Split Thread Legality of Prostitution

[marplots]

Only if you can come up with a decent working definition of 'morally corrupt'.

An activity or person who disgusts the moral senses, generally perceived (and labeled) as wrong, evil, or harmful in an ongoing and fundamental way.

Does that work?

 

[marplots]

Some 20 years ago, I read "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country" (ISBN 0-931580-58-7) and changed my mind on a few crimes. Obviously other people's mileage may vary.

As for morality.
I can find jurisdictions in the U.S. in which the voting majority find the following items immoral:

drinking alcohol
gambling
wearing clothes designed for the opposite sex
homosexuality

They find these things so immoral that they pass laws prohibiting them.
Often these same people find not belonging to an organized religion and interracial marriage immoral as well but federal law prevents them from enacting laws on topics.

All these items, unlike murder and rape, are victimless activities. Why should morality play any part of lawmaking when measuring the harm to innocent people is a much more meaningful yardstick?

Well, at a glance, your use of the term "innocent" is in the realm of morality. Harm and victim also cross categories. But the real difficulty is trying to figure out why I should care at all without invoking a moral sense. And if should care, because I'm a moral being, then what I care about (the specific actions) seem to follow along for the ride.

I'm not against making everything as morally neutral and programmed as the endless rules from Dungeons and Dragons, it's just that I don't think it's possible to model the world so well. And as soon as I establish general guidelines to use in unanticipated situations, I find morality intruding.

 

[banquetbear]

An activity or person who disgusts the moral senses, generally perceived (and labeled) as wrong, evil, or harmful in an ongoing and fundamental way.

...I don't see how that label could be applied to prostitution. Can you define what the "moral senses" are, and how prostitutions objectively "disgusts" it? Why is it wrong? Why is it evil? Is the "perception" of being wrong or evil enough to make it illegal? How is it objectively harmful any more than any other job, in an ongoing and fundamental way?

Does that work?

Nope.

 

[Ladewig]

Morality of prostitution

Well, at a glance, your use of the term "innocent" is in the realm of morality. Harm and victim also cross categories. But the real difficulty is trying to figure out why I should care at all without invoking a moral sense. And if should care, because I'm a moral being, then what I care about (the specific actions) seem to follow along for the ride.

I'm not against making everything as morally neutral and programmed as the endless rules from Dungeons and Dragons, it's just that I don't think it's possible to model the world so well. And as soon as I establish general guidelines to use in unanticipated situations, I find morality intruding.

I am still unsure what your position is.
If I may ask some questions.

If the clear majority of Dutch people believe that regulated prostitution among adults is moral, then is prostitution moral in the Netherlands? Or is prostitution inherently immoral? Or something else?

Are any of these activities immoral (for adults)
-drinking alcohol
-gambling
-wearing clothes designed for the opposite sex
-homosexuality
-wearing a bikini on a beach
-women going topless on a beach

ETA
Some people who assert that prostitution is immoral give one or more of the following reasons
-it objectifies women
-it degrades women
-it weakens the structure of the family
-it distorts both men's and women's views of a healthy relationship
-it tempts young people to enter a life which is hard to escape
-it is inherently tied to drugs and crime
-it is unnatural
-it increases suicide rates
-it increases the number of violent attacks on women
-it causes PTSD
Are any of those reasons related to why you describe prostitution as immoral?


MORE ETA:
I have taken to adding the word morality to the titles of my posts dealing with this aspect of the thread in order to make it easier for the MODS to strip out these posts and throw them in another thread.
OR we could choose a color and all the morality posts can be in that color.

 

[marplots]

Would you include prostitution in the same category as murder? Do you consider prostitution morally repugnant?

1) No, I would not equate prostitution with murder - save for this dimension: they are both illegal based on moral outrage by those who are empowered to make laws against them.

2) Not as a rule, but I think it can be in certain circumstances. For example, under physical or emotional duress.

How do you define "morally corrupt?" How would you apply that definition to lawmaking?

I gave it shot a post or two above this, but remember, this is only my poor attempt to translate a personal emotion. I would have the same difficulty trying to define "disgust" - especially if the person I was talking to didn't share my experience base. I think it very much has the quality of "I know it when I see it and rely on some shared humanity to communicate it." Consequently, I don't think the terms are mysterious or vague, just difficult to capture outside of having the experience.

If you can't define what that moral judgement is: of course its controversial. Because then it becomes a case of "this is law because I say so." If you can't actually state why prostitution is immoral: then how can you outlaw it on the basis of immorality?

It really isn't necessary (or possible) to break down the qualities of a term when that term is experienced whole. So, for example, if we were talking about some other emotional reaction and I said something was "scary," you wouldn't need me to break down the unique elements that made it scary. If you were familiar with being fearful, you'd know what I mean. And, perhaps more importantly, if I attempted to separate out all the elements, I could only sum smaller features that were themselves "scary" in an endless spiral.

The alternative is to answer in the form of demonstration, trying to create the emotion in the person who wants to understand.

The article is 14 years old. Not all prostitutes are a "nuisance". The "fact-y sounding" Cecil gave for prostitution being illegal is "ick." Do you think prostitution should be illegal because "ick"?

I saw the date on the article, but I think it is still topical. The laws against prostitution predate it by much more than 14 years, and the laws remain in effect.

I wouldn't use "ick," but it's still apt. We might say as much about why other acts are illegal.

Is driving a bus moral? How about being a security guard? I don't understand your question.

At this point, I've forgotten what the question was.

 

[banquetbear]

1) No, I would not equate prostitution with murder - save for this dimension: they are both illegal based on moral outrage by those who are empowered to make laws against them.

...what is the moral outrage against prostitution? I don't understand it.

2) Not as a rule, but I think it can be in certain circumstances. For example, under physical or emotional duress.

In countries where prostitution is legal, forcing people to perform prostitution under physical or emotional duress remains illegal, so it isn't an issue.

I gave it shot a post or two above this, but remember, this is only my poor attempt to translate a personal emotion. I would have the same difficulty trying to define "disgust" - especially if the person I was talking to didn't share my experience base. I think it very much has the quality of "I know it when I see it and rely on some shared humanity to communicate it." Consequently, I don't think the terms are mysterious or vague, just difficult to capture outside of having the experience.

Laws shouldn't be made on the basis of "f "I know it when I see it." Because what you see and what I see are two different things.

It really isn't necessary (or possible) to break down the qualities of a term when that term is experienced whole.

It is necessary if you are going to base your laws on these terms.

So, for example, if we were talking about some other emotional reaction and I said something was "scary," you wouldn't need me to break down the unique elements that made it scary. If you were familiar with being fearful, you'd know what I mean. And, perhaps more importantly, if I attempted to separate out all the elements, I could only sum smaller features that were themselves "scary" in an endless spiral.

We don't make laws because things are "scary." And if we did: then we would need to define what "scary" meant, wouldn't you agree? We are still talking about your answer to lionking, are we not?

The alternative is to answer in the form of demonstration, trying to create the emotion in the person who wants to understand.

You mean like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EauV2oJdqJ8

I saw the date on the article, but I think it is still topical. The laws against prostitution predate it by much more than 14 years, and the laws remain in effect.

Not in New Zealand: the laws changed in 2003. And the situation in the UK and in Germany have changed as well.

I wouldn't use "ick," but it's still apt. We might say as much about why other acts are illegal.

I don't think "ick" is apt at all. Why do you think it is?

At this point, I've forgotten what the question was.

I quoted it. If you are having memory problems, simply read the question you asked. I'll quote it again for you:

Since prostitution is legal where you live, is it legal and immoral, legal and amoral, or legal because it's moral?

Why should prostitution from a moral point of view be treated differently from any other job? Is being a teacher moral? A pilot? A stripper?

 

[pgwenthold]

Why should prostitution from a moral point of view be treated differently from any other job? Is being a teacher moral? A pilot? A stripper?

