Outlawing prostitution

Where on earth did this come from? Is it religious in origin? It will be ar sad day when another society takes another step back into stupidity.
 
Here in the US, prostitution has generally been illegal since around the turn of the century, though most cities had well-known bordellos that were tolerated to one degree or the other.
Such things still thrive, of course, but they have been forced to take more stringent precautions. Every now and then, law enforcement will announce a major "bust", with immediate terror on the part of prominent individuals who are on the list of customers...

Much as in the case of the drug wars, all enforcement seems to have done is to drive much prostitution underground and decrease the level of oversight and control. One could argue that there's as much paid-for sex as ever, if not more.
The well-heeled can take advantage of expensive "dating services" and "escort services", with the availability of sex implied if not advertised.
There are still well-run and expensive brothels in every city; taking care to properly vette their clients.
And of course at the lowest level, we have the large numbers of "street" prostitutes who are still subject to all the problems that trade has always had; drug addiction, pimps, venereal disease, violence, harassment by law enforcement, etc.
No amount of arrests seems to decrease the number of these people.

Sex researcher John Money had an interesting take on the "why" of prostitution; involving our odd, societal notion of "saintly love" and "sinful lust". His idea was that one did not subject the object of "saintly love" (one's spouse) to the same naughty practices that came under the heading of "sinful lust".
Not to mention the fact that sex drives vary considerably between men and women, and that the spouse is often unavailable due to pregnancy, distance, or whatever. The behavior of men on business trips is legendary...

Much of what law enforcement does in regards to prostitution is unconscionable; a popular thing is to publish the names of men arrested in local papers for all to see.
It could be argued that law-enforcement "sting" operations consume so much time and manpower as to hardly be worth the while for snagging a few potential "Johns".
Still, it persists. Much of this due to public pressure, of course. Prostitution is "bad". It's "degrading", it's illegal, it fuels other crime, etc., etc.
Historically, prostitution was confined to "red light districts", where it was out of public view. When it moves into visibility, folks start to complain, and that's when politicians and law enforcement start listening.

It's always seemed to me that legal, regulated prostitution was a better idea; but even in the most permissive areas there's going to be a "street" trade by women who are unable (because of poverty, STDs, or drug addiction) to enter the ranks of legal prostitutes.

It's not called the "world's oldest profession" for nothing...
 
DanishDynamite said:
Woo is generally used for belief in anything supernatural. Sometimes it is used to refer to any similarly idiotic belief.
Click to expand...

If it is used to refer to any idiotic belief then the person using it is simply wrong. Woo refers to things that break the laws of physics, contradict the way the world works, or require a complete rewriting of the fundamental aspects of the universe.

If someone says, "These two 40-story building are separated by 13 meters. I will now jump from the top of this one to the top of that one." then that person is an idiot but there is no reason to describe it as woo. If the person said, "I will practice the ancient art of wishing real hard (ala "The Secret") before I jump." or "This homeopathic remedy will make me noticeable lighter," or "Angels have taught me how to levitate" then it would be appropriate to call it woo.
 
DanishDynamite said:
Empress said:
Personally I've always thought that prostitution being illegal is one of the most asinine ideas I've ever heard. Not only is it not possible to stop prostitution, as evidenced by the thriving business despite its illegality, why is it anyone's business? After all, if I want to sell my car, I can. If I want to sell my house I can. I can sell virtually anything I legally own. What can I possibly claim a greater ownership over than my own body? If I or anyone else wants to trade sex for money or barter for other goods, in my view--have at it.
Click to expand...

[Couldn't agree more. :)
Click to expand...

I'm agnostic on the question, because I don't know enough about what the consequences would be, but I think the argument that people have a natural urge to ****** and in any case should be able to sell whatever they legally own is really a sort of natural rights argument without much traction.

I think the better view is that what we can legally own, buy, and sell is the product of social negotiation. The question should be what set of rules will produce the best results.

I'm curious, what does the market look like in Denmark? Is there any stigma attached to buying or selling sex for either gender? Are there "mixed deals" between amateurs with cash tipping the balance of traditional inducements or is it strictly a profession?
 
Rufo said:
In our current society, sex is commonly a display of affection - one of the strongest and most intimate displays of affection. Not necessarily love, but affection. However, sex has a separate history of being used as a tool for or display of dominance, a tradition mostly associated with behaviors we wish to prohibit in our current society, such as rape and child molestation. Prostitution belongs to that tradition rather than to the one of affectionate sex. I admit these categories may intersect and can not be viewed as completely separate, but it is my wish to eliminate as much of the latter one as possible.
Click to expand...

Does this mean that we need to outlaw BDSM now too?
 
