Why is prostitution illegal?

[JFrankA]

Of course it is. That is why I said that at the moment I think legalising or not legalising prostitution is an irrelevant policy response. Certainly the underlying problems are what needs to be tackled.This is dann's argument, I think, and it is also mine. It relates directly to why prostitution exists.

Personally, I feel that that if you remove poverty, abuse, etc, you'd still have prostitution. These factors might add to the likelyhood of someone to become a prostitute, but it's not the only factors for someone to go into this lifestyle.

But Fiona, the OP question was why was it illegal, not why does it exist.

I'm kinda of curious to find some anti-prostitution arguments. I'm having a hard time understanding the basis for prostitution being illegal. I am sure there are some decent arguments out there.

Any opinions?

Clearly, by the stances that people that support keeping prostitution illegal, or buying sex illegal, it's all because of personal moral beliefs.....

 

[pgwenthold]

Of course it is. That is why I said that at the moment I think legalising or not legalising prostitution is an irrelevant policy response. Certainly the underlying problems are what needs to be tackled.This is dann's argument, I think, and it is also mine. It relates directly to why prostitution exists.

As JFrankA says, this is silly. In fact, it again shows you don't understand my comments above. I keep saying that "prostitution is better than the alternative." You keep acting as if this is an absolute statement. It's not. It is a relative position.

There are women for whom life is so bad that street prostitution and lying in the gutters is better than the alternatives. However, there are also women who have pretty good lives but find prostitution to be even better. This was my third alternative above, where some are in prostitution because it is good, others because the alternatives are so bad. In fact, social problems are NOT why prostitution exists. They are a pretty good indicator of who will be prostitutes, but that doesn't mean they are the cause of it.

Get rid of the social problems, you will still have prostitution. It may be smaller in scope, and will undoubtedly be more expensive (less supply, and higher standards for people in the business), but you will still have it.

Heidi Fleiss's workers aren't in prostitution because of poverty, so fixing poverty doesn't make a lick of a difference to them. They don't need a government program to create opportunities. They have as many as you or me. That they are still in prostitution tells us plenty of what we need to know about "why prostitution exists." You don't need social problems to have prostitution.

 

[Fiona]

If people who have not been abused and who have real choices then choose prostitution there is no problem. But I do not think the evidence supports that view of the majority. It may be there would still be prostitution "because it is good": I would like to see the experiment done. What we do know is that native Dutch women,who have more choice than the women who make up the vast majority of prostitutes in the Netherlands, do not choose it. We also know that the "shortage" of willing Dutch women has led to proposals to change the law so that poor women can be brought in to make up the "shortfall". As an aside, this does rather seem to suggest that the operation of the free market is not ensuring a balance of supply and demand at a price determined by that market: it takes legal or illegal trafficking to keep the trade within the price reach of a lot of the "customers".

 

[JFrankA]

Fiona, I'm sorry, but your whole statement above has been negated by the very first sentance.

If people who have not been abused and who have real choices then choose prostitution there is no problem. But I do not think the evidence supports that view of the majority.

Vast majority or not, those people do exist.

Also, again, if you're going to go with the Human Trafficking angle, I'm sorry to say that you are being short-sighted by doing the experiment only on the basis of the sex industry. As it's been stated before, there are many, many, industries, including the cosmetic industry, personal hygine industry, clothing industry, domestic service industry that also have Human trafficking going on. And please note, most of the industries are legal across the world.

If we are going to do the experiment you want, you'll have to include all of it and all around the world....

 

[pgwenthold]

If people who have not been abused and who have real choices then choose prostitution there is no problem. But I do not think the evidence supports that view of the majority.

Who is claiming it as a majority? It exists, though, and that is all that matters.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Yes, let's. I've walked up the strip in the evening, with all those guys thrusting those little cards in your face - you'd think they'd at least get someone to sweep them up. Then there's those convenient boxes on the sidewalk, full of magazines offering services.

