Should prostitution be legal?

[dann]

go on then. How are you going end global poverty?

Go on then, not a single piece of evidence that prostitutes for the most part are 'happy hookers' who are in it for the enjoyment of sex and the flexible working hours?

 

[dann]

your solution is to "eliminate poverty." How quickly can you do that in the world? Today? Tomorrow? Next week?

lol

what a joke

So your 'solution' is to legalize prostitution all over the world? Today? Tomorrow? Next week?
The joke is on you, ansy!

 

[andyandy]

You totally misunderstand me again. I never intended to offer anything to this debate.

lol

you have nothing to offer to the debate. At least you can admit it.

That you don't seem to need any evidence or statistics to back up your claims, doesn't really surprise me. 'I once knew a hooker who used to be a legal secretary', seems to be the best that you can come up with, the whole purerile lot of you.

"should prostitution be legal?" is not a claim. The best you've done is to say that the question is "stupid," to say that we should "eliminate poverty" instead, but then you've offered no ways to achieve this lofty idealist notion. You're right. You've offered absolutely nothing.

 

[andyandy]

So your 'solution' is to legalize prostitution all over the world? Today? Tomorrow? Next week?
The joke is on you, ansy!

legalising prostitution - possible

"eliminating poverty" - pie in the sky idealism spouted by primary school children and fools

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, it's wrong to have to sell sex in order to make a living.

ANd it is also wrong to choose to do so to be able to buy expensive toys and live a more lavish lifestyle than your other job skills would permit.

 

[brodski]

Go on then, not a single piece of evidence that prostitutes for the most part are 'happy hookers' who are in it for the enjoyment of sex and the flexible working hours?

No, they’re in it for the money. Just like 90% of the working population. It is only your straw man which says that they are in it because they enjoy the sex.

But just because someone does something for money, it does not follow that they are being exploited.
Unless the source of the quote in your sig sums up your political and economic views. In which case there is little point in debating you, any evidence which contradicts your class warfare view of history and society will be put down to the ramblings of a “false class consciousness”.

It would be about as much good as debating a Freudian.

 

[andyandy]

Go on then, not a single piece of evidence that prostitutes for the most part are 'happy hookers' who are in it for the enjoyment of sex and the flexible working hours?

i never said that they were

good grief.

 

[qayak]

Yes, it's wrong to have to sell sex in order to make a living.

ANd it is also wrong to choose to do so to be able to buy expensive toys and live a more lavish lifestyle than your other job skills would permit.

Can either of you provide the reasoning to back this up? Other than just your saying so, that is.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Can either of you provide the reasoning to back this up? Other than just your saying so, that is.

The ammount of money that can be made as a part time job is pretty well documented. So making more money is cited by individuals as one of the reasons. Look at the surveys cited, they include paying off bills as a reason to starting.

Is it a universal reason, of course not, there is no one reason why everyone does anything.

 

[andyandy]

dann

ah from your frequently linked site http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/en_index.html
I see you fancy yourself as something of a Marxist. Perhaps you're secure enough in your ideology to start a thread on it? Or perhaps you prefer to merely allude to it in other threads - not confident enough in your own convictions?

I await the Red Thread with interest.

 

[69dodge]

They don't usually have the alternatives a) be a rich heiress, b) a much admired actress or c) married to a 91-year-old billionaire about to die of old age.

No, but it isn't really possible for everyone to have those alternatives, is it?

The relevant question would appear to be whether it is possible for everyone simultaneously to have some alternative or other available to her that she prefers to prostitution, bearing in mind that different people have different preferences. You seem to be sure that the answer is yes. I don't know. It's an empirical question. The answer might be yes, but it certainly isn't obvious to me that it's yes.

Do you think there should be any limit? I mean, suppose by doing "regular" work a particular woman could make, say, twice as much as you do, but she prefers to work as a prostitute and make four times as much. Should society offer to provide her with the larger amount of money, so that she will choose not to work as a prostitute?

 

[dann]

ah from your frequently linked site http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/en_index.html
I see you fancy yourself as something of a Marxist. Perhaps you're secure enough in your ideology to start a thread on it? Or perhaps you prefer to merely allude to it in other threads - not confident enough in your own convictions?

Ahh, it never ceases to amaze me how clever some people are. Marxist arguments, Marx and Brecht in the sig line and links to a Marxist homepage, that is actually all it takes to make you draw the conclusion: Marxist!
If one tells the truth, one is sure, sooner or later, to be found out.

I await the Red Thread with interest.

No, you don’t. You have made it very clear that you are not interested in the abolition of poverty so it would be futile to discuss the theme with you. I’ll leave you to make plans for a more humane way of organizing the world’s red-light districts, which you and the rest of the guys appear to consider a very practical scheme, unlike the ”lofty idealist notion” of eliminating the cause of prostitution and of most of the misery in this world.
It will, of course, be said that such a scheme as is set forth here is quite unpractical, and goes against human nature. This is perfectly true. It is unpractical, and it goes against human nature. This is why it is worth carrying out, and that is why one proposes it. For what is a practical scheme? A practical scheme is either a scheme that is already in existence, or a scheme that could be carried out under existing conditions. But it is exactly the existing conditions that one objects to; and any scheme that could accept these conditions is wrong and foolish. The conditions will be done away with, and human nature will change.

 

[dann]

PS

You probably won't get it, but here it comes anyway:

Those who, after hearing a critique, demand the “positive” side likewise pretend that the critique is fine but that the practical consequences remain in the dark. That’s not honest. Every particular critique shows what alternative it is driving at. Those who, for example, ascribe contemporary evils, which we after all are not the only ones to criticize, to free competition in which the big fish always swallow the small fish — those people are pleading for fairness in competition, control of monopolies, antitrust legislation, and healthy medium-sized firms. Those who lay the blame for these abuses on modern man‘s growth mania, on its unspecific “always wanting more” — those people are pleading for salvation in doing without and reveal themselves as global ecological reformers. And when we explain that the poverty and insecure existence of wageworkers is a necessary consequence of their role as the cost factor ‘labor’ and that this role is a consequence of the one and only purpose for which production in capitalism takes place — namely turning money into more money — then everyone can hear perfectly well the call for action in it: the people who, in their entire existence, are made instruments of the growth of capital must get rid of this obstacle standing in the way of their own benefit. They must break the power of those who have the interest in profits, and win the freedom to organize their work so that it finally is about their needs and a good life for them. Everyone who takes note of our explanations understands that much of an alternative. Whether these explanations deserve approval depends on whether or not the causes of the well-known evils have been correctly determined. But those who, apart from any controversy about particular causes, turn up with the question of whether we actually had an alternative just don’t want the practical consequences they’ve sounded out, and clothe their displeasure in polite doubt as to whether the intended goal is in fact realistic.

 

[andyandy]

Ahh, it never ceases to amaze me how clever some people are. Marxist arguments, Marx and Brecht in the sig line and links to a Marxist homepage, that is actually all it takes to make you draw the conclusion: Marxist!

well i normally like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

No, you don’t. You have made it very clear that you are not interested in the abolition of poverty so it would be futile to discuss the theme with you.

if you have any productive discourse about how you would actually "eliminate poverty" then i would indeed be interested to hear it. I've yet to hear any especially cogent Marxist arguments that can stand up anywhere other than the textbook, nevertheless if you start a thread i'll be happy to look at your opinions.

 

[andyandy]

I've started a thread for you.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78556

 

[Earthborn]

eliminating the cause of prostitution

Abolishing poverty sounds good to me, but you still haven't shown that poverty is the cause of prostitution.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

At least we now know why Dann a such a control freak; he embraces a totalitarian philosophy that reduces the individual human in all their glory to a social insect, subjugated to the fickle whim of the masses. Since the product of our minds or our labor are not our own in Dann's world, but "the People's," we all becomes slaves despite the claims of liberation from want and need.

Sorry, all the promises of "eliminating poverty" are never worth it. Especially given the body count of movements and nations who waved the red banner racked up during the last century.

