their bodies. You, sir, are the one showing an inordinate lack of compassion for the issues forcing women and men into prostitution in the first place and addressing THOSE problems, not whitewashing it by legalizing something that is a clear danger to a well-functioning society.

You implied that prostitution alone, regardless of legality, contributes to the problem in question. I say that if it is legalized, and well regulated mind you, then those negative atrributes can be curtailed, if not outright prevented.
That has to be one of the most naive comments I've heard you say in a long time. Do you honestly think abuse of these women will stop because the government says 'you can do X, but not Y'? What are they going to do? Watch everyone who's having sex that night? Good luck enforcing that.


Simple; enforce mandatory drug screenings. Every other licensed trade profession requires this by now, why should prostitution be exempt from this if it is legalized?And how are you planning on paying for this mandatory drug screening? Are you going to require it every night for everyone? No? Then it's unenforceable.

Require contraception; the city of Amsterdam does.If you honestly think that people are going to follow that law every single time, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. What do you do if there's condom failure, too?


All of these can be caused by any co-worker, friend, or any other acquaintance; even today the amount of prostitution contributing to adultery is unnoticeable.What information do you have to back up this claim that it's supposedly 'unnoticeable'? Look at divorce stats and you'll notice infidelity is one of the big reasons for divorce. Why should we support and legalize an activity that contributes to divorce? That is one of the most unwise things we as a society could do. We already have enough problems with divorce in Western society. We hardly need to create an environment where it's even easier for marital infidelity to occur.

Again, Amsterdam has taken many measures to enforce the opposite of what you perceive as a side-effect.Facts, please. I note that you have not stated they have eliminated it. That's because they can't.

So, to summarize, you're not willing to debate the topic at hand, and simply regurgitate your own currently baseless opinions. I, as with others in this thread, have given you arguments enforced with factual evidence; you have not addressed the points as of now, and have repeated your same arguments yet again. If you're not willing to actively counter the points made in opposition to your own, then you may kindly excuse yourself from this debate, please. Thanks in advance.You have clearly ignored divorce stats, which are available for anyone to view, and should be a no-brainer anyway. Don't waste the pixels telling me to politely gtfo when you've provided no proof for your claims whatsoever.

Make it any snarkier, and I'll infract you myself. There is no free pass for that anymore.

Det. Bart Lasiter
09-19-2009, 10:49 PM
Oh? Tell me how people get drugs in prison, PastramiX. They're forced to stay clean because of their incarceration, and they are required to see social workers. If you are not aware of that, then you need to research the prison system.

Are... are you serious?

Q
09-19-2009, 10:55 PM
Yeah, I kind of did a double-take on that myself. I wasn't sure whether or not I was reading it right.

Drugs are very prevelant in jails and prisons. Employees and trustees smuggle them in all of the time. And yes, marijuana gets smoked in there. A lot. Worried about the smell? Bleach covers all. ;)

But we're kind of getting off-topic...

jrrtoken
09-19-2009, 11:53 PM
Oh? Tell me how people get drugs in prison, PastramiX. They're forced to stay clean because of their incarceration, and they are required to see social workers. If you are not aware of that, then you need to research the prison system.I was discussing that incarceration wouldn't decrease recidivism among prostitutes, and wasn't implying anything concerning drug use.You have done nothing to prove that it's well-paying for the average prostitute (high-end ones notwithstanding), nor have you proved that it's low-risk. In fact, stating that it's a low-risk activity is absolutely laughable.Low-risk, when discussing legalized prostitution, is accurate, seeing as they won't have to deal with pimps and police, and the violence associated with that. If the alternative is a more mainstream business, the there is more accountability and awareness than an underground one.Respectable? Don't make me vomit, please.Pawn brokers, gun salesmen and abortion technicians aren't also considered "respectable" by many, and yet they're free to conduct business without fear of legal retribution from their occupation alone.Tell me where the compassion and justice is in allowing women to be exploited and used like animals.There is none; I feel that if there was some daily recognition of the business in general, then there might be less of a chance for exploitation than when it is underground.It would be compassionate to work with them to get them OUT of that environment, to help them get real jobs as opposed to something that forces them to sell their bodies.I concur, though having higher standards of working when legalized is better than the underground alternative; you cannot deny that.You, sir, are the one showing an inordinate lack of compassion for the issues forcing women and men into prostitution in the first place and addressing THOSE problems, not whitewashing it by legalizing something that is a clear danger to a well-functioning society.Not to sound self-righteous, but I feel that I am doing a positive by at least providing a safer and cleaner line of work for prostitutes. I find the practice to not be highly admirable myself, but that doesn't mean that we should eradicate it completely overnight.And how are you planning on paying for this mandatory drug screening? Are you going to require it every night for everyone? No? Then it's unenforceable.I agree that it will not be perfect in any right, but at least there would be some drug screening rather than none at all.What do you do if there's condom failure, too?It's a risk, and it should be privy to the worker and the client beforehand. It's much like enlisting in the military, IMO.What information do you have to back up this claim that it's supposedly 'unnoticeable'?To be wholly honest, I don't have any in solid facts, but all from common knowledge. I know that 36% of all affairs are with co-workers, but as for the percentage inlcuding prostitutes, I can not find, though I feel that it is in the minority.
http://www.infidelityfacts.com/infidelity-statistics.htmlLook at divorce stats and you'll notice infidelity is one of the big reasons for divorce. Why should we support and legalize an activity that contributes to divorce? That is one of the most unwise things we as a society could do. We already have enough problems with divorce in Western society. We hardly need to create an environment where it's even easier for marital infidelity to occur.You are correct, but what about all of the others who actually want the service? A spouse is one thing, but a single person is another. If we are to restrict one service to curtail the negativity of one portion of the population, then we alienate the others. This is the foundation of a democratic structure featured within the U.S. Constitution; to provide a service for those who want it, and for those who do not deem it to be acceptable, they must abide it. The same principle is endowed in abortion and gun control, for example.Make it any snarkier, and I'll infract you myself. There is no free pass for that anymore. Fair enough, I'll comply; exercising your moderator rights when debating someone isn't very honorable, however, especially when you've included similar tactics that border flamebait into your reply.
The exercise of moderator rights was in response to the tone of your comment, which was neither on topic nor civil. The moderation had nothing to do with the rest of the content of your argument. There is a big difference.