How about a porn actor?

This is where I find the prohibition to get preposterous:

1) Having sex is legal
2) Having sex in trade for something vaguely defined (dinner and a movie?) is legal
3) Getting money for sex, however, is illegal
4) Getting money for having sex on video is nominally illegal, as well, unless...
5) That video is made so it can be sold to others. Then, you are allowed to take money for having sex.

So to summarize: you cannot take money to have sex and have recorded for or the other person's own use, but if that video gets sold to others, then it is ok.

Tell me again about where the question of morals plays into this?

 

[Piscivore]

An activity or person who disgusts the moral senses, generally perceived (and labeled) as wrong, evil, or harmful in an ongoing and fundamental way.

Sorry, being an investment banker is still legal.

 

[marplots]

...what is the moral outrage against prostitution? I don't understand it.

I'm not a trained moralist, so I looked up what the Vatican had to say about it:

Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure. The one who pays sins gravely against himself: he violates the chastity to which his Baptism pledged him and defiles his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Prostitution is a social scourge. It usually involves women, but also men, children, and adolescents (The latter two cases involve the added sin of scandal.). While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.

(from: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm)

If you feel no moral outrage, that probably didn't help much, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

In countries where prostitution is legal, forcing people to perform prostitution under physical or emotional duress remains illegal, so it isn't an issue.

However, in other countries, the concept of prostitution may still include those ills.

Laws shouldn't be made on the basis of "f "I know it when I see it." Because what you see and what I see are two different things.

This is why I think the current system in the US is a good one. It relies on juries and elected legislators to try to mitigate overdue influence from any one (or a very few) people. The idea is to use a statistical measure instead of a personal one. So, while I may feel something is right or wrong, I do not make laws directly.

It is necessary if you are going to base your laws on these terms.

Why? What separates law from other human activities that it requires some ultimate, demonstrable grounding? And on what would you ground it? Physics? Don't we always reach a point where we say, "Good enough?"

We don't make laws because things are "scary." And if we did: then we would need to define what "scary" meant, wouldn't you agree? We are still talking about your answer to lionking, are we not?

I think so; the one where I wrote, "It's morally corrupt?"
As far as making laws based on moral principles, I still don't see how you could do otherwise. Perhaps you can give me an example that doesn't end with morality and a version of "We hold these truths to be self-evident."

You mean like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EauV2oJdqJ8

That went right over my head.

Not in New Zealand: the laws changed in 2003. And the situation in the UK and in Germany have changed as well.

Do you think they were changed because the laws were immoral? In other words, the laws were harmful, wrong or bad? I'll suppose they were dropped for that reason. And if laws can be changed on moral grounds, I don't see why they can't be created on the same grounds.

I don't think "ick" is apt at all. Why do you think it is?

Because I'm a writer and I think it's a creative way to say "distasteful." But remember, he's explaining (as was I) what those who would legislate against prostitution would feel about it. He's not judging prostitution, just describing a point of view.

I quoted it. If you are having memory problems, simply read the question you asked. I'll quote it again for you:

Thank you.

Why should prostitution from a moral point of view be treated differently from any other job? Is being a teacher moral? A pilot? A stripper?

If a job entails an immoral act, it's an immoral job. Hired killer should not be treated the same as teacher or pilot, because the job is essentially to do something immoral. The fact that it's a job has little to do with the question.

If prostitution is moral (or neutral), it should be viewed much the same. But if prostitution is immoral, saying it's a job doesn't mitigate anything.

 

[marplots]

Sorry, being an investment banker is still legal.

Not everything deemed immoral is illegal, but I think much of what is illegal is considered immoral.

Scientology is legal, and I think it's pretty close to being an "evil enterprise" from stem to stern.

 

[banquetbear]

I'm not a trained moralist, so I looked up what the Vatican had to say about it:

(from: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm)

...well that didn't help.

If you feel no moral outrage, that probably didn't help much, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

Indeed it didn't. Why don't you help me out here: explain things from your perspective. Firstly, do you think prostitution is an immoral act?