A hypothesis: This isn't religionists having a resurgance over there. This is the result of modern psychobabble about degradation to women, etc.

What's generating this movement?
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
I mean in modern times in Sweden.

Anyone know offhand?
Click to expand...
It was legalized in 1907, after having been prohibited on what I would guess was largely religious and cultural grounds. The new law was passed in 1999 and Beerina's description of the reason is, besides the cynical wording, largely correct.

ponderingturtle said:
Does this mean that we need to outlaw BDSM now too?
Click to expand...
No, that would be part of the intersection I mentioned. It is affectionate, but simulates the dominance situation.
 
epeos76 said:
I'm agnostic on the question, because I don't know enough about what the consequences would be, but I think the argument that people have a natural urge to ****** and in any case should be able to sell whatever they legally own is really a sort of natural rights argument without much traction.

I think the better view is that what we can legally own, buy, and sell is the product of social negotiation. The question should be what set of rules will produce the best results.

I'm curious, what does the market look like in Denmark? Is there any stigma attached to buying or selling sex for either gender? Are there "mixed deals" between amateurs with cash tipping the balance of traditional inducements or is it strictly a profession?
Click to expand...
Can there really be any reasonable debate about whether a person owns themselves? Or that any two adults of sound mind should be able to able to have sex together if they choose to? The money thing is really completely incidental. The truth is that people who oppose prostitution oppose it, really, because they oppose sex except under the auspices of their preferred superstition - and even then, as Martin Luther came out and said, they think sex is a sin, or at least, borderline, even in marriage. It seems to me that Martin Luther said that sex was God's one mistake. People make all sorts of justifications and rationalizations for opposing prostitution, but the truth is they oppose it because they have bad feelings about sex. Sexual commerce, just like commerce in illegal recreational substances is part of the reality of being human and wishing it away and banning it isn't going to make life into the fairy tale some people want it to be.

What I find really offensive about "vice" laws and prohibition of prostitution in particular - aside from the obviously stupid idea that you or I have the right to tell other people how they can live their lives and how they are allowed to interact with each other is, in the case of prostitution, you are telling people who may be too unattractive (in the very broadest sense of the term - ugly, defective, socially retarded, whatever) to find a partner that they don't have the right to enjoy sexual companionship. Comically people will say that this person or that lives in fear that someone somewhere may be having a good time. Personally, I think this is not comical. I think it is very sad and cruel. I just do not understand where this notion comes from or develops in people that they feel justified in determining for other people what they may or may not do in their own lives.

This old cartoon captures my view pretty much entirely. Frankly, I can not comprehend why anyone would have a problem with the principles described or would not feel compelled to stand up for those principles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
 
DanishDynamite said:
Just typical Swedish idiocy. :)
Click to expand...
That really is what it's all about. People here (Sweden) aren't thinking rationally about it at all. Most of the "arguments" are just attempts to trigger negative emotions ("Whose daughter should be the whore?") or based on some kind of confused absolute morality and a misrepresentation of the facts ("It's wrong to buy someone's body").

MRC_Hans said:
The basic problem, of course, is that prostitution causes a lot of abuse and trafficking.
Click to expand...
Many would consider that a strong argument against allowing it, but is it really valid? (I realize it's not your argument Hans). I recently read about a survey (from 2007) that indicated that possibly as many as 75% of all trafficking victims are forced to either beg for money or work in agriculture or construction. If that's true, and if it really makes sense to outlaw the customer side of prostitution because some people in that industry are victims of trafficking, then shouldn't we also outlaw giving money to beggars, paying for construction work, and even buying food?

I tried to find that report, but the links I found to it don't work anymore. These two pages are talking about the report: 1, 2. The second is in Swedish. The one that's in English says that "sensitivities and stigma attached to sexual exploitation may have resulted in an underestimation of figures related to this type of human trafficking", so 75% may be too high a number.
 
Last edited:
Empress said:
Personally I've always thought that prostitution being illegal is one of the most asinine ideas I've ever heard. Not only is it not possible to stop prostitution, as evidenced by the thriving business despite its illegality, why is it anyone's business? After all, if I want to sell my car, I can. If I want to sell my house I can. I can sell virtually anything I legally own. What can I possibly claim a greater ownership over than my own body? If I or anyone else wants to trade sex for money or barter for other goods, in my view--have at it.
Click to expand...



Well, if you feel that way about it....


...check, or cash?

:D
 
George Carlin said it in the most perfect way

"Sex is legal, selling is legal...

WHY IS SELLING SEX ILLEGAL?"

Of course, he used the F word, which gives the statement even more oomph!
 
Last edited:
Bikewer said:
Sex researcher John Money had an interesting take on the "why" of prostitution; involving our odd, