Split Thread Legality of Prostitution

[lionking]

Can anyone come up with a rationale for prostitution being illegal?

Making it legal (as it is in Australia) means it is safer for both sex workers and clients. Prostitution might not be a wonderful career choice, and probably wouldn't exist in an ideal world, but it won't go away. Why make criminals of sex workers?

Discussion split from this thread, where it was off-topic.

Posted By: zooterkin

 

[Corsair 115]

Can anyone come up with a rationale for prostitution being illegal?

It isn't in Canada at the moment thanks to a recent Supreme Court decision. (It remains to be seen what, if any, new legislation the government will bring forth in response to the decision.)

 

[lionking]

It isn't in Canada at the moment thanks to a recent Supreme Court decision. (It remains to be seen what, if any, new legislation the government will bring forth in response to the decision.)

Why should the government do anything?

Australia is generally a conservative country (by European standards - by US standards we are commies ), with both major political parties being marginally left and right of centre with more similarities than differences. Our (post settlement) history is defined by British Christian institutions. Yet prostitution law reform was greeted with a massive, collective yawn. Why is this even an issue in Canada?

 

[BardKesnit]

Can anyone come up with a rationale for prostitution being illegal?

Because women having sex is bad! And they lead men to sin, which is even more bad! Because sex outside marriage is bad! And sex without the chance of procreation is bad!
(/snark)

There's also the issue that prostitution is linked in a lot of people's minds to organized crime. And a lot of people think all prostitutes are forced into the work, so can't imagine why any prostitute would want to work legally.

Making it legal (as it is in Australia) means it is safer for both sex workers and clients. Prostitution might not be a wonderful career choice, and probably wouldn't exist in an ideal world, but it won't go away. Why make criminals of sex workers?

I agree. But as long as people view it as evil/bad/sinful, the movement to get it legalized is not going to get off the ground.

Then again, I didn't think the "legalize pot" movement would ever get off the ground, and I've been proven wrong on that.

Now that I think about it, that may be closer than it appears. About a year ago, a story broke in the American Bar Association Journal about a recent law school grad working at a firm in California who was working nights as a call girl to pay her student loans. In the thread about the article, there were several people saying they wish they had thought of that idea!

 

[Corsair 115]

Why should the government do anything?

Well, it's a Conservative government, and, while not driven by social conservatives to anywhere near the extent that happens in the U.S., I tend to think it'd at least try to do something to placate some of the social conservative types around here.

Why is this even an issue in Canada?

It came up because the current laws against prostitution (or more accurately communicating for the purposes of prostitution, or living off the avails of prostitution; the act of having sex for money is not itself technically illegal) were challenged and eventually struck down by the Supreme Court. Here's a CBC News article about the decision which will explain the result and some of the background.

 

[Ladewig]

Can anyone come up with a rationale for prostitution being illegal?

Here's my take on it.

Legalized prostitution is moral and acceptable in countries in which there is sexual equality. I.e. men and woman have equal access to education, jobs, and politics - sexual and social mores apply equally to all adult members of society.

Therefore, to me, legalized prostitution in the Netherlands is quite acceptable. On the other hand, legalizing prostitution in countries such as Mali is not necessarily appropriate. Obviously, Australia is located at the Dutch end of the spectrum. So then the question becomes, is Phoenix, Arizona closer to Australia or to Mali in terms of women's equality.

 

[banquetbear]

Costs would go up a lot. Only the rich white men could afford it, something I suspect is the case where it is legal.

..."suspecting" and "knowing" are two different things. Prostitution is legal in many countries and places: including my country New Zealand. There are plenty of non-white-non-rich men that use the services of sex workers here. There are plenty of male prostitutes. Plenty of older prostitutes. The prostitution law reform act was supported here by the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women, National Council of Women, and the YWCA, among many others. And Al Jazeera is a more than reliable news source: and while the article in the OP cited sources from Al Jazeera, it was actually an editorial written for Vice.

I view the sub-human condescending way prostitutes are treated in most of the USA to be quite disgusting frankly: and Project ROSE is just part of that whole process. I too have doubts over the veracity of aspects of the article in the OP. But prostitution should be legal. Its the decent thing to do.

Here is footage of when the reforms were passed into law here. On the left is Georgina Beyer, former Member of Parliament representing the Labour Party, and former prostitute. The principal reason why the reforms have been a success here was because they were driven and shaped by people like Georgina who had lived the life: and not by people who "thought they knew best."

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/video/29381/passing-of-the-prostitution-reform-bill

Full text of her speech:

http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/d...georgina-prostitution-reform-bill-—-procedure

 

[marplots]

Can anyone come up with a rationale for prostitution being illegal?