Yes, I can see the governor is really trying to clamp down on prostitution in Vegas.

Well the governor can only do so much. So are you proposing to attempt to increase the average to at least 800 a month? See at $2,000 cost to the tax payer per prostitution arrest (old figures BTW) that should mean at least $1,600,000 would be spent by the tax payers to go out and arrest prostitutes. All the while of course murder, theft, rape, etc goes unpunished. Not mention that it will do nothing to actually prevent prostitution. But nothing gets the moralist happier than 30 armed police storming a room with 6 naked women, because you know how well armed naken women are.

But hey, how can you put a price tag on moralizing?

 

[Fiona]

@JFrankA. Nope. It has not been negated by my first sentence. They may exist.They may not. They are not a problem if they do. What has this to do with the majority? Nothing, so far as I can see. The whole purpose of bringing in the claimed existence of this group is to mask the reality under a veneer of personal freedom. As to trafficking in other industries? I am sure you have linked the evidence for this and I am sure it is interesting. But it is not what we are talking about, is it? As someone said, two wrongs do not make a right. Trafficking is always wrong, is it not?

ETA: I do not understand your point pgwethold? Why is that all that matters?

 

[pgwenthold]

ETA: I do not understand your point pgwethold? Why is that all that matters?

Because it means that prostitution exists without being caused by societal problems. Hence, solving all the societal problems won't end prostitution.

 

[JFrankA]

@JFrankA. Nope. It has not been negated by my first sentence. They may exist.They may not. They are not a problem if they do. What has this to do with the majority? Nothing, so far as I can see. The whole purpose of bringing in the claimed existence of this group is to mask the reality under a veneer of personal freedom.

No, the purpose of bringing them into existance is because a) they do exist and b) they are part of the equation no matter how small they are. In an eariler post, Dann said he was happy to shovel poop, for whatever reason. Do you think everyone would be just as happy with that job or is the majority of people "forced" into it for whatever reason, (poverty, etc)?

Well, the point is this: whatever policy is put into place will affect everyone in the profession. So the ones making the policy will have to take everything and everyone into account. They'll have to see the whole picture, not just the part one wants to see. That is just as hypocritical as saying "all prostitutes are happy..." (Note to Dann, this statement in quotes isn't a direct quote quoting someone, it's just a hypethetical statement).

As to trafficking in other industries? I am sure you have linked the evidence for this and I am sure it is interesting. But it is not what we are talking about, is it? As someone said, two wrongs do not make a right. Trafficking is always wrong, is it not?

ETA: I do not understand your point pgwethold? Why is that all that matters?

Of course Trafficking is wrong. And yes, we are talking about that. You want an experiment on women who are forced into prostitution in a legal setting. Well, that's trafficking, but it's one little piece of the whole pie. It has to be compared to other legal business that have trafficking as well, along with illegal business (such as prostitution and drugs).

To try to show that the majority of people in protitution is because of a legal sexual market and just limiting it to the Dutch, is not a complete picture.


EDITED TO ADD: By the way, this still answer the OP's question: It seems to me that nobody is disputing that the reason prostitution is illegal is only because of personal morals......

 

[pgwenthold]

This discussion about trafficking and poverty and the such reminds me of another industry. This is an industry with jobs that are so offensive and nasty that the majority of the people working it are illegal immigrants, because they can't get domestic workers to take them. In fact, these are companies who have actually chartered busses from the Mexican border in order to transport illegal workers to their operations. I'm talking about the meat packing industry. Amazingly, they have discovered that most people don't really like spending their day slaughtering cattle/swine/fish/poultry. It's a nasty, nasty job. As I said, in many of these slaughter houses, the majority of the workers are illegals, because NO ONE is willing to do that job (at least, not at the wages being offered).

You think these workers have choices? They have even more limitations, because not only do they suffer from things like poverty, they can't even work at McDs or Walmart.

Talk about human trafficking. Yet, when it comes to them, the "solution" has been to deport them.

 

[skeptifem]

I don't think coagulated milk products are necessary for a cheese sandwich.

so you like soycheese?

anyway, if thats all you have to say to my post i will just have to assume that you are being willingly ignorant. its pretty shameful. when people mention the legal brothels in nevada you do not address the issue at all. it seems to me that people arent just for legal prostitution so much as they are for legal and regulated prostitution. things wont be better for prostitutes just by it being legal by itself, but like other professions where disease transmission is possible it should have a ton of regulations. and it does here.

I can accept that some peoples hearts are tied into their sexuality and thats just who they are- those kinds of people shouldnt be prostitutes(and again there are people who just arent cut out for other potentially emotionally damaging jobs) , and im ok with it. theres no need to get all judgemental about people who can have casual sex and not get invested in it.

 

[Fiona]

Because it means that prostitution exists without being caused by societal problems. Hence, solving all the societal problems won't end prostitution.

It might and it might not. We cannot know, can we?

 

[Fiona]

No, the purpose of bringing them into existance is because a) they do exist and b) they are part of the equation no matter how small they are. In an eariler post, Dann said he was happy to shovel poop, for whatever reason. Do you think everyone would be just as happy with that job or is the majority of people "forced" into it for whatever reason, (poverty, etc)?

Well, the point is this: whatever policy is put into place will affect everyone in the profession. So the ones making the policy will have to take everything and everyone into account. They'll have to see the whole picture, not just the part one wants to see. That is just as hypocritical as saying "all prostitutes are happy..." (Note to Dann, this statement in quotes isn't a direct quote quoting someone, it's just a hypethetical statement).

A policy which addresses the poverty and abuse which lead a lot into prostitution will have no adverse effect on you happy hookers at all. I do not see your point

Of course Trafficking is wrong. And yes, we are talking about that. You want an experiment on women who are forced into prostitution in a legal setting. Well, that's trafficking, but it's one little piece of the whole pie. It has to be compared to other legal business that have trafficking as well, along with illegal business (such as prostitution and drugs).

So if trafficking and other forms of coercion are wrong we should do something to address those problems? I agree.

To try to show that the majority of people in protitution is because of a legal sexual market and just limiting it to the Dutch, is not a complete picture.

I did not try to show that the majority of people in prostitution is because of a legal sex market: I think the legal status of it is irrelevant. I use the Dutch experience because it demonstrates that legalisation does not do what the proponents of legalisation claim for that policy: that is all

EDITED TO ADD: By the way, this still answer the OP's question: It seems to me that nobody is disputing that the reason prostitution is illegal is only because of personal morals......

I am disputing it. Why are things illegal?

 

[Fiona]

This discussion about trafficking and poverty and the such reminds me of another industry. This is an industry with jobs that are so offensive and nasty that the majority of the people working it are illegal immigrants, because they can't get domestic workers to take them. In fact, these are companies who have actually chartered busses from the Mexican border in order to transport illegal workers to their operations. I'm talking about the meat packing industry. Amazingly, they have discovered that most people don't really like spending their day slaughtering cattle/swine/fish/poultry. It's a nasty, nasty job. As I said, in many of these slaughter houses, the majority of the workers are illegals, because NO ONE is willing to do that job (at least, not at the wages being offered).

You think these workers have choices? They have even more limitations, because not only do they suffer from things like poverty, they can't even work at McDs or Walmart.

Talk about human trafficking. Yet, when it comes to them, the "solution" has been to deport them.

No I don't think they have choices. I think trafficking is wrong. I am glad you can see that these are nasty jobs which nobody with real choice chooses to do. This is very far from an analogy that those who laud the happy harlots will accept, however. It is a different argument, I think. So where do you stand? Should people be forced to do that kind of work because of poverty or abuse? Or should they not? What about the small minority of people who actively like slaughtering animals (and there are some); should policy be based on that small minority?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

when people mention the legal brothels in nevada you do not address the issue at all.

