Should prostitution be legalized?

[meg]

I'm not claiming it's without problems, I've said from the start that the way to lessen the risks for women is to have legal prostitution with appropriate agencies enforcing the laws. Every single problem that's been quoted so far in places where prostitution is legal has come about through either poorly written laws or poor enforcement. Thanks to NZ being almost corruption-free at the political level and with a very low-level of police corruption, I'm hopeful that we can show the rest of the world that women can be protected by legislation.

Given the arrests and convictions for illegal activities, I'd like to think thatbhope isn't misplaced. Time will tell.

Then show me some evidence this is true. Show me some crime statistics that show your point. Show me some research that agrees with your point. Show me a place with well written laws and proper enforcement that can be used as a model.


PS

"The Sumerian word for female prostitute, kar.kid, occurs in the earliest lists of professions dating back to ca. 2400 B.C. Since it appears right after nam.lukur... one can assume its connection with temple service. It is of interest that the term kur-garru, a male prostitute or transvestite entertainer, appears on the same list but together with entertainers. This linkage results from a practice connected with the cult of Ishtar, in which transvestites performed acts using knives. On the same list we find the following female occupations: lady doctor, scribe, barber, cook. Obviously, prostitution, while it is a very old profession, is not the oldest."
Gerda Lerner "The Origin of Prostitution in Ancient Mesopotamia," Signs, Winter 1986

 

[The Atheist]

Then show me some evidence this is true. Show me some crime statistics that show your point. Show me some research that agrees with your point. Show me a place with well written laws and proper enforcement that can be used as a model.

Did you read what I said? I gave NZ as a model.

As to whether it's working, that information will be available very soon.

As you can see, there is a Parliamentary Judicial Review process in place, which concluded its initial study at the end of 2007.

When the findings are released in Parliament in June this year, I'll try to remember to post a copy here.

 

[Island Skeptic]

...Stockholm Syndrome says that slaves born into slavery might want to stay there, but I don't see too many people offering to become slaves anywhere nowadays.

Hmmm.... well, perhaps not very many, but there certainly are some. I would say that the larger portion of them are enslaved against their will.

I find it interesting that you chose to completely ignore this comment i made:

I wrote:
I ventured to the "Bunny Ranch" link someone posted here, which proudly provided a link to an interview between one of their top young prostitutes "Air Force Amy" and Tyra Banks on its home page:

http://www.bunnyranch.com/news/TyraBanksShow/story2/

Quote:
"It was evident that this type of life took a toll on these women. When asked where they saw themselves in five years, Amy replied, 'I'll be dead by the end of this year'" (and then added that she says that every year)

Hmm... This does not sound very encouraging, especially as it is coming from a young prostitute who was specifically selected for this interview to represent the brothel, but also: one of the more "esteemed" brothels around?

"I'll be dead by the end of this year" just doesn't have a pleasant ring to it.

....and it certainly makes one wonder how the "lower-leveled" prostitutes of this "esteemed" brothel feel.

Originally Posted by Jaana
Do you honestly believe there would be a 'sex industry' if all men withdrew their demand for it?

And do honestly think that's ever going to happen?

Are you implying that men do not have any control over their sex-drives?

Thanks for quoting those things, because it's quite obvious that women and coloured people wanted equal rights and were prepared to fight for it. You're fighting a battle you haven't been asked to join.

How do you know i have not been asked? What do you know of my personal life, my circle of friends, my past experiences, etc?

Again, I find it simply mind-boggling that you'd fight to allow a woman to have an abortion on the basis that it's her body and her right, but when it's her body and sex, she has no rights.

Who is saying that a woman should have "no rights" with regards to what she does with her body? You are going to extremes. We are discussing prostitution, which not only involves women, but a whole lot of children -and men as well.

Well, i am happy to hear your prostitute friends are/were financially successful, although you somehow failed to mention anything about their level of happiness or sense of fulfillment with their occupation (or past occupation).

Now you're back in fantasyland again. Ask a street cleaner, a hospital maid or a labourer about their sense of fulfilment with their occupation.

There is quite a difference between the grunge work of street cleaners and the work of prostitution. In prostitution, the suicide rates, risk factors (of rape, murder, drugging, trafficking, etc) are very high.

Unfortunately there are far more sad stories than happy ones, and far too many prostitutes are harmed than not.

Sure there are. Please explain how you're going to make prostitution go away then.

Glad to know you do not deny this. That is the first step in working towards a solution. Now, if you can only take the blinders off the rest of the pro-prostitution group, perhaps we could begin discussing how we can make prostitution "go away."

I am quite sure that most of us who are pro-abortion are referring to abortions prior to the term of 8 months ("close to term").

Ok, but Meg didn't have that view, nor do lots of others on this forum.

Well, why don't you ask the others in this forum if it so interests you -although, it is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread. (I may be mistaken, but i seem to recall Meg saying she was pro-abortion close to term, which corresponds to how the majority feel about it. However, if there is a risk to the mother's life, i see no reason why a baby should not be aborted at any time of the pregnancy.)

I'm not claiming it's without problems, I've said from the start that the way to lessen the risks for women is to have legal prostitution with appropriate agencies enforcing the laws.

Have you even looked at any of the links Meg posted?

 

[The Atheist]

I find it interesting that you chose to completely ignore this comment i made:

I ignored it because it has no relevance beyond the experiences of one person.

Are you implying that men do not have any control over their sex-drives?

Many of them, yes.

How long has rape been punishable for? Does rape still happen?

How do you know i have not been asked? What do you know of my personal life, my circle of friends, my past experiences, etc?

Well, then. If I'm wrong, please feel free to contradict me. It's possible that you have many prostitute friends who want it to remain illegal. If so, please advise.

Don't you find it odd that there's no chorus from hookers themselves to stop prostitution?

Who is saying that a woman should have "no rights" with regards to what she does with her body? You are going to extremes. We are discussing prostitution, which not only involves women, but a whole lot of children -and men as well.

First off, children don't enter into this discussion, because children cannot legally be prostitutes. Good that you mention it, because we've just had a bloke sent to jail for "training" underage hookers. This alone provides a good reason for legality - under legal prostitution, a female must be 18 years of age to work as a hooker. Given that the age of consent in NZ is 16, the brothel owner would only have been charged with brothel keeping and paid a fine had the bill not become law.

To me, this shows that the law is protecting underage women at the very least.

As to the rights issue, you are the one saying that women should have no right to decide what to do with her body. You want to deny her the opportunity to rent out her vagina, not me. If you can't see where that falls over totally when you support abortion, you are leaving yourself open to charges of blatant hypocrisy.

There is quite a difference between the grunge work of street cleaners and the work of prostitution. In prostitution, the suicide rates, risk factors (of rape, murder, drugging, trafficking, etc) are very high.

Yes, but unfortunately, you were talking about job satisfaction, not inherent dangers.

Glad to know you do not deny this. That is the first step in working towards a solution. Now, if you can only take the blinders off the rest of the pro-prostitution group, perhaps we could begin discussing how we can make prostitution "go away."

Nope, that's ridiculously naive. Like I said above, when rape no longer happens, then you can worry about stopping hooking. Remember, realism above desire.

Well, why don't you ask the others in this forum if it so interests you -although, it is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

Of course it's relevant! You're discussing a woman's rights over her own body. When it comes to destroying another human life, you and Meg will clamour for her right to do so. When it comes to her right to rent her pussy, you cringe away and want it to stop. I find that insanely illogical.

Have you even looked at any of the links Meg posted?

Sure, any you want to discuss?

 

[NewtonTrino]

Are you implying that men do not have any control over their sex-drives?

This is exactly what we've been saying. From all my conversations with Jaana it's clear that she's an idealist. Instead of taking a REALISTIC harm reduction strategy that's pragmatic she wants to make law based on what she feels is wrong. Trying to regulate thing driven by basic human instinct simply doesn't work. If we all worked together to try and reduce overall harm in a pragmatic way we would all be better off. This pie in the sky type thinking has already gotten us in a lot of trouble (everything from prohibition to the current drug war where we have 1 out of 99 people in the USA incarcerated).

Wishing something was so doesn't make it so. There will always be a large market for prostitution, banning it does not work. Given those facts what is the optimal way to reduce harm? I would argue legalization makes a lot more sense that making criminals of people.

Who is the victim in prostitution? Oh that's right, there isn't one.

 

[meg]

Another thread has started over in Social Issues with a similar topic, though more specifically discussing the Swedish model of making it illegal to buy sex, but not to sell. Here is my post in that thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3538738#post3538738

I was going to say that I probably won't stay in this thread too much longer, but something Atheist wrote really intrigues me.

Atheist wrote:

Nope, that's ridiculously naive. Like I said above, when rape no longer happens, then you can worry about stopping hooking. Remember, realism above desire.

Atheist, I am getting the impression from you that you believe both rape and prostitution to be be some sort of natural occurance related to mens natural sexual desires. Would you say agree with that?

If so, I would be interested in discussing that theory more. It is my understanding that the act of rape is not actually about sexual desire, but about control and domination. And something that has occurred to me is that is perhaps why there is so much abuse and violence inherent in the prostitution industry. That there is indeed a link between rape and prostitution, and that prostitution is perhaps not really so much about sexual desire as it is about dominance and control, and how we sometimes confuse the two (ie spoils of war, raping and pillaging the loser of battles, etc).

Thoughts? Anyone?

 

[Michael C]

And, I do not believe a civil war would be necessary to stop prostitution. Simply education and awareness.

Do you honestly believe there would be a 'sex industry' if all men withdrew their demand for it?

Are you being serious? You make it sound like we have a choice or something.

The point here is not to withdraw demand for sex. It's to withdraw demand for paying for sex. Most people apparently don't feel the need to pay someone to have sex: they prefer it to be in a situation where the partners are equally involved in giving each other pleasure.

Of course you have a choice faced with the question: "should I go and pay for sex with a prostitute or not?", just as you have a choice faced with questions such as "should I steal something from this shop?" or "should I murder this person?". You may have strong inclinations to do one or the other, but usually a combination of education, social pressure and fear of the law will effectively stop you from stealing or murdering. Every day we are faced with all sorts of urges that could be considered to be genetically programmed or "instinctive", but when these urges have anti-social effects we are usually quite successful in repressing them. It's all part of being civilised.

 

[The Atheist]

This is exactly what we've been saying. From all my conversations with Jaana it's clear that she's an idealist.

Hear, hear.

I'll argue for realism every day.

Another thread has started over in Social Issues with a similar topic, though more specifically discussing the Swedish model of making it illegal to buy sex, but not to sell. Here is my post in that thread:

The two threads should be merged, given that the topics are identical. I note the post you refer to states this:

So, while I believe it is a woman's right to do whatever she wishes with her own body, I have a real problem with many of the human rights violations that happen to prostitutes.

If that's what you really feel, then you should be pushing for strictly controlled, legal prostitution with rules which are actively enforced. Wishing for it to go away can achieve nothing.

So, while I believe it is a woman's right to do whatever she wishes with her own body, I have a real problem with many of the human rights violations that happen to prostitutes.

I was going to say that I probably won't stay in this thread too much longer, but something Atheist wrote really intrigues me.

Goodo! I aim to please.

Atheist wrote:


Atheist, I am getting the impression from you that you believe both rape and prostitution to be be some sort of natural occurance related to mens natural sexual desires. Would you say agree with that?

Alas, no. I think there is a relationship between the two, but as you correctly note, rape is not just about sex. People who deny that it has anything to do with sex are fooling themselves.

That there is indeed a link between rape and prostitution, and that prostitution is perhaps not really so much about sexual desire as it is about dominance and control, and how we sometimes confuse the two (ie spoils of war, raping and pillaging the loser of battles, etc).

Thoughts? Anyone?

There might be an element of that, although it doesn't fit too well with what the hookers tell me, or the people I know who go to hookers. Most Johns are simply married blokes who are having a hard time getting hard at home and haven't the balls to get a girlfriend, so instead pay for a hooker, while the balance are men who couldn't get laid in a ...

pub?

Isn't raping the women of the vanquished just a means of propagating the DNA of the victors?

 

[Fiona]

Isn't raping the women of the vanquished just a means of propagating the DNA of the victors?

It appears that both you and Newton Trino have no respect for men at all. I am truly suprised that this is tolerated by the other men here, without protest.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Huh? Where do you get a lack of respect towards women? Also respect is really something reserved for individuals. Applying respect towards groups seems kind of silly anyway. Either way I'm a huge supporter of individual rights and this includes the same rights for ALL people whether they are women, men, transsexual, gay, crippled etc.

In every thread where we have talked about this it's women who are telling us how they need to be protected from THEMSELVES. The entire argument for the illegality of prostitution seems to boil down to 'Oh, those poor women, they don't know what they are doing to themselves and are forced into it therefore we should put them in jail for their own good where they can't prostitute themselves'.

I'm an advocate of personal liberty. This means that sometime people will choose things YOU WOULDN'T PERSONALLY CHOOSE. It also means people will make poor choices sometimes. I don't see how giving someone a criminal record helps them AT ALL. Is the outcome for prostitutes worse in places where it is legal? It has to be WORSE to justify a law of any sort otherwise we are just wasting everyones time.


I think rape should be illegal (and it is). I think blackmail and slavery should be illegal. Prostitution? What justification can we possibly use to stop someone from using their OWN body? I really don't get this viewpoint at all (it's the exact same argument to be used for porn actresses and people that want to do drugs).

I'll say one other thing. Many men have "secret" thoughts and desires that they don't tell their wives or girlfriends about. I think many of the women on here have unrealistic views of what the men they are with are really like. In every social group I've seen (with the exception of sex clubs!) women are consistently lied to about what men really think. When people actually tell the truth (e.g. what I've been doing in this forum and the porn generation thread) women are shocked. Bottom line, men are super driven to have a lot of sex with a lot of different women and prostitution isn't going away anytime soon. I've often pondered why I prefer having sex with a woman over masturbation and I can't think of one logical reason why this is the case. It just seems instinctual somehow that it will be more pleasurable even though this isn't always the case. In the case of a married man who isn't getting it at home (and many women seem to mysteriously want way less sex once they get married) their instincts are telling them to go elsewhere. I have no idea what the percentage is but these prostitutes are getting their clients from somewhere and many of these clients are married. I honestly think many men struggle with this but see it as a compromise to getting divorced.

 

[Fiona]

Can't read either?

 

[kosai]

I'm a man and what NewtonTrino or Atheist says doesn't at all offend me. I think they are being about as honest as they can about men. As Newton said, if we believe in individual rights, we must protect even the things we ourselves wouldn't do. I would never use a brothel because I think it's kind of tacky, a chance of getting a disease, and way too expensive for what you are getting. However, I don't care if others choose to in the same that I do not care if some choose to work there. That's the point of those who are arguing the pro-legalization side, I am not going to guess the hows and whys of what people do. There is way to many people for me to guess and it's simply not my place to do so.

We already reject slavery, we already reject rape. Consentual sex is the whole point of prostitution. Instead of a promise of a few drinks or a stable married life, the consentment is given for straight payment. This does not bother me and it apparently doesn't bother the 122 vs. 7 in the poll who agree it should be legal.

The argument the (mostly) women here have set out is that legalizing prostitution has the potential for abuse. This is like the anti-gun people who say outlaw guns because someone might abuse them. It's not a good argument because you are left guessing the actions for a lot of people who you don't know, most of whom use rights responsibly. You are also using those who abuse a right as the mark on the wall to compare all those who would not. Making laws in that manner actually *only* limits people who use their rights responsibly. The other people do what they want legal or not.

The bottom line difference in this case is the prostitute could seek help from the law if it were legal. When it is illegal the man who raped her will go out another night to do so again to some other woman. Why would you want to limit the prostitutes right to protection? Simply because you wish it will go away?

 

[Rufo]

Atheist, I am getting the impression from you that you believe both rape and prostitution to be be some sort of natural occurance related to mens natural sexual desires. Would you say agree with that?

If so, I would be interested in discussing that theory more. It is my understanding that the act of rape is not actually about sexual desire, but about control and domination. And something that has occurred to me is that is perhaps why there is so much abuse and violence inherent in the prostitution industry. That there is indeed a link between rape and prostitution, and that prostitution is perhaps not really so much about sexual desire as it is about dominance and control, and how we sometimes confuse the two (ie spoils of war, raping and pillaging the loser of battles, etc).

Thoughts? Anyone?

I mentioned this connection in the other thread. Comparing anything to rape will always upset people, even if you admit that rape is much worse, but it can't be helped, really. Prostitution belongs in the category of sex as a tool or display of dominance, not with affectionate sex. It wears a very, very thin veil by its attemt to simulate or imitate affectionate sex, and it's sad that it fools so many.

I'll say one other thing. Many men have "secret" thoughts and desires that they don't tell their wives or girlfriends about. I think many of the women on here have unrealistic views of what the men they are with are really like. In every social group I've seen (with the exception of sex clubs!) women are consistently lied to about what men really think. When people actually tell the truth (e.g. what I've been doing in this forum and the porn generation thread) women are shocked. Bottom line, men are super driven to have a lot of sex with a lot of different women and prostitution isn't going away anytime soon. I've often pondered why I prefer having sex with a woman over masturbation and I can't think of one logical reason why this is the case. It just seems instinctual somehow that it will be more pleasurable even though this isn't always the case. In the case of a married man who isn't getting it at home (and many women seem to mysteriously want way less sex once they get married) their instincts are telling them to go elsewhere. I have no idea what the percentage is but these prostitutes are getting their clients from somewhere and many of these clients are married. I honestly think many men struggle with this but see it as a compromise to getting divorced.

Exchange every feminine noun in this quote for a masculine, and vice versa. Still applies pretty well, huh? Now, ask yourself why the vast, vast majority of people who buy sex are men.

 

[The Atheist]

It appears that both you and Newton Trino have no respect for men at all.

Eh? You've lost me here, I'm sorry. I was talking about a subset of men; those who rape women. In what way should I have respect for them? Contempt, sure - I can do that in spades, but my mind's boggling that I should find something respectable about them.

I am truly suprised that this is tolerated by the other men here, without protest.

Well, that's ok, because I'm truly amazed.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I have heard nothing but ideology from the pro-banning people. Nobody ever steps up to the plate for honest debate on things like individual rights. It's all feelings about this or that based on personal bias. Personal bias is a crappy reason to ban other people from doing things that offend your sensibilities. Remember that ultimately we are talking about making criminals of people for these acts. Not only is this dumb it's also undermines respect for the law and the government. This disrespect is actually being EARNED by our stupid actions towards individuals. Frankly I want less of the nanny state we have in this stuffy society.

 

[Rufo]

I have heard nothing but ideology from the pro-banning people. Nobody ever steps up to the plate for honest debate on things like individual rights. It's all feelings about this or that based on personal bias. Personal bias is a crappy reason to ban other people from doing things that offend your sensibilities.

Well, the facts are a bit lacking on this subject, so until we know more (which may not be possible), there will be a lot of personal bias on both sides. You're going to have a hard time if you want to debate this topic completely without personal bias, and considering your contributions so far, I fail to see how your opponents would be more biased than yourself. We all have our anecdotes and experience of these subjects, and we'll have to deal with that they sometimes do not match.

Remember that ultimately we are talking about making criminals of people for these acts. Not only is this dumb it's also undermines respect for the law and the government. This disrespect is actually being EARNED by our stupid actions towards individuals.

Do you mean that a democratically elected government passing laws by democratic process, essentially intended to represent the wishes of the people, undermines the people's respect for the government? That is going to be very troublesome for it in the long run.

Frankly I want less of the nanny state we have in this stuffy society.

That sounds like ideology to me. I thought that was not what you wanted to see contributed here, although I guess it can't be helped since ideologies tend to affects our morals which are, in the end, what all this is about.

 

[GStan]

Well, the facts are a bit lacking on this subject, so until we know more (which may not be possible), there will be a lot of personal bias on both sides. You're going to have a hard time if you want to debate this topic completely without personal bias, and considering your contributions so far, I fail to see how your opponents would be more biased than yourself. We all have our anecdotes and experience of these subjects, and we'll have to deal with that they sometimes do not match.

Those who are arguing against legal prostitution are essentially seeking to require everyone to subscribe to their particular value system, which tells them that prostitution is wrong. Those arguing in favor of legal prostitution are not requiring anyone to subscribe to a particular value system. Those who find it acceptable behavior are free to participate without the risk of legal implications, and those who find it objectionable are free to not participate.

Just one guy's opinion: I find prostitution objectionable. I can't imagine any circumstances under which I would ever visit one. However, it is not right for me to impose my values upon the rest of my community/society based on my personal beliefs (even when a large majority of the population may share my viewpoint). I see no harm in others, who do not find it objectionable, freely engaging in that activity.

One side of this argument is putting personal moral or idealogical bias ahead of freedom and personal privacy. The other side is not.

 

[Rufo]

Those who are arguing against legal prostitution are essentially seeking to require everyone to subscribe to their particular value system, which tells them that prostitution is wrong. Those arguing in favor of legal prostitution are not requiring anyone to subscribe to a particular value system. Those who find it acceptable behavior are free to participate without the risk of legal implications, and those who find it objectionable are free to not participate.

The problem is, viewing the matter like this also constitutes bias. It presumes that everyone is completely free and has a reasonable choice in the matter. Part of the pro-banning side's agument is often that the situation does not look like that. As long as we don't have facts on the matter, the anti-banning side is forcing this view as much as the pro-banning side is forcing another view. That is the problem I was referring to.

Just one guy's opinion: I find prostitution objectionable. I can't imagine any circumstances under which I would ever visit one. However, it is not right for me to impose my values upon the rest of my community/society based on my personal beliefs (even when a large majority of the population may share my viewpoint). I see no harm in others, who do not find it objectionable, freely engaging in that activity.

I completely understand your sentiment, and I feel the same way about many other activities, including sexual ones. But I haven't seen anyone make the argument "It feels wrong for me to go to a prostitute, so therefore it should be illegal." The argument rather seem to be pointing out the specific problems with others, who do not find it objectionable, freely engaging in that activity.

One side of this argument is putting personal moral or idealogical bias ahead of freedom and personal privacy. The other side is not.

Would you like a list of what the other side is putting its personal moral and idealogical bias ahead of? There are other important values besides freedom and personal privacy.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Exactly. The people that want to ban it are basically trying to control others AT THE POINT OF A GUN. All I'm saying is that before we start arresting people we should make damn sure that we have some extremely good reasons for doing so. Personal dislike of an act doesn't even come close to qualifying and any harm has to be greater than the harm to society of banning the act (e.g. marginalizing people, undermining respect for law, cost of enforcement etc etc).

I haven't heard a single argument how banning it protects either prostitutes or society in general. We are collectively banging our heads against a wall, let's please stop!

 

[GStan]

The problem is, viewing the matter like this also constitutes bias. It presumes that everyone is completely free and has a reasonable choice in the matter. Part of the pro-banning side's agument is often that the situation does not look like that. As long as we don't have facts on the matter, the anti-banning side is forcing this view as much as the pro-banning side is forcing another view. That is the problem I was referring to.

I completely understand your sentiment, and I feel the same way about many other activities, including sexual ones. But I haven't seen anyone make the argument "It feels wrong for me to go to a prostitute, so therefore it should be illegal." The argument rather seem to be pointing out the specific problems with others, who do not find it objectionable, freely engaging in that activity.

Would you like a list of what the other side is putting its personal moral and idealogical bias ahead of? There are other important values besides freedom and personal privacy.

Point conceded. I suppose in a truly free society, one is as free to be 'anti-freedom' as one is to be 'pro-freedom', and I can see now that my side is ideologically biased in the argument in favor of freedom.