JediAthos
09-20-2009, 09:23 AM
There definitely valid points on both sides of this debate. Prostitution is a profession that many find distasteful which probably contributed to it being made illegal yet it still remains despite that fact.

There is no doubt that illegal prostitution provides an outlet for any number of other crimes including drug use, abuse of the women, and human trafficking among others.

Nevada is the one example in the United States where it is legal but must be confined to licensed brothels. Workers are tested for drugs, STD's, and condoms are required otherwise the worker and the owner could both lose their licenses and consequently their jobs.

At the same time, workers in Nevada are still subject to problems. There is a good article here: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/02/09/resisting-sex-panic-sex-workers-struggle-evidencebased-regulation-nevada which disucusses some of those issues.

I'm not really going to address the effects on society that have been presented suffice to say that infidelity, despite statistics, is not caused by the existence of prostitution. Infidelity is the result of a troubled marriage, not the existence of prostitutes.

Despite the fact that the legalized industry does have its issues, I said it in an earlier post that I would much rather see the business conducted in a licensed, regulated environment than not. At the same time though, the regulations would definitely need to be better than what is currently in place in Nevada.

I also think that in the United States this issue should be left to individual States to decide.

Jae Onasi
09-20-2009, 12:13 PM
Sure, infidelity is the sign of a troubled marriage, but having a legal brothel in town just makes it easier for someone to commit adultery. Why make it easier to do that by legalizing prostitution? That's equivalent to taking an alcoholic to a bar.

Det. Bart Lasiter
09-20-2009, 02:44 PM
Sure, infidelity is the sign of a troubled marriage, but having a legal brothel in town just makes it easier for someone to commit adultery. Why make it easier to do that by legalizing prostitution? That's equivalent to taking an alcoholic to a bar.

No, it's the equivalent of not imprisoning an alcoholic for falling off the wagon.

JediAthos
09-20-2009, 04:49 PM
Sure, infidelity is the sign of a troubled marriage, but having a legal brothel in town just makes it easier for someone to commit adultery. Why make it easier to do that by legalizing prostitution? That's equivalent to taking an alcoholic to a bar.

Jae, I understand what you're trying to say but at the same time I don't feel like it's a good reason against the issue at hand. It would be like using your alcoholic analogy as a reason for banning bars...which I guess to me doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but that's the way it seems to me.

If someone commits adultery they have to deal with that...and frankly if they do so then they probably shouldn't have been married to begin with. Someone who is going to cheat will cheat regardless of the presence of a brothel.

Darth Avlectus
09-23-2009, 03:52 AM
I realize I'm not really in a position to take a moral high ground on this issue in a general sense.

Still, can anyone tell me how this is necessarily going to reduce underage trafficking? Or at least how it would improve the situation? I'm having a hard time understanding that. Probably due to the fact that as time changes, so do people and their views.


I'd think the logic of people would compromise their standard over time:
In the current status in America it is a reprehensible thing.

Were it legalized, then over time people would say "Well, it's not illegal to do, just th underaged thing is wrong. Meh, bound to happen anyway so why should I care?" That's not slippery slope, that's just plain reality b/c human nature is that "path of least resistance" as the saying goes. Age standards are there for a reason. I only see easier (legal) access eroding that age level as society adjusts to the new acceptability.

Further: "it already happens" is not a good reason nor an excuse for it or the rationale that condones it.

How is legalizing going to reduce and/or improve the situation of this?

I think it simply can't.

jonathan7
09-23-2009, 10:50 AM
The following is me speaking for the UK though I can't imagine the situation being too different in the U.S. My issue more than any other is I cannot see of another way of helping those stuck in a vile industry, I'm not much interested in being progressive or morally relativist. Leave yourself under now illusions that I think prostitution is a vile and abhorrent thing.

I realize I'm not really in a position to take a moral high ground on this issue in a general sense.

Still, can anyone tell me how this is necessarily going to reduce underage trafficking? Or at least how it would improve the situation? I'm having a hard time understanding that. Probably due to the fact that as time changes, so do people and their views.

Because if the industry is regulated, you would first have to register as a worker; registration means you would have to have legitimate reason to be here. As such if an individual was trafficked from elsewhere they would not qualify to get a licence. Furthermore if the industry is regulated, the prostitutes have to have weekly STI and drugs checks; failing these results in the licence being taken away. Personally I would like to see a system which would not allow foreign nationals to be prostitutes; thus this should help even further to stop people trafficking.

Further: "it already happens" is not a good reason nor an excuse for it or the rationale that condones it.

How is legalizing going to reduce and/or improve the situation of this?

Alright, fine I wasn't going to post this, but I will do - over 2 years ago one of my friends was raped; to escape what was done to her she turned to drugs and got onto using harder and harder stuff until she tryed heroin. She dropped out of university, and turned to prostitution to feed her habbit, then a vicious cycle ensued where to escape what she was doing she used drugs, but then to get the drugs she would need to sell her body. She was taken advantage of by so many people, the police can't really do anything, they are understaffed and vice would be a horrifically numbing expierience for anyone. Through her I got to know a few of the other girls who also worked on the streets and they were stuck in similar circumstances with equally harrowing stories.

The government does nothing to help, and in my expierience the only people trying to help are Christian charities who are hopelessly underfunded and under staffed. There are a lot of at risk woman on the streets right now, stuck in a horrific cycle and something needs to radically change to help them. Currently they are the forgotten victims of western society. They get taken advantage of by pimps, who will often get the hooked on drugs for the purpose of getting them into this industry.

Generally there seems to me to be a divide between those of you who have noble intentions and are arguing against legislation and those of us who have seen what life is like on the streets. (I will leave the moral relativists or the randy out of this as I don't have time for them).

It is not that I agree with prostitution, it is a horriffic industry which takes advantage of an awful lot of people, and any woman who would actually want to do it, I think needs a psychologist. You want to argue against legalisation, well then propose something which will help these girls, then because so far, you haven't proposed anything which is going to change the situation.

Legalisation, would make the industry safer, hit pimps, drug dealers and reduce people trafficking. It would not stop all the things listed former, but it would allow the Police to concentrate more resources on catching the former; who are really the nastiest of people we want behind bars. It would also allow a system where we could help get these girls out of the cycle they are involved in.

I think it simply can't.

Go to your nearest city, then find the red light district, then take a walk down its worst areas and I think you may change your mind; or perhaps develop a different solution to the problem - which I'm more than happy to hear!

JediAthos
09-23-2009, 12:51 PM
J7 I think you just managed to say what I was thinking, but couldn't come with the words to express it.

The situation in the U.S. for many prostitutes is likely very similar to the experience of your friend. I would very much like to see these women helped, but it seems many would rather see them put in jail and don't acknowledge that for many of them time in jail isn't fixing the problem.

I like the idea of the stipulation that foreign nationals cannot obtain a license meaning in the U.S. they would have to be citizens which means either born here or naturalized. Beyond that the brothel owners would be responsible for keeping up the regulations or be shut down, fined, jailed, or all of the above.

I said it before and I'll say it again, I don't however, believe the U.S. government should handle things here...it should be left to the individual States and localities where the brothel would be opened.

Jae Onasi
09-23-2009, 04:06 PM
Regulating the trade is not going to stop the illegal activities going on. We'll end up with the same exact situation, except we'll now have legal brothels to go along with the illegal ones. So you don't license women on drugs? OK. It just means they'll still be working as illegally as before. A lack of license isn't going to stop a man or woman from prostituting themselves.

Legalizing this isn't the answer. In your friend's case, she needed counseling for the rape before she got to the drug addiction/prostitution stage. You have to address the root cause of the problem, not whitewash it with a federal rubber stamp.

Web Rider
09-24-2009, 12:55 PM
Regulating the trade is not going to stop the illegal activities going on. We'll end up with the same exact situation, except we'll now have legal brothels to go along with the illegal ones. So you don't license women on drugs? OK. It just means they'll still be working as illegally as before. A lack of license isn't going to stop a man or woman from prostituting themselves.

Legalizing this isn't the answer.

And yet, we still have the rights to do many things. Despite the fact that this argument has been applied to just about everything under the sun. If there is a law to break, some people will break it. If people can do something, there are some people who won't do it, or willfully do it wrongly. Most people however, will be inclined to do things the profitable way. Considering that prostitution makes you money and drugs are expensive, it can form a very vicious circle. However giving people an "out" of drug-free prostitution is a way to break that cycle. Should they clean up, get off drugs, they can still be a prostitute, and now not have to buy drugs.

In addition, many people get ON drugs while prostituting, standing out on streets, waiting around after dark in unsavory neighborhoods, you have no idea what to expect and what could happen to you. Legalization would provide safe locations for controlled scenarios for people who like sex, want lots of sex, and don't care for a relationship. It would also provide a filter to prevent young girls who think sex is "cool" from getting into the market. Instead of some shady "pimp" taking any pair of legs that comes to his door, we would have rules and regulations about it. As well, people could quit any time they tire of it. Options that are NOT available to prostitutes now.

Yes, some people would still operate illegally, but the numbers would be FAR less, and it would make it much easier on our crime system to separate the people who just want some quick sex, and the people who want to break the law. I doubt most prostitutes want to break the law, and that most of them are stuck in the profession against their will and have no other place to go. I also doubt most people who solicit them are bad people, they're just people who want sex with no strings.

You have to address the root cause of the problem, not whitewash it with a federal rubber stamp.
Ah! The root cause. A society that advocates sex and violence. Maybe if we stopped treating sex like it was so hush-hush, we'd stop being so obsessed with it. Sex: Everyone knows their parents had it.

Jae Onasi
09-24-2009, 01:24 PM
Ah! The root cause. A society that advocates sex and violence. Maybe if we stopped treating sex like it was so hush-hush, we'd stop being so obsessed with it. Sex: Everyone knows their parents had it.
I don't treat sex 'hush-hush' in my family. We use the correct terms, any question is fair game (better they have correct info than half-truths learned on the playground from classmates), and we treat the whole subject with respect since it's important part of Point Man's and my love life. I also recognize not everyone does that.

The root causes--sexual abuse, especially child molestation, and drug addiction. We need to do a much better job of identifying victims of sexual abuse and get them appropriate help, and we need to do a better job of preventing drug addiction in kids. If we could help prevent one girl or guy from abuse, or get them help before they turn to drugs, alcohol, or sex abuse themselves in an attempt to get rid of their pain, and thus prevent them resorting to prostitution to get those things, we would be doing that individual a huge service, along with protecting society from the inevitable illegal activities.

Web Rider
09-24-2009, 04:08 PM
I don't treat sex 'hush-hush' in my family. We use the correct terms, any question is fair game (better they have correct info than half-truths learned on the playground from classmates), and we treat the whole subject with respect since it's important part of Point Man's and my love life. I also recognize not everyone does that.
As you note, this is not a common way, and even when it is, the problem is still that socially we glorify rule breaking, and we've got pretty solid rules against sex.

The root causes--sexual abuse, especially child molestation, and drug addiction. We need to do a much better job of identifying victims of sexual abuse and get them appropriate help, and we need to do a better job of preventing drug addiction in kids. If we could help prevent one girl or guy from abuse, or get them help before they turn to drugs, alcohol, or sex abuse themselves in an attempt to get rid of their pain, and thus prevent them resorting to prostitution to get those things, we would be doing that individual a huge service, along with protecting society from the inevitable illegal activities.
And what of people who simply want to have sex without relationships? Why do I have to wine and die a girl to call it not prostitution when all we want to do is have sex and get paid for it? Prostitution is bad specifically because of it's illegality. Not because of the nature of the profession. Applying legal, moral, and social protections to it would only make it safer for all parties.

People don't get into prostitution because they're abused, broken and alone. They can, but that is only one of a huge number of reasons. A high desire for sex and a high desire for money lead to a logical outcome: prostitution. It's a perfect business venture for anyone who enjoys sex and money. I have no doubt that people would happily pay to have sex with Donald Trump or Bill Gates, assuming they were selling.

The idea that sex should only occur in relationships is silly as sex has existed LONG before relationships have.