I read Articulett's link on them from cover to cover. I even quoted from it.

it seems to me that people arent just for legal prostitution so much as they are for legal and regulated prostitution. things wont be better for prostitutes just by it being legal by itself, but like other professions where disease transmission is possible it should have a ton of regulations. and it does here.

Many prostitutes don't want to have that much regulation.

I can accept that some peoples hearts are tied into their sexuality and thats just who they are- those kinds of people shouldnt be prostitutes(and again there are people who just arent cut out for other potentially emotionally damaging jobs) , and im ok with it. theres no need to get all judgemental about people who can have casual sex and not get invested in it.

Believe it or not, I don't care much what people do with each other to get off, just so long as neither are exploited by the other, a third party or society. Prostitution appears to often (but not always) fail all three of these, whether it's legal and regulated or not. No matter what regulations are brought in, some prostitutes will complain about them.

 

[JFrankA]

A policy which addresses the poverty and abuse which lead a lot into prostitution will have no adverse effect on you happy hookers at all. I do not see your point

Not always. It's possible that a band-aid policy can be placed into effect that actually helps no one but sounds good. Such as, well, the law that it's legal to sell sex and illegal to buy it.

Oh wait. That already happened....

I use the Dutch experience because it demonstrates that legalisation does not do what the proponents of legalisation claim for that policy: that is all

Perhaps that's true. I don't know the policies particularly. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

I am disputing it. Why are things illegal?

I've given what I though the reason why. Why do you think so?

What about the small minority of people who actively like slaughtering animals (and there are some); should policy be based on that small minority?

I'll say this again: it should not be based on that minority, but that minority has to be taken into account. It's part of the whole. You can't dismiss a small portion of the whole and say you have a complete policy.

 

[JFrankA]

Believe it or not, I don't care much what people do with each other to get off, just so long as neither are exploited by the other, a third party or society. Prostitution appears to often (but not always) fail all three of these, whether it's legal and regulated or not. No matter what regulations are brought in, some prostitutes will complain about them.

Yes, some prostitutes will complain about them, but then again some prostitutes are complaining about the "Swedish law" and you still believe it's a good law.

Since that is the case, I don't get the logic of saying that the "Swedish law" is a good idea dispite the fact that some prostitutes complain about it, but legalization with regulations is a bad idea because some prostitutes will complain about it......


??????

 

[skeptifem]

Many prostitutes don't want to have that much regulation.

who cares? Im sure a lot of people would prefer less regulations at their job because its a pain in the ass(especially getting your blood drawn that often), but realize that its neccesary.

Believe it or not, I don't care much what people do with each other to get off, just so long as neither are exploited by the other, a third party or society. Prostitution appears to often (but not always) fail all three of these, whether it's legal and regulated or not. No matter what regulations are brought in, some prostitutes will complain about them.

your pissy sandwhich comparison says otherwise about not caring what other people do.

I dont know what is so exploitative about consenting adults agreeing upon a sex act and price and going through with it.

 

[Fiona]

I've given what I though the reason why.

I missed that. Can you tell me which post?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

who cares? Im sure a lot of people would prefer less regulations at their job because its a pain in the ass(especially getting your blood drawn that often), but realize that its neccesary.

From reading the study Articulett linked to, it seems 'pain in the ass' is quite frequently a complaint from prostitutes.

your pissy sandwhich comparison says otherwise about not caring what other people do.

I was trying to point out the illogic in claiming to feel no emotion about something you enjoy doing. Sorry if I annoyed you. I think I understand what you meant though, which is that love and enjoyment of sex are not the same thing. If so, then I agree.

I dont know what is so exploitative about consenting adults agreeing upon a sex act and price and going through with it.

In a perfect world, nothing. But surely you don't believe most prostitutes are hypersexual-screw-anything-with-a-pulse beings? That coercion to have sex with someone you don't find sexually attractive (if not repulsive) is no more likely to have a greater negative impact emotionally than, say, being coerced to clean toilets?