However, in other countries, the concept of prostitution may still include those ills.

And if those countries made prostitution legal, then it makes "those ills" easier to address. For example, a prostitute recently successfully won a sexual harassment case against her employer.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9777879/Sex-worker-gets-25-000-over-harassment

In a country where prostitution is legal, she walks away with $25,000 in compensation. In countries where prostitution isn't legal, its likely she would walk away with a conviction and possible jail sentence.

This is why I think the current system in the US is a good one. It relies on juries and elected legislators to try to mitigate overdue influence from any one (or a very few) people. The idea is to use a statistical measure instead of a personal one. So, while I may feel something is right or wrong, I do not make laws directly.

The idea of using a "personal measure" was one you introduced. 'Morally corrupt' is something you have yet to define. Are you stepping away from that now? lionking asked "Can anyone come up with a rationale for prostitution being illegal?" How would you answer that now?

Why? What separates law from other human activities that it requires some ultimate, demonstrable grounding? And on what would you ground it? Physics? Don't we always reach a point where we say, "Good enough?"

Why? You've answered the "why." The idea is to use a "statistical meaure" instead of a personal one. Without a definition of "morally corrupt" or "scary" how do you expect a court or a jury to objectively come up with decisions?

I think so; the one where I wrote, "It's morally corrupt?"
As far as making laws based on moral principles, I still don't see how you could do otherwise. Perhaps you can give me an example that doesn't end with morality and a version of "We hold these truths to be self-evident."

How about you answer the question addressed to you first. How exactly is prostitution morally corrupt?

That went right over my head.

Indeed.

Do you think they were changed because the laws were immoral? In other words, the laws were harmful, wrong or bad? I'll suppose they were dropped for that reason. And if laws can be changed on moral grounds, I don't see why they can't be created on the same grounds.

Why don't you do some research as to why the laws were changed? Why don't you read the text of the speech Georgina Beyers gave to parliament that I cited up thread? People were dying under the old laws. It was unsafe. It was unfair. They wren't changed on moral grounds.

Because I'm a writer and I think it's a creative way to say "distasteful." But remember, he's explaining (as was I) what those who would legislate against prostitution would feel about it. He's not judging prostitution, just describing a point of view.

And that "point of view" is that prostitution is illegal because of "ick." Do you think that "ick" is a strong enough reason to keep prostitution illegal?

If a job entails an immoral act, it's an immoral job. Hired killer should not be treated the same as teacher or pilot, because the job is essentially to do something immoral. The fact that it's a job has little to do with the question.

If prostitution is moral (or neutral), it should be viewed much the same. But if prostitution is immoral, saying it's a job doesn't mitigate anything.

And what exactly is immoral about prostitution? I don't believe in god, so the Vatican explanation is just supernatural gibberish to me. As I don't think that prostitution is immoral, your question makes no sense.

 

[marplots]

How about a porn actor?

This is where I find the prohibition to get preposterous:

1) Having sex is legal
2) Having sex in trade for something vaguely defined (dinner and a movie?) is legal
3) Getting money for sex, however, is illegal
4) Getting money for having sex on video is nominally illegal, as well, unless...
5) That video is made so it can be sold to others. Then, you are allowed to take money for having sex.

So to summarize: you cannot take money to have sex and have recorded for or the other person's own use, but if that video gets sold to others, then it is ok.

Tell me again about where the question of morals plays into this?

It is the difference between actors doing something in a performance and human beings at large doing exactly those same things "for real."

Morals are applied in context, because that's where the meaning comes from. I can do the exact activity in different contexts and be acting morally or immorally. In the situation you describe, the intent is judged retroactively - by the outcome. Does it produce a commercial product or not? They could regulate it differently (say with a porn star union card), but that's what they picked.

 

[pgwenthold]

It is the difference between actors doing something in a performance and human beings at large doing exactly those same things "for real."

But actors in porn films are not pretending to have sex, they ARE having sex (although they may be pretending to like it).

You can't say that about other things actors do. They don't actually kill someone when playing the role of a murderer nor steal when playing a thief.

There are instances when actors have had to get special waivers to be allowed to smoke on stage, but that's about the best I can come up with for actors being allowed to do real illegal stuff while performing.

As for claiming it's different because it's a "commercial enterprise," how is legalized prostitution not a commercial enterprise? Legal brothels in Nevada are absolutely commercial businesses.

 

[Ladewig]

morality of prostitution

Maplots, I am still unsure what your position is.
If I may ask some questions.

If the clear majority of Dutch people believe that regulated prostitution among adults is moral, then is prostitution moral in the Netherlands? Or is prostitution inherently immoral? Or something else?

Are any of these activities immoral (for adults)
-drinking alcohol
-gambling
-wearing clothes designed for the opposite sex
-homosexuality
-wearing a bikini on a beach
-women going topless on a beach

ETA
Some people who assert that prostitution is immoral give one or more of the following reasons
-it objectifies women
-it degrades women
-it weakens the structure of the family
-it distorts both men's and women's views of a healthy relationship
-it tempts young people to enter a life which is hard to escape
-it is inherently tied to drugs and crime
-it is unnatural
-it increases suicide rates
-it increases the number of violent attacks on women
-it causes PTSD
Are any of those reasons related to why you describe prostitution as immoral?


MORE ETA:
I have taken to adding the word morality to the titles of my posts dealing with this aspect of the thread in order to make it easier for the MODS to strip out these posts and throw them in another thread.
OR we could choose a color and all the morality posts can be in that color.

 

[Ladewig]

Morality of prostitution

I'm not a trained moralist, so I looked up what the Vatican had to say about it:

Prostitution is a social scourge. It usually involves women, but also men, children, and adolescents (The latter two cases involve the added sin of scandal.). While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.​

(from: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm)

If you feel no moral outrage, that probably didn't help much, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

If it helps, I, and suspect every other poster in this thread, feels moral outrage when children are involved in prostitution.
I also feel moral outrage when people are forced into prostitution through destitution, blackmail, or social pressure (as I explained in post #31).

 

[Rasmus]

If it helps, I, and suspect every other poster in this thread, feels moral outrage when children are involved in prostitution.
I also feel moral outrage when people are forced into prostitution through destitution, blackmail, or social pressure (as I explained in post #31).

But that isn't even a feature or aspect of prostitution.

I'd feel moral outrage if people were coerced into becoming bakers or bank clerks or taxi drivers, too.

I *do* feel moral outrage over the existence of sweatshops - but I have no objections, moral or otherwise - against the existence of shoemakers or sewers (as in: sewing clothes).

 

[Kopji]

...of course it was a success. Prior to the law change prostitution was illegal. After the law change, prostitution was legal. What measure of success are you talking about? What do you think the intent of the law change was?

NZ still has a great deal of controversy. Large amount of people still against the law, and what looks like an increasing problem of child prostitution. Passing a law does not mean you can wash your hands of consequences.

Which New Zealand city has "outlawed prostitution?" How many parents have been charged with "pimping their children?" What does the illegal act of "pimping children" have to do with the legal act of prostitution?

A crackdown on child prostitution by Auckland police - which resulted in girls as young as 13 being removed from the streets and 25 arrests - has put the spotlight on a hidden nationwide problem, according to child advocates.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/234000

It's hoped street prostitution will be banned across Auckland, following moves to outlaw it in Manukau.

Auckland councillors have voted to support a bill making it illegal.

Howick councillor, Sharon Stewart, told Newstalk ZB children as young as 13 have been seen soliciting in Manukau, and some have been encouraged by their parents, "there have been parents who've been pimping their children, and they've been sitting in their cars, I believe to support their drug habits."

Ms Stewart says with the Rugby World Cup approaching, it's important we start protecting young people.
http://archive.is/g4qJ#selection-653.0-665.103

Police say it is unacceptable that so many under-age girls are involved in prostitution in South Auckland, with some as young as 13 being removed from the streets for their own safety.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10488619

"These people are unregulated. Some of them carry diseases, so there's a risk not only to the client but also the client's partner," patrol member Stephen Grey told Sunday News.

