Outlawing prostitution

billydkid said:
I understand what you are saying - but those societies are defective on many levels. It may protect women to outlaw prostitution is these societies or it may not - prostitution will happen anyway. In an unjust society everything is screwed up. Outlawing particular behaviors or activities doesn't change that. I would argue in generally that criminalizing behaviors only further victimizes people who are already screwed. In much the same way the war on drugs has become, by and large, a war against the under class and like every great exercise in social engineering the primary victims are invariably the powerless.
Click to expand...

I am not stating with absolute conviction that outlawing prostitution in those societies would help. I just wanted to go on record as saying when discussing the issue in some situations it is not always only about the morality derived from sacred scriptures.

I will agree with you that the vast majority of those against it in the U.S. fit your description. Some of them may argue that they are really against the spread of disease, but if these folks were given a hypothetical situation where AIDS, herpes, and other STDs were eradicated, they would still try argue against it.
 
DanishDynamite said:
Within the last few days there has been political talk here about making it illegal for people to visit prostitutes, i.e. to pay for sex.

Apparently the Swedish Parliament has recently made such a law and various woos in the Danish Parliament are having similar feelings.

Your view?
Click to expand...
In the spirit of Hunter S Thompson, I offer the following thought:

"If you tax pussy, your government will always have a revenue stream."

Seems that not everyone agrees with the idea that this is an appropriate sin tax, but they'll tax the dickens out of whiskey and cigarettes, which are the before and after indulgences that traditionally accompany the horizontal bop.

Your mileage may vary.

DR
 
Illegal

With all of the real problems, and evil in the world, and we are concerned about someone paying for sex. Are you kiddin me?

It should not be illegal to pay for sex, nor should it be illegal to sell sex. It is just sex, and it is totally ridiculous to make laws concerning such.

You can't and shouldn't make a law about everything, and laws concerning the above are totally ludicrous and accomplish nothing, except to tie up law enforcers, who could be spending their time fighting crimes that matter.
 
nightwind said:
With all of the real problems, and evil in the world, and we are concerned about someone paying for sex. Are you kiddin me?

It should not be illegal to pay for sex, nor should it be illegal to sell sex. It is just sex, and it is totally ridiculous to make laws concerning such.

You can't and shouldn't make a law about everything, and laws concerning the above are totally ludicrous and accomplish nothing, except to tie up law enforcers, who could be spending their time fighting crimes that matter.
Click to expand...
You may remember that at the time of 9/11 the FBI had a large anti-prostitution task force that dwarfed their effort in regard to the threat of terrorism. In that respect - meaning with respect to effort and man power prioritization and what was deemed important - we were "asking for it". It was apparently more important to the FBI at the time that people might be screwing unlawfully somewhere than it was to guard against an attack.
 
Nicholas Kristof's column today presents the "pro" argument for this sort of law. Not saying I agree with it. Just that he presents the argument about as well as it can be presented, I think.

Some Swedish prostitutes have complained that the policy reduced demand and thus lowered prices, while forcing sex work underground. But the evidence is strong that the new approach reduced trafficking in Sweden, and opinion polls show that Swedes regard the experiment as a considerable success. And the bottom line is that if you want to rape a 13-year-old girl imported from Eastern Europe, you’ll have a much easier time in Amsterdam than in Stockholm.

A growing number of other countries are pursuing the Swedish model. South Korea had a vast trafficking industry in the 1990s, but a crackdown has led Korean gangs to traffic girls to California instead — because pimping teenagers there is seen as safer and more profitable than at home.

No approach is going to work perfectly. But the Swedish model seems to have worked better than any other. The New York law that Governor Spitzer pushed was inspired partly by the Swedish experience, and New York should enforce that law firmly, by cracking down on pimps and customers.
Click to expand...
 
Puppycow said:
Nicholas Kristof's column today presents the "pro" argument for this sort of law. Not saying I agree with it. Just that he presents the argument about as well as it can be presented, I think.
Click to expand...
There's always a philosophical and a practical ground for these questions. I'm trying to argue for the law on the philosophical ground here - but in the long run that might be the wrong approach, because the law might have been adopted with the practical ground in mind rather than the philosophical. There were (and are) ideological forces effecting the Swedish government, but we must remember that prostitution had been legal for nearly a century. It's not like there is no record or experience of what it's like to have it legal.

I apologize for ignoring your previous post:
Puppycow said:
Rufo: why do you think it should be illegal to pay someone for sex, but not to sell sex?
Click to expand...
Simply put, because I consider the seller to be the victim of the crime rather than the buyer. I explained above what I think of prostitution and, though I obviously don't equate the crimes, to me this question is a bit like asking why a rapist should be punished rather than the raped. Punishing rape victims is part of an outdated, barbaric morality based on religious doctrines and a twisted view of sexuality, while punishing rapists is part of virtually all civilized societies. Again, I'm not equating these crimes, but they are of the same type, and thus I consider it a fair comparison.
 
Fredrik said:
That really is what it's all about. People here (Sweden) aren't thinking rationally about it at all. Most of the "arguments" are just attempts to trigger negative emotions ("Whose daughter should be the whore?") or based on some kind of confused absolute morality and a misrepresentation of the facts ("It's wrong to buy someone's body").
Click to expand...
That argument (the first one) is not just an attempt to "trigger negative emotions" - it's an attempt to expose hypocrisy. If one thinks some unspecified people should be prostitutes, but is appalled by the thought of one's daughter being one, one has double standards.

If a vegetarian asks me "So you think it's right to kill animals for food? Whose child should be the butcher?" I would respond "I have no problem with my child being the butcher". Anyone who replies by saying "Oh no, I wouldn't want my child to kill those cute animals!", yet still wants someone to do it, has double standards. The argument is meant to make people think, to examine their morals. If you are not prepared to see your daughter be the prostitute, why should someone else's daughter be? If you are all right with your daughter being a prostitute, you can easily counter the argument.
 
Last edited:
Rufo said:
That argument (the first one) is not just an attempt to "trigger negative emotions" - it's an attempt to expose hypocrisy. If one thinks some unspecified people should be prostitutes, but is appalled by the thought of one's daughter being one, one has double standards.

If a vegetarian asks me "So you think it's right to kill animals for food? Whose child should be the butcher?" I would respond "I have no problem with my child being the butcher". Anyone who replies by saying "Oh no, I wouldn't want my child to kill those cute animals!", yet still wants someone to do it, has double standards. The argument is meant to make people think, to examine their morals. If you are not prepared to see your daughter be the prostitute, why should someone else's daughter be? If you are all right with your daughter being a prostitute, you can easily counter the argument.
Click to expand...

The argument from hypocrisy fails, however, because nobody is suggesting that anyone else's daughter should become a prostitute, only that the choice to do so should not be forbidden to her. That said, I think that if the goal is to reduce trafficking, then it makes perfect sense to punish pimps and traffickers, and possibly also the johns who pay them. I would not have any problem with allowing customers to pay for a well-regulated, licensed brothel owned and operated by women who choose to do so, however.
 
 
Prometheus said:
The argument from hypocrisy fails, however, because nobody is suggesting that anyone else's daughter should become a prostitute, only that the choice to do so should not be forbidden to her.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is not a very good argument, which is why I didn't use it in the first place. I also agree that wishing someone not to become a prostitute is not the same as thinking the business should be prohibited by law.

But I do think the intention of the argument has much to do with exposing hypocrisy. This issue is connected to the one of sexual objectification of women in particular (since most prostitutes are women) and people in general. This is an accusation often coming from both sides of the debate, but let's focus on how it works in this particular situation.

The debater who uses this argument probably feels that his opponent has objectified the prostitutes and are not thinking of them as people, or insufficiently empathizes with them. To effectively bring the opponent's attention to this, he uses an example of someone he reasonably will not objectify, and also is fond of and will have empathy for. The argument is not necessarily used to "trigger negative emotions" as stated by Fredrik, it's intended to provoke thought and examination of ones values. It's not an instant-win, prove-you-wrong argument, but that doesn't make it invalid.

However, I don't think it would be in my best interest to use the argument here, because I don't think objectification is the problem.

That said, I think that if the goal is to reduce trafficking, then it makes perfect sense to punish pimps and traffickers, and possibly also the johns who pay them. I would not have any problem with allowing customers to pay for a well-regulated, licensed brothel owned and operated by women who choose to do so, however.
Click to expand...
That prompts two questions:
1. On the practical ground - which approach is actually the most effective in preventing trafficking? Puppycow's quote of Kristof points to the Swedish approach being effective, but I've also seen a report indicating an increase of pimps here, so obviously it's complicated. Still, if punishing all johns is the most effective approach, regardless of what makes perfect sense or not, would you support that law?

2. What requirements would you put on how the brothel should be owned and operated to assure it was not effectively similar to a pimp?
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
Would you want your daughter to be a decoy cop busting would-be johns?
Click to expand...
I don't have a daughter, but I don't think I'd mind if she chose to be one. Do you think I'm objectifying cops? Why?

ETA: On a second thought, I'm not sure what kind of police methodology you are referring to and whether I approve of it. You may have to elaborate.
 
Last edited:
Commonly in big cities in the United States, anti-prostitution laws are enforced against would-be johns by policewomen posing as hookers. They hang out where hookers hang out and will arrest a man who approaches and makes an improper suggestion.
 
Rufo said:
....
That prompts two questions:
1. On the practical ground - which approach is actually the most effective in preventing trafficking? Puppycow's quote of Kristof points to the Swedish approach being effective, but I've also seen a report indicating an increase of pimps here, so obviously it's complicated. Still, if punishing all johns is the most effective approach, regardless of what makes perfect sense or not, would you support that law?

2. What requirements would you put on how the brothel should be owned and operated to assure it was not effectively similar to a pimp?
Click to expand...