It's morally corrupt?

 

[banquetbear]

It's morally corrupt?

...how so?

 

[marplots]

Can anyone come up with a rationale for prostitution being illegal?

It's morally corrupt?

...how so?

You are requesting I explain moral judgements?
If you are a moral person, you already know as much as I do. If you are not a moral person, I can't think of a way to explain it. Not that someone couldn't, but I can't.

If you are asking, more specifically, "how is prostitution morally corrupt?" I am left with the same dilemma in a different form. Either you agree with those who hold that opinion (and, I suspect were responsible for anti-prostitution laws) and I can't improve on that, or you don't see it as morally tainted and I have no ammunition to argue against your moral sense.

However, on the pragmatic side of "Why is prostitution illegal?" I must bow to the master, Cecil Adams at the Chicago Trib. He wrote a Straight Dope column addressing this precise question. (link follows)

The usual explanation is that criminalization of prostitution is a product of the moralizing impulse in American politics. As with other victimless crimes such as gambling and drug use, our antiprostitution laws largely date from the Progressive era around the turn of the 20th century. This period also produced reforms such as the pure food and drugs laws and antitrust regulation.

Many Progressive leaders were educated, articulate members of the middle class that had emerged during the economic expansion following the Civil War. No longer was it necessary to accept social ills as inevitable, they felt. If we apply scientific methods and can-do attitude to our problems, we can eradicate them altogether.

(This is a short snip from a very entertaining and informative article: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2533/why-is-prostitution-illegal )

 

[banquetbear]

You are requesting I explain moral judgements?

...I'm asking why your moral judgements should determine if an act should be legal or illegal.

If you are a moral person, you already know as much as I do. If you are not a moral person, I can't think of a way to explain it. Not that someone couldn't, but I can't.

I am a moral person. What is it exactly I should know?

If you are asking, more specifically, "how is prostitution morally corrupt?" I am left with the same dilemma in a different form. Either you agree with those who hold that opinion (and, I suspect were responsible for anti-prostitution laws) and I can't improve on that, or you don't see it as morally tainted and I have no ammunition to argue against your moral sense.

I'm asking why your morals should determine whether or not an act should be legal or illegal. Its your claim, why are you choosing not to defend it?

However, on the pragmatic side of "Why is prostitution illegal?" I must bow to the master, Cecil Adams at the Chicago Trib. He wrote a Straight Dope column addressing this precise question. (link follows)



(This is a short snip from a very entertaining and informative article: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2533/why-is-prostitution-illegal )

But prostitution isn't illegal where I live: so that article is irrelevant. And unlike most articles by Cecil's ghost writer, that article wasn't very entertaining or informative.

 

[lionking]

Prostitution attracts crime to an area and is a business that lowers property values while giving nothing at all back to a community.

Nonsense. Today I had a meeting in a trendy cafe in South Melbourne almost next door to a brothel. Property values in thus area have been going through the roof.

 

[marplots]

...I'm asking why your moral judgements should determine if an act should be legal or illegal.

Not my moral judgements, the summed moral judgements of a voting majority (or variations thereof). I think it's a good system. For other crimes, the process is obvious - we rarely argue about whether serious crimes, like murder or rape, are morally repugnant because we mostly all agree that they are.

I am a moral person. What is it exactly I should know?

You should recognize that "morally corrupt" can be the basis for lawmaking, even if you do not think prostitution itself is morally corrupt.

I'm asking why your morals should determine whether or not an act should be legal or illegal. Its your claim, why are you choosing not to defend it?

I don't think I made that claim, and in fact, do not hold that opinion. I was answering a question. The question was what could form the basis for making (and I suppose keeping) prostitution illegal. One basis would be a moral judgement. Not my moral judgement as an individual (unless I were king), but that of the lawmaking body. I don't see why any of this is controversial.

But prostitution isn't illegal where I live: so that article is irrelevant. And unlike most articles by Cecil's ghost writer, that article wasn't very entertaining or informative.

It did make a case for a moral basis for "vice" laws. I am not qualified to judge the merits of the analysis, but it had some nice historical touchstones and fact-y sounding things. Good enough to fool me.

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

 

[Morrigan]

If you don't think prostitution is immoral per se, why did you answer "it's morally corrupt" to lionking's question? You could have at least said, "[some] people think it's morally corrupt", which would not have caused everyone to think that you held that belief. But in any case, that doesn't answer the question, it just raises a new one: why would anyone think prostitution is morally wrong? Let's say, without appealing to religion since, after all, this is supposed to be a secular country...

 

[marplots]

If you don't think prostitution is immoral per se, why did you answer "it's morally corrupt" to lionking's question? You could have at least said, "[some] people think it's morally corrupt", which would not have caused everyone to think that you held that belief. But in any case, that doesn't answer the question, it just raises a new one: why would anyone think prostitution is morally wrong? Let's say, without appealing to religion since, after all, this is supposed to be a secular country...

I didn't answer, "It's morally corrupt." I answered, "It's morally corrupt?"

Anyhow, your question, "...why would anyone think prostitution is morally wrong?" is much harder. It asks for a mechanism underlying moral judgements, for which, as a materialist, I have no good answer.

For example, I can think of no reliable, scientific method to alter someone's opinion on the matter. Maybe I could do it by changing their experiences with prostitution, changing what their culture tells them about the trade, or maybe a little directed electrical zap somewhere in the temporal lobe. That is quite a string of maybes. And who would fund such a study?

The thread title talks about saving the souls of prostitutes. If I am charitable, and imagine the authorities involved to be honestly mistaken, then their rationale is a moral one. They feel a duty to help others. The others in this case are prostitutes and the help is an attempt to save them from damnation (pardon the hyperbole).

To me, the weak point, the point to attack, is the legality of holding them and essentially forcing them into what I imagine is a program of dubious value.

Trying to justify prostitution doesn't have to come into it at all. The attack is on human rights grounds and the excessive, inappropriate use of governmental authority. The "crime" could just as well be public drunkenness, or littering or speeding - the same mechanism could be used. That's a problem.

 

[3point14]

You should recognize that "morally corrupt" can be the basis for lawmaking, even if you do not think prostitution itself is morally corrupt.

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

 

[Kopji]

Thanks for the info on new Zealand's 2003 law, that was very interesting and worth following. It is far from a slam dunk success though. (People in the US would probably view the report of the city that outlawed prostitution because parents were pimping their children as horrific.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_New_Zealand

Data reporting still has a strong bias depending on who is collecting the data, even reflected in the Wiki article.

The Rich White Men comment was facetious, but there seems to be a quality to this discussion that ignores cultural and geographic issues. Arizona is not New Zealand or South Africa. New Zealand is relatively isolated and hard to emigrate to. There were not planeloads of prostitutes from other countries flocking there after legalization. There is not a history of human sex slave trafficking. There was a long history of tolerance in the form of massage sex parlors.

That property values and quality of life in Arizona suffer in the presence of prostitution is not falsified by isolated exceptions in South Africa.

 

[Ladewig]

For example, I can think of no reliable, scientific method to alter someone's opinion on the matter. Maybe I could do it by changing their experiences with prostitution, changing what their culture tells them about the trade, or maybe a little directed electrical zap somewhere in the temporal lobe. That is quite a string of maybes. And who would fund such a study?

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?

 

[banquetbear]

Thanks for the info on new Zealand's 2003 law, that was very interesting and worth following. It is far from a slam dunk success though.

...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?

(People in the US would probably view the report of the city that outlawed prostitution because parents were pimping their children as horrific.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_New_Zealand

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?

Data reporting still has a strong bias depending on who is collecting the data, even reflected in the Wiki article.

The Rich White Men comment was facetious, but there seems to be a quality to this discussion that ignores cultural and geographic issues. Arizona is not New Zealand or South Africa. New Zealand is relatively isolated and hard to emigrate to. There were not planeloads of prostitutes from other countries flocking there after legalization. There is not a history of human sex slave trafficking. There was a long history of tolerance in the form of massage sex parlors.

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.

That property values and quality of life in Arizona suffer in the presence of prostitution is not falsified by isolated exceptions in South Africa.

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?

 

[banquetbear]

Not my moral judgements, the summed moral judgements of a voting majority (or variations thereof).

...cite?

I think it's a good system.

I think its a terrible system.

For other crimes, the process is obvious - we rarely argue about whether serious crimes, like murder or rape, are morally repugnant because we mostly all agree that they are.

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

You should recognize that "morally corrupt" can be the basis for lawmaking, even if you do not think prostitution itself is morally corrupt.

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

I don't think I made that claim, and in fact, do not hold that opinion.

What opinion do you hold?

I was answering a question.

You appear to now be claiming you were asking a question. Which one is it?

The question was what could form the basis for making (and I suppose keeping) prostitution illegal. One basis would be a moral judgement. Not my moral judgement as an individual (unless I were king), but that of the lawmaking body. I don't see why any of this is controversial.

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 did make a case for a moral basis for "vice" laws. I am not qualified to judge the merits of the analysis, but it had some nice historical touchstones and fact-y sounding things. Good enough to fool me.

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"?

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

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