In just over a year, three members of the 15-strong patrol group have been assaulted and they've had to change their patrol car three times because prostitutes have lashed out with weapons, the newspaper reported.

"The cars we use get considerable damage on them," Mr Grey said.

"They take to them with rocks, take to them with shopping trolleys, take to them with crow bars, kick them, kick the tail lights in."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/prostitution/news/article.cfm?c_id=612&objectid=10567403&pnum=1

Yes, all seems well there in NZ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_New_Zealand#cite_note-ReferenceA-62

I didn't think treating people with decency should be affected by where people live. When the plane loads of prostitutes start landing in Arizona and start affecting property values please let me know. But protecting property values really is one of the lamest reasons to oppose prostitution. If you can't do something just because of "cultural and geographic" issues then you might as well stop the planet and get off because we won't get anything done.

Sorry, was just trying to get through. I don't see anyone arguing about the ethics of human trade, just how great it is if you live over that-a-way instead the bad old USA. That position is really tiring after a while. If you don't see the ongoing problems in NZ it seems like willful blindness.

Not that the problems can't be solved, just that success is more than passing a law.

Yeah: lets keep arresting and putting in jail thousands of men and woman every year so your house doesn't loose value. You've got to have your priorities, don't you? And how does the exchange of sex for money affect your quality of life?

Oh please stop. Why have laws at all if it not to protect people's well being and quality of life? You make yourself the standard instead of law.

My point is that part of the reason NZ is as successful as they are with the prostitution law is that they have a stable prostitute market, well, except for the unfortunate tendency to recruit children into the business. With a larger pool of prostitutes able to be introduced the prices would go down and then what? So from a market standpoint this seems like a rather fragile business.

I'm just saying that market changing event would happen much more quickly in Arizona, so what works in one geography does not mean it will work everywhere.

The Al Jezeera article is clearly propaganda. Badly written on par with something we'd see from Fox News. Go ahead and lap up everything bad written about the US, but I don't really see trying to help prostitutes get out of the life instead of jailing them being a terrible thing. Frankly, there are a lot worse things going on.

If you want to legalize prostitution as a solution, go for it but it seems like a black and white solution being proposed to fix a complex problem.

 

[3point14]

An activity or person who disgusts the moral senses, generally perceived (and labeled) as wrong, evil, or harmful in an ongoing and fundamental way.

Does that work?

Not even close. That definition has massively variable outcomes dependent on who is appliying it to whom. You need a definition that minimises, not maximises subjective intepretation.

In short, what do you do when someone else applies your definition to an activity and comes up with a different answer.

You're stepping dangerously close to "It's 'icky' I don't like it, therefore ban it." and I'm sure you understand why that's not a good position.

 

[banquetbear]

NZ still has a great deal of controversy.

...not really.

Large amount of people still against the law,

Cite? How do you define "large?" Where are your figures?

and what looks like an increasing problem of child prostitution.

A problem increasing so much that you cite articles from 2008. Can you tell me more about these arrests six years ago? How many led to convictions? How many arrests and convictions were there in 2013?

Passing a law does not mean you can wash your hands of consequences.

Child prostitution was and is against the law here. Who is washing what hands?

Yes, all seems well there in NZ.

Indeed it is. Thanks for noticing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_New_Zealand#cite_note-ReferenceA-62

Pimping is illegal here in NZ. So is child prostitution. No NZ city, as you have claimed, has outlawed prostitution, and under NZ law they would be unable to do so. You obviously can both use google and click on wiki cites: but it hasn't given you a solid understanding of the law reforms at all.

Sorry, was just trying to get through. I don't see anyone arguing about the ethics of human trade, just how great it is if you live over that-a-way instead the bad old USA. That position is really tiring after a while. If you don't see the ongoing problems in NZ it seems like willful blindness.