1. It seems to me that most, if not all, trafficking is carried out by organized crime syndicates. If any law enforcement agency anywhere has come up with a strategy that effectively and consistently reduces organized crime activity, I'm unaware of it. At best, criminal organizations can be prodded to be a little less destructive by making the most destructive activities less profitable for them. Since the vast majority of women who are prostitutes become so due to poverty rather than to personal choice, reducing poverty around the world should make it more difficult for traffickers to find women who can be duped/trapped into working for them. Law enforcement targetting pimps and johns should make it more difficult to market the women, or to find customers, further reducing the profitability. Perhaps a third prong could be law enforcement posing as johns in order to pick women up, take them to safety and offer them some other choices (say a place to live in a halfway house, treatment for drug addiction, a job that pays a living wage, help contacting any family they may have been taken from, etc.) I have no idea whether or not all this has been tried--though I'm pretty sure that not much headway has been made on the world poverty front. The only approach I'm certain DOES NOT work, is treating the women like criminals.

2. I don't know, really. I threw that out to satisfy the libertarian whiners who'll point to the tiny fraction of prostitutes who are not victims, and seem to enjoy their work, and because I honestly believe that outright prohibition of any "vice" crime always makes things worse. Some possible requirements might be: 1) Regular inspection by law enforcement, health, customs/immigration and tax officials; 2) A citizenship requirement for sex-workers; 3) A very high "minimum wage"; 4) Employee ownership of the business; 5) No cash transactions allowed.

Disclaimer: I am not any kind of an expert in any aspect of this problem, nor do I have any hard data at all. I am hypothesizing, only. If anyone does have any hard evidence that any of what I've mentioned either does or doesn't work, I would be very interested in seeing it.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
Would you want your daughter to be a decoy cop busting would-be johns?
Click to expand...

Actually, that's always confused me. Isn't that like entrapment or something? Or would it be entrapment if the officer was pretending to be a john and walked up to people and offered to pay them for sex?
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Actually, that's always confused me. Isn't that like entrapment or something? Or would it be entrapment if the officer was pretending to be a john and walked up to people and offered to pay them for sex?
Click to expand...
It would only be entrapment if the cop were to make the offer. If the cop's just standing there, and the john makes the offer, it's his own fault.

Unless the female cop is absolutely irresistable.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
Commonly in big cities in the United States, anti-prostitution laws are enforced against would-be johns by policewomen posing as hookers. They hang out where hookers hang out and will arrest a man who approaches and makes an improper suggestion.
Click to expand...
I agree with Tsukasa that this method seems a little strange, so I'm not sure what to think of it. What I can say, however, is that I wouldn't mind my daughter doing any policework I accept others doing - of course I might be worried about her, but that is not the same thing. What have I said that made you ask this question?

Prometheus said:
1. It seems to me that most, if not all, trafficking is carried out by organized crime syndicates. If any law enforcement agency anywhere has come up with a strategy that effectively and consistently reduces organized crime activity, I'm unaware of it. At best, criminal organizations can be prodded to be a little less destructive by making the most destructive activities less profitable for them. Since the vast majority of women who are prostitutes become so due to poverty rather than to personal choice, reducing poverty around the world should make it more difficult for traffickers to find women who can be duped/trapped into working for them. Law enforcement targetting pimps and johns should make it more difficult to market the women, or to find customers, further reducing the profitability. Perhaps a third prong could be law enforcement posing as johns in order to pick women up, take them to safety and offer them some other choices (say a place to live in a halfway house, treatment for drug addiction, a job that pays a living wage, help contacting any family they may have been taken from, etc.) I have no idea whether or not all this has been tried--though I'm pretty sure that not much headway has been made on the world poverty front. The only approach I'm certain DOES NOT work, is treating the women like criminals.
Click to expand...
From what I understand, I wholeheartedly agree with your entire statement. On the practical ground of the problem, it seems we have much in common. :) Maybe I'm just splitting hairs with these questions.

2. I don't know, really. I threw that out to satisfy the libertarian whiners who'll point to the tiny fraction of prostitutes who are not victims, and seem to enjoy their work, and because I honestly believe that outright prohibition of any "vice" crime always makes things worse. Some possible requirements might be: 1) Regular inspection by law enforcement, health, customs/immigration and tax officials; 2) A citizenship requirement for sex-workers; 3) A very high "minimum wage"; 4) Employee ownership of the business; 5) No cash transactions allowed.
Click to expand...
I can see the point of that, and the requirements are reasonable. It answers my question very well. However, I don't care much for libertarianism, so whether libertarian whiners are satisfied or not is not something I care about myself. But if it keeps them off your back...

Disclaimer: I am not any kind of an expert in any aspect of this problem, nor do I have any hard data at all. I am hypothesizing, only. If anyone does have any hard evidence that any of what I've mentioned either does or doesn't work, I would be very interested in seeing it.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge there are too few facts and virtually no experts on the subject, which is what makes it so hard to debate. But my knowledge is pretty limited too, so all I can tell you for certain is that I am not an expert either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom