Why is prostitution illegal?

[Ivor the Engineer]

@JFrankA:

The suggestions I've made are actually similar to ones from experienced and (by their own account) successful prostitutes/escorts. For example:

http://www.dearcupid.org/question/should-i-enjoy-being-a-prostitute-this-much.html

...Though being a prostitute is not the easiest job in the world, it certainly is not the hardest or the most repugnant and it certainly pays well if you keep a head on your shoulders. Stay away from alcohol and drugs. I never did either and I controlled my life instead of letting it be controlled by others because I was weak and drugged out. Stay off the street and away from pimps. There is no future there. Stay independent and get your own customers. I still work and have steady customers. Oh yes, I often would reach an orgasm from the efforts of my customers. The ones that got me off seemed to enjoy me more and were almost always repeat customers. It has been a good life so far but, my only regret is that I have never had children. Sex work is hard to quit. It is itself almost addictive. But young lady, if you don't get stupid and keep complete control over your working environment and you decide which customers you accept and you accept no maltreatment or other bulls...t, you can lead a happy productive life. MOST IMPORTANT: bank 50% of everything you make. Invest in stocks and bonds (bonds are more secure, stocks better return on the investment over the long haul}. Don't get carried away with shopping. Don't abuse credit cards!!!Pay the little devils off and don't use them unless it is an emergency. You should have the money you make to retire on. Also, go to school and get a good education so when you get too old to be a sex worker or tire of it, you have an alternative way to earn money. Final thing: being a sex worker does not keep you from having relationships. I have had a husband these past 20 years. And I have had boyfriends and dated them just like other girls would do...go to dinner and a movie or go bowling. Just because you are in the sex industry doesn't mean you can't live like everybody else!

It seems you think you know better than everyone.

 

[JFrankA]

You know, you do the same thing you claim that I do. You claim that I only pay attention to the articles that agree with my opinion.

But you seem to do a worse job. You see, you've taken one woman's opinion, one that is actually out of context to your points, (e.g. mentions nothing about legal brothels, says never says that it's a great idea to have buying sex illegal, etc, etc), and claim that makes you right but then you completely ignore a study that was made on legal brothels.


....and you still haven't disagreed with me that the only reason that prostitution is illegal is just moralistic reasons.

....hmmm. Just interesting, that's all.

 

[articulett]

Escorts are the "legal" way that people get around the illegality of prostitution... they always have... people can pay for escorts... companionship... personal entertainment.... and people can have sex with whom they choose... so clients and contractors do this weird language game to make sure that should either party be a cop, no money is directly exchanged for sex.

But the time and efforts of police officers could be much better spent then trying to figure out if a "direct exchange" of sex for money is going on... since it's a victimless crime.

It is like prohibition... it just makes people have to be sneakier... but it doesn't matter if it's legal or illegal-- the law can't stop it... and it's a waste of tax payer dollars when money could be spent actually protecting people from harm and exploitation.

The prostitutes at legal brothels compete for the right to work at places and pay a fee to rent the space... so do exotic dancers... they are independent contractors... so are many escorts. Many have been sexually exploited prior to deciding to make customers pay for that which some people have taken freely or via mental manipulation before.

When it's illegal, people do it anyhow... just like with prohibition... and those that are exploited are forced to hide or are denied the services of the law because they are considered to be engaging in criminal activity. It's easier to control people when you threaten them with "going to the law" if they try to escape. And it makes for weird denial, ignorance, and an inability for adults to discuss the situation--that's exploitative. Customers and workers need to understand the real risks involved without the moral police stepping in and protect themselves accordingly-- and their future partners and mates.

When it's illegal, people do it, but they just result to bizarre terminology and mind games, to keep the practice going while staying inside the bounds of the law. If it's not a crime, tax dollars can be spent directly helping those who are exploited instead of playing silly vice-cop games to see if you can get some poor bloke or lass to use words in such a way that you can prove a clear exchange of money for sex.

Heck, the people most in support of supposed family values and against legalized prostitutions are often the very people we find indulging in such activities... maybe it "turns them on" to be hypocrites--whether preacher or politician. Legalizing it may be the one way to take the thrill out of the activities of activities like Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggert, Larry Craig, and all the recent politicians busted in using public money for high priced call girls. Who is being exploited? The tax payer, that's who-- and church members who are made to feel guilty and hell bound for feelings that appear to be far less exploitative then the actual behavior that their preachers are engaging in. Moreover, the government has a vested interest in collecting taxes whenever money is exchanged... how many illegal workers report their earnings?

Let the wrath of the wives and the disgust of the public curb this hypocrisy... we don't need vice cops on top of it all, do we? For what? Escorts ARE a solution to the wording of the law--but the laws are archaic. Yes, punishing the johns is better than punishing the women... but the LAWS ARE ARCHAIC-- outdated. We don't need vice squads... we need police officers to protect the people who employ them (the tax payers) from actual harms-- we need them to enforce the laws that are shown to be efficacious in that regard-- locking up sexual abusers, batterers, scam artists while the public shuns the liars and hypocrites bringing embarrassment and shame to their own families while demeaning others for the equivalent of "thought crimes" under the guise of "higher morality" and "family values".

 

[dann]

"The fact that all the characteristics of potential and/or real partners are classified according to the noble purpose of servicing one’s fine ego is, by the way, also the reason for the separation of love and sex, a separation considered impossible and improper. Modern individuals carry out this separation with their “ifs” and “buts,” just as if they were devout Christians who consider the “physical union” between human beings endowed with consciousness and will to be something that is somehow improper for man, who possesses morality, and reduces him to the level of June bugs. There is thus such a thing as the explicit intention to just screw, this intention even being publicly institutionalized in brothels that are not unimportant in municipal politics — there is as well the idea that sex is actually more and higher than that. Sorry to say that we are not in agreement because in actuality and bed, the only thing that might be high or low is the bed."
http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/psych/2-8-chap-8.html

 

[quixotecoyote]

http://www.gegenstan dpunkt.com/english/psych/2-8-chap-8.html

I'm not really participating in this conversation, but I just had to savor this.

In response to being accused of preaching Marxism and moralism instead of offering substantive debate, dann

wait for it



here it comes




little more



links to a paper of preachy Marixist moralizing with no argument, debate, or commentary, whatsoever.

 

[articulett]

Is that what that was? I wasn't able to find the point of it at all. (But often Dann seems to be in his own conversation to me. I used to think it was, perhaps, a language thing.)

 

[JFrankA]

Once again, Articulett, you live up to your name, and once again, a standing ovation for your past two posts. Thank you.

As for Dann,

"The fact that all the characteristics of potential and/or real partners are classified according to the noble purpose of servicing one’s fine ego is, by the way, also the reason for the separation of love and sex, a separation considered impossible and improper. Modern individuals carry out this separation with their “ifs” and “buts,” just as if they were devout Christians who consider the “physical union” between human beings endowed with consciousness and will to be something that is somehow improper for man, who possesses morality, and reduces him to the level of June bugs. There is thus such a thing as the explicit intention to just screw, this intention even being publicly institutionalized in brothels that are not unimportant in municipal politics — there is as well the idea that sex is actually more and higher than that. Sorry to say that we are not in agreement because in actuality and bed, the only thing that might be high or low is the bed."
http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/psych/2-8-chap-8.html

Aaaaaaaaand on that note, I'm off to edit a porno I filmed. It's of a woman, who was never harmed, who wanted and chose to be filmed, who I chose to and did pay her well to film, who chose not feel (and was not) exploited in any way, who had a wonderful, fun time, who I will choose to hire again and I'm sure she will choose to want to be hired by me again because I treated her with respect and professionalism.
And I'm going to post that edit film on an internet site that adults can choose to pay me to download and watch and enjoy the beauty of this woman feeling good, happy and enjoying herself. And they chose to pay that, just as I chose to pay her to film her.

Thank you Dann, because your words and preaching has inspired me to better myself and to exercise my, the model's and my customer's choices.

(*Big hugs to you and at no charge!*)

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Articulett:

Should street-walker prostitution be discouraged?

Should managers/pimps be made illegal?

 

[articulett]

When there is harm, it should be addressed-- I think most people don't want prostitutes walking the streets in their neighborhoods. Pimps are different than Madams who run Brothels. I think things that cause harm are things that should be addressed using legislation. I think that things that consenting adults do for sex and or money is really not something the law needs to spend money on. The crimes are already crimes. When prostitution is illegal, you just keep the women from utilizing the police or legal system to protect them... you've made them "outlaws" by defining what they do as illegal. You haven't stopped them doing it.

I think it probably does worse harm to stigmatize the women then anything else... at least that's what they seem to say. I just don't see a good reason for having it be illegal. I think it's better that the law stay out of it since there's always ways around it (as escort services are)-- and there already are laws to prevent the abuses associated with it. Everyone knows what an escort service is-- but they use language games to make it fit under a legal loophole.

You could ask similar questions about prohibition-- you ask me if I like the fact that drunks can walk the street or drive cars-- but we already have laws addressing those things... and prohibition doesn't stop that behavior. Instead, it made outlaws out of people who could be paying taxes to law enforcement rather than hiding from law enforcement as tax payers paid cops to be the vice squad/ moral police.

You just haven't shown that having prostitution be illegal achieves any intended goals. It's the same as blue laws and prohibition and such. I'm not a drinker... but before I'd impose such laws and use tax money to uphold them-- I'd want to be damn sure they showed efficacy worth the cost of implementing them. I am as against drunk driving as anyone-- but I would want to see numbers that showed that prohibition worked to prevent such a thing before I would sign on. We have laws that address drunk driving. I'm sure things could be better--but I doubt making alcohol illegal would do it.

The same for prostitution. Really. The same.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

When there is harm, it should be addressed-- I think most people don't want prostitutes walking the streets in their neighborhoods.

I agree.

Pimps are different than Madams who run Brothels.

From what I’ve read (including the study you linked to), I’m not so sure there’s as big a difference as people like to think there is.

I think things that cause harm should are things that should be addressed using legislation.

I agree.

I think that things that consenting adults do for sex and or money is really not something the law needs to spend money on. The crimes are already crimes. When prostituion is illegal, you just keep the women away from utilizing the police or legal system to protect them... you've made them "outlaws" by defining what they do as illegal. You haven't stopped them doing it.

I partially agree. However, I think society has a responsibility to ensure that coercion is limited. The laws in countries where it is legal to buy sex and run brothels do not seem to make much difference to the amount of coercion in the industry.

I think it probably does worse harm to stigmatize the women then anything else... at least that's what they seem to say. I just don't see a good reason for having it be illegal. I think it's better that the law stay out of it since there's always ways around it (as escort services are)-- and there already are laws to prevent the abuses associated with it.

I agree that stigmatisation of the prostitutes is wrong. I want to stigmatise people who treat others as objects, rather than human beings.

Everyone knows what an escort service is-- but they use language games to make it fit under a legal loophole.

Or does the language used reframe what is being purchased? For example, let’s say a prostitute working in a brothel agrees a price for a particular sexual act. The money is paid and the sex begins. Doesn’t the prostitute still have the right to stop at any point? I.e., even in the case of a brothel, the clients are still only really buying a prostitute’s time and attention. There is no actual contractual obligation for the prostitute to carry out what was agreed to beforehand. Should there be?

You could ask similar questions about prohibition-- you could say, do you like the fact that drunks can walk the street or drive drunk-- but we already have laws addressing those things... and prohibition doesn't stop that behavior. Instead, it made outlaws out of people who could be paying taxes to law enforcement rather than hiding from law enforcement as tax payers paid cops to be the vice squad/ moral police.

One of the most successful strategies for curbing excessive drinking and drink driving is stigmatisation of consumers, rather than bartenders.

You just haven't shown that having prostitution be illegal achieves any intended goals. It's the same as blue laws and prohibition and such. I'm not a drinker... but before I'd impose such laws and use tax money to uphold them-- I'd want to be damn sure they showed efficacy worth the cost of implementing them. I am against drunk driving as anyone-- but I would want to see numbers that showed that prohibition worked to prevent such a thing before I would sign on. We have laws that address drunk driving. I'm sure things could be better--but I doubt making alcohol illegal would do it.

The same for prostitution. Really. The same.

If becoming an independent escort was a legal job they would pay taxes, have access to social security benefits, health cover, be able to employ staff to look after their accounts and investments.

What I’m basically saying is I don’t have a problem with people buying other people’s time and attention, I do have a problem with people being able to (think they can) buy or lease out other people’s bodies.

 

[JFrankA]

What I’m basically saying is I don’t have a problem with people buying other people’s time and attention, I do have a problem with people being able to (think they can) buy or lease out other people’s bodies.

Isn't that what a model does? I don't mean a nude model, I mean, for example a woman on the "Price is Right" holding a bottle of Turtle Car Wax.

She is selling her body and face to a company and they are using it to sell a product.

Isn't that someone leasing out another's body? Are you just as concerned with that?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Isn't that what a model does? I don't mean a nude model, I mean, for example a woman on the "Price is Right" holding a bottle of Turtle Car Wax.

She is selling her body and face to a company and they are using it to sell a product.

Isn't that someone leasing out another's body?

No. It's leasing out someone to hold or use a product.

Are you just as concerned with that?

I'm concerned that models are often passively or actively encouraged to engage in unhealthy behaviour so as to match an unrealistic idea of what a woman should look like and how she should behave.

 

[JFrankA]

No. It's leasing out someone to hold or use a product.

Now you are rationalizing: it's still leasing out her body. I've never seen a model hold up a car, and it's a strange definition of the word "use" when she's sprawled all over it during a music video.......

I'm concerned that models are often passively or actively encouraged to engage in unhealthy behaviour so as to match an unrealistic idea of what a woman should look like and how she should behave.

Soooo since you are so concerned with the message that modeling does send out some kind of unhealthy behavior, that means you're worried that they send the wrong message: therefore, just like buying sex, should be illegal to buy a product that has been advertised this way?

I know I'm getting nitty, but this is the point: The laws cannot be made because of "what kind of message does this thing send", because then a) the law is dictating what you are supposed to think, b) not everyone thinks the same way when they see a situation, c) not all situations are the same and most important: d) where is the line drawn?

People who base what should be legal or not on the idea that "it sends a message if it was" are forcing their own ideals and morals onto others. No question.

And that's why making prostitution illegal (or buying sex illegal, for that matter) is just a moralistic ideal. Either case, it does nothing to stop human trafficking (which, by the way, sex is NOT the only reason for human trafficking, it's involved in many, many industries), it doesn't allow the prostitutes, all prostitutes, no matter the situation, more difficult to make money or even get help.

It is a moral stance that you have, and a perception that you have, that you believe everyone will also have. Making it illegal does nothing to fight that perception.

 

[JFrankA]

If becoming an independent escort was a legal job they would pay taxes, have access to social security benefits, health cover, be able to employ staff to look after their accounts and investments.

I'll go along with that but you don't go far enough by your idea of "illegal to buy sex".

For instance, how successful would an escort be if she can't advertise, or even if it's illegal for her customers to exist?

You are setting her up for failure.

Also, if it's illegal to be in a brothel, what happens to those escorts that want to be protected and don't want to bother with the "business end" of the business?

This is nothing but a band-aid and not a very good one at that.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I'll go along with that but you don't go far enough by your idea of "illegal to buy sex".

For instance, how successful would an escort be if she can't advertise, or even if it's illegal for her customers to exist?

Why can't she advertise? Using the phrase 'direct marketing' in my previous post was probably not the most accurate way to describe what I meant, which was escorts would not allow to hang around bars or on the street soliciting for work.

It is not illegal for her customers to exist, since they are not directly buying sex, they are buying her time and attention. What they do during that time is pretty much their business (with obvious exceptions).

You are setting her up for failure.

I'll agree I'm limiting the growth potential of the industry given no restrictions at all, but many women (and men) already work this way. Many of the prostitutes I've read about on the web actually recommend this way of working to those interested in turning a side-line into a profession.

Also, if it's illegal to be in a brothel, what happens to those escorts that want to be protected and don't want to bother with the "business end" of the business?

Why would their job be anymore dangerous than online dating? As for the business end, they could hire accountants and financial advisors like everyone else.

This is nothing but a band-aid and not a very good one at that.

I think it's quite a good balance between allowing those who are happy to work as prostitutes continue, and tackling many of the undesirable aspects of the current situation.

 

[JFrankA]

Why can't she advertise? Using the phrase 'direct marketing' in my previous post was probably not the most accurate way to describe what I meant, which was escorts would not allow to hang around bars or on the street soliciting for work.

It is not illegal for her customers to exist, since they are not directly buying sex, they are buying her time and attention. What they do during that time is pretty much their business (with obvious exceptions).



I'll agree I'm limiting the growth potential of the industry given no restrictions at all, but many women (and men) already work this way. Many of the prostitutes I've read about on the web actually recommend this way of working to those interested in turning a side-line into a profession.

But every article I've read where this "Swedish Law" was in effect that actually talked to the prostitutes about this law all said that at best, it didn't change anything.

Also, this law doesn't change what is going on now. If the escorts can do what they've been doing before this law goes into effect, how does adding this law help them when they have to do the same thing?

It's a useless, showboating law that screams of "Look, we care!" It's smoke and mirrors.

Why would their job be anymore dangerous than online dating? As for the business end, they could hire accountants and financial advisors like everyone else.

Excuse me, but isn't that what a pimp does? Takes care of the finances, finds clients, provide a place to do business... Now I know that there are pimps who abuse the prostitutes and don't provide health care, etc. But if the it was legal to be a pimp, then that pimp will HAVE to provide health care, not abuse the prostitutes, etc. By making it legal to do so (with regulations like any other employer), you can go after the "accountants and financial advisers", i.e. pimps, that are abusing the law.

I think it's quite a good balance between allowing those who are happy to work as prostitutes continue, and tackling many of the undesirable aspects of the current situation.

Okay, here's the deal.
If you think it's a good balance, let's adapt this law to YOUR job. Tell me if that is a happy balance too.

Remember in your case, your employer, who provides you with a place to work, who handles your pay, is the equivalent of your pimp or brothel madam. So that:

1) it's illegal for customers to patron your wares.

2) you cannot advertise, and you can't tell anyone what you do for a living, because that would be what you call "direct marketing".

3) if you do something for someone, as a friend, your friend runs the risk of being arrested.

4) you cannot have an employer, or a contractor, or even a place to work.

Yeah, that sounds like a happy balance to me.....

Look, what you are proposing IS ALREADY HAPPENING. It does nothing, absolutely nothing, one hundred percent nothing, to improve the situation for anyone involved. You said to me that I don't see the ramafactions of the future because I am a "typical American". But you don't see that your way is doing nothing. All it is is a grandstanding law to show how moralistic the law is.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Now you are rationalizing: it's still leasing out her body. I've never seen a model hold up a car, and it's a strange definition of the word "use" when she's sprawled all over it during a music video.......

Now you're changing the job description, which was holding or using a product on a game show. But you raise an interesting point: what do sexy women dressed in skimpy swim wear have to do with cars?

You don't think having them virtually shagging the bodywork may send the wrong kind of message out to consumers about what the product can actually do for them?

Soooo since you are so concerned with the message that modeling does send out some kind of unhealthy behavior, that means you're worried that they send the wrong message: therefore, just like buying sex, should be illegal to buy a product that has been advertised this way?

Advertisers in the UK are banned from linking alcohol consumption to increased sexual attractiveness.

I know I'm getting nitty, but this is the point: The laws cannot be made because of "what kind of message does this thing send", because then a) the law is dictating what you are supposed to think,

The law provides guidelines and limits for what society considers appropriate behaviour, including what advertisers can portray in their adverts.

b) not everyone thinks the same way when they see a situation,

So?

c) not all situations are the same and most important:

So?

d) where is the line drawn?

Where everyone in society (not just pornographers and some prostitutes) think it should be.

People who base what should be legal or not on the idea that "it sends a message if it was" are forcing their own ideals and morals onto others. No question.

So men aren't forcing their ideals and morals onto everyone else when they get a sexy woman to drape her body over a car for no other reason that other men will (hopefully) associate the product with sex? What do cars have to do with sex?

And that's why making prostitution illegal (or buying sex illegal, for that matter) is just a moralistic ideal. Either case, it does nothing to stop human trafficking (which, by the way, sex is NOT the only reason for human trafficking, it's involved in many, many industries), it doesn't allow the prostitutes, all prostitutes, no matter the situation, more difficult to make money or even get help.

Do you think all morals are bad? Should they all be discarded? What do you propose replaces them?

It is a moral stance that you have, and a perception that you have, that you believe everyone will also have. Making it illegal does nothing to fight that perception.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim I'm the only one with an agenda in this thread, don't you?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Look, what you are proposing IS ALREADY HAPPENING. It does nothing, absolutely nothing, one hundred percent nothing, to improve the situation for anyone involved. You said to me that I don't see the ramafactions of the future because I am a "typical American". But you don't see that your way is doing nothing. All it is is a grandstanding law to show how moralistic the law is.

And nothing has happened in places where buying sex is legal either. Whether buying sex is legal or not does not, in and of itself, do anything to help or hinder the working conditions of escorts. Basically what the law does is say to escorts and clients: be discrete about your personal business.

Making buying sex illegal and enforcing the law takes prostitution off the streets. It gets rid of brothels. It makes it illegal for pimps to exist. Women who are hurt by clients have the protection of the law. Given that these are some of the aspects of prostitution which readily lead to exploitation, it seems like a good place to start to me.

 

[JFrankA]

Now you're changing the job description, which was holding or using a product on a game show. But you raise an interesting point: what do sexy women dressed in skimpy swim wear have to do with cars?

No I'm not. That's part of the job description of "model".

You don't think having them virtually shagging the bodywork may send the wrong kind of message out to consumers about what the product can actually do for them?

Nope.

Advertisers in the UK are banned from linking alcohol consumption to increased sexual attractiveness.

Who mentioned alcohol? 'sides, that sounds like another showboaty, "we must protect our children!!" type of law to me.....

The law provides guidelines and limits for what society considers appropriate behaviour, including what advertisers can portray in their adverts.

My bolding. I've bolded that because that is based on morals and opinions.

b) not everyone thinks the same way when they see a situation,

So?

c) not all situations are the same and most important:

So?

There it is right there. It seems to me that you are concerned with what YOU believe is moralistically correct thoughts, and you don't perceive, or wish to perceive that people don't see the same way you do. You don't even acknowledge that there are different situations....

more reply coming... sorry, I have to run to work now...

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

There it is right there. It seems to me that you are concerned with what YOU believe is moralistically correct thoughts, and you don't perceive, or wish to perceive that people don't see the same way you do.

I'm sure there are people who would like to have sex in the middle of Times Square at midday. Perhaps you'd like to film them at it?

The problem you've got to overcome, JFrankA, is the vast majority of people believe sex is a behaviour to be carried out discretely and in private. Pornography is a gray area for a lot of people, me included, while in-your-face street prostitution is over the line.

Legalised brothels seem like a good idea until you read the research and discover they don't really affect the level or amount of exploitation. All they appear to do, in fact, is change pimps and madams from often nasty criminals into often nasty business people.

You don't even acknowledge that there are different situations....

Yes, I did.

I replied with: So? As in: What relevance does that have to do with the current debate?