Oh I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings? The United States treats prostitutes in a disgusting, disgraceful manner. And no-one calls them out for it. Don't throw this "bad old USA" nonsense at me. Tell me: when was the last time you remember someone criticizing the USA for the way they treat sex workers? It isn't something you should be tired of because it hardly ever happens.

Who said NZ was perfect? But at least in the eyes of the law sex workers have equal protection across the board: and they can't be arrested or jailed or fined for conducting transactions that have been going on since man and woman have been on this planet.

Not that the problems can't be solved, just that success is more than passing a law.

And more happened in NZ than simply passing a law.

Oh please stop. Why have laws at all if it not to protect people's well being and quality of life? You make yourself the standard instead of law.

Stop what? You seem to be happy with people getting arrested to protect your property values. Its not something I would be particularly proud of, but to each their own.

My point is that part of the reason NZ is as successful as they are with the prostitution law is that they have a stable prostitute market, well, except for the unfortunate tendency to recruit children into the business.

Can you provide a cite for the amount of people convicted of forcing children into prostitution in the last six years since those articles were posted? You are aware that child prostitution and pimping are illegal here?

With a larger pool of prostitutes able to be introduced the prices would go down and then what? So from a market standpoint this seems like a rather fragile business.

What you don't get is that this issue has nothing to do with prices or house values or fragile businesses. It has everything to do with basic human rights and treating people with dignity.

I'm just saying that market changing event would happen much more quickly in Arizona, so what works in one geography does not mean it will work everywhere.

Again: geography doesn't matter. Do you think apartheid in South Aftrica should have been allowed to continue simply because it was in a different geographic area to you?

The Al Jezeera article is clearly propaganda. Badly written on par with something we'd see from Fox News. Go ahead and lap up everything bad written about the US, but I don't really see trying to help prostitutes get out of the life instead of jailing them being a terrible thing. Frankly, there are a lot worse things going on.

Which Al Jezeera article? The OP cited Vice, which sourced many of their quotes from Al Jezeera. Do you have the original article somewhere?

And who exactly do you think is "lapping up" everything bad written about the US? It certainly isn't me. I've already stated I doubt the veracity of the article in the OP.

If you want to legalize prostitution as a solution, go for it but it seems like a black and white solution being proposed to fix a complex problem.

I don't have to worry about looking to "legalize prostitution as a solution" because in case you need reminding (and it is apparent that you do) my country has already legalised prostitution. Yes it is a complex problem. Which is why the Prostitution Law Reform Bill was extensively researched with substantial input from the people most affected.

I've known/worked with/been friends with people in the sex industry for well over 25 years. Back in the old days the brothel keepers would run their houses with an iron fist. They would fine the girls. Police would turn a blind eye at times and others would do a lot worse.

Things are better now. Much better in many different ways. Once again the law reforms were driven by people in the sex industry, so the regulations that were introduced struck a fine balance between enforcement, getting rid of the traditional power structures, making it easy to work and making it safe. Things aren't perfect. No things in life ever are.

A few months ago I had the honour of photographing a lunch celebrating the life of Wellington personality Carmen Rupe. The images are here.

http://bigmark.co.nz/2013/11/03/carmen/

These are beautiful, beautiful people. Many of them still bore the emotional scars from the way things used to be. But sitting in that room today there was a tremendous feeling of community: of how much things had changed. One of the policeman that Carmen used to spend time dealing with was there to speak in her honour.

Two policeman are sitting in jail right now because sex workers are no longer afraid to speak out. We just had a landmark human rights case where a sex worker successfully sued her boss for sexual discrimination. The law change was all about giving power back to one of the most looked down on sections of society. Giving people the option of either going to jail or going to church isn't empowering them: its taking their power away. It isn't treating them with dignity. Its treating them like kids.

 

[BenBurch]

Prostitution, when legal and consensual, is a positive good in the world.

Trouble is, it gets in the way of the control of women, and the control of human sexuality in general, so of course it's "immoral".

What is utterly corrupt are the attitudes that make it so.