 

[Lonewulf]

You probably won't get it, but here it comes anyway:

Those who, after hearing a critique, demand the “positive” side likewise pretend that the critique is fine but that the practical consequences remain in the dark. That’s not honest. Every particular critique shows what alternative it is driving at. Those who, for example, ascribe contemporary evils, which we after all are not the only ones to criticize, to free competition in which the big fish always swallow the small fish — those people are pleading for fairness in competition, control of monopolies, antitrust legislation, and healthy medium-sized firms. Those who lay the blame for these abuses on modern man‘s growth mania, on its unspecific “always wanting more” — those people are pleading for salvation in doing without and reveal themselves as global ecological reformers. And when we explain that the poverty and insecure existence of wageworkers is a necessary consequence of their role as the cost factor ‘labor’ and that this role is a consequence of the one and only purpose for which production in capitalism takes place — namely turning money into more money — then everyone can hear perfectly well the call for action in it: the people who, in their entire existence, are made instruments of the growth of capital must get rid of this obstacle standing in the way of their own benefit. They must break the power of those who have the interest in profits, and win the freedom to organize their work so that it finally is about their needs and a good life for them. Everyone who takes note of our explanations understands that much of an alternative. Whether these explanations deserve approval depends on whether or not the causes of the well-known evils have been correctly determined. But those who, apart from any controversy about particular causes, turn up with the question of whether we actually had an alternative just don’t want the practical consequences they’ve sounded out, and clothe their displeasure in polite doubt as to whether the intended goal is in fact realistic.

Okay, seriously?

If you're going to make a link like this, don't use the whole paragraph! It hurts the eyes.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Dann,

You're running around in circles, mate. You need to gather your arguments up into the one spot and write a coherent post outlining your position. Note that Andyandy has moved the discussion on Marxism to a separate thread, where it should be continued rather than here.

Let me quote what you said:
Now let me quote what the statistics in the article said:

I'm sorry, maybe I did not make my point clear. When I said "Firstly, the article has no statistics on any enjoyment of the work." I was talking about after the person has been in the job a while. I was not talking about the reasons the person decided to take the job.

Maybe you would like to see statistics of reasons for staying in prostitution! So go find them. My guess is that the answer "For sexual enjoyment or experiment" would drop far below 3,1 percent - and not just because experimentation soon stops being a reason for anything you do regularly.

Actually, I would like to see data on this question, however, it does not affect the core issue of this particular debate. The core issue here is the legality of prostitution, not the enjoyment factor of the job.

That you try to talk your way out of an obvious lie does not surprise me.

*Shrug* It was an error with my wording, I'm sorry about that. I'll try to be clearer in future.

OK, so you and the other fans of prostitution need to show that
1) prostitution is caused by men's sex drive and not by women's need to sell sex in order to pay debts, feed their children and provide for themselves and their families,
2) that they enjoy being prostitutes, and therefore
3) would not stop even if they had better alternatives.

On the contrary, we do not need to show anything of the sort. All we need to show is that prostitution being illegal is more harmful than it being legal, and I think we've done that.

As for the rest of us being "fans" - that's laughable. I would posit that the majority of us recgonise prostitution as a reality of modern society, and thus is has to be handled in a mature and moral manner. Attempting to ban it just does not work, as can be seen by any human society currently in existence - those with strict laws against prostitution (China, the Middle East countries) still have large numbers of prostitutes. We know prohibition does not work. So the main alternative is to legalise it.

We're not talking about stopping it entirely - that issue is beyond the scope of this dicussion. Start a new thread if you want to cover that topic.

So far I'm the only one who has provided links to scientific articles and statistics, whereas the rest of you have come up with nothing but anecdotal evidence.

None of the links you provided support your position. The Australian paper, for example, clearly shows that there are many different reasons people go into prostitution, not just poverty - in fact, poverty was a minority reason when compared to all the other reasons within that specific table.

Finally, I would suggest that you stop being silly, stop misinterpreting the evidence I provide you with or go somewhere else with your sensitive taste. I did not call Mark anything that he did not already call unfortunate people who are out of a job. Why don't you complain to the moderators?

I'd prefer you to improve your tone by yourself rather than complain to the mods about it. We're all adults here, I assume, and it would place you in a better light if you acted like one.

No, I guess you prefer the primary-school debate Should prostitution be legal? Yes or no? as an excuse for not addressing the causes of prostitution.

If you want to discuss the causes of prostitution, start a new thread. Happy to jump in there and argue with you about that topic.

I fail to see why the debate surrounding the legalisation of prostitution is a "primary school debate". It's a very important issue! Regardless of the cause, prostitution exists in every single country in the world. It affects millions of people daily. In the majority of those countries it is illegal, and it is the prostitute who bares the majority of the criminal charges if caught. Is this justified? Is this morally correct? What are the benefits of keeping prostitution illegal? What are the benefits of making prostitution legal? These are hardly primary school issues, Dann.

You totally misunderstand me again. I never intended to offer anything to this debate. I have criticized it and thus tried to ruin it for you from the very beginning! That you don't seem to need any evidence or statistics to back up your claims, doesn't really surprise me. 'I once knew a hooker who used to be a legal secretary', seems to be the best that you can come up with, the whole purerile lot of you.

We have plenty of statistics and evidence to back up our claim that prostitution being illegal does not help anyone! But that's not what you are interested in, you're trying to derail the conversation onto a tangent about the causes of prostitution, which has nothing to do with the original topic.

You are the one here making the claim that prostitution is caused by poverty - thus you need to provide the evidence!

Go on then, not a single piece of evidence that prostitutes for the most part are 'happy hookers' who are in it for the enjoyment of sex and the flexible working hours?

Where is your evidence they are not? No one here has argued that prostitutes are all happy being prostitutes. I am sure a good number of them hate the job. I'm equally sure that you are making a sweeping generalisation without any corroborating data to back it up.

And before you recklessly accuse me of something nefarious here, let me point out - I am not making a call here. I'm not stating that the majority of prostitutes enjoy or hate their job, because I've not seen any data as yet. Give me the data and then I will come to a conclusion.

Ahh, it never ceases to amaze me how clever some people are. Marxist arguments, Marx and Brecht in the sig line and links to a Marxist homepage, that is actually all it takes to make you draw the conclusion: Marxist!

Marxism?? This is your solution for world poverty???



Marxism has been well and truly proven not to work. Sure, in a perfect society of ANTS it works fine. Add humans to the mix, and it fails drastically.

If you want to debate Marxism further, then go to the thread Andyandy started here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78556
I've no interest debating it here, we should try to stick to the original topic.

(Thanks Andyandy for that.)

No, you don’t. You have made it very clear that you are not interested in the abolition of poverty so it would be futile to discuss the theme with you.

Where do you get this crazy idea from? No one in this thread has said anything about keeping or maintaining poverty so they can go and hire a prostitute for an hour or two! This is an insane conclusion to reach from this discussion.

I would believe that everyone would agree with me when I say that poverty should be eliminated. However, I'm equally sure that everyone would agree with me when I say that eliminating poverty is an incredibly complex and difficult task. We're not even sure what causes poverty as yet.

So, in the light of the difficulties in eliminating poverty, what should be done right now, that is within our power, to alleviate the problems faced every day by prostitutes? Should we leave the act illegal, and damn them all to the criminal twilight? Or should we legalise it, and let the government regulate it?

Dann, I am asking you to please keep on topic here. The topic we are discussing is the legality of prostitution. Not the causes, not the enjoyment factor of the work, not world poverty, not communism. Those topics are out of scope, and should be placed in their own threads.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[qayak]

The ammount of money that can be made as a part time job is pretty well documented. So making more money is cited by individuals as one of the reasons. Look at the surveys cited, they include paying off bills as a reason to starting.

Is it a universal reason, of course not, there is no one reason why everyone does anything.

Sorry, what I meant was: Can either of you provide reasoning as to why prostitution is wrong and why it is wrong to make a living at it or wrong to engage in it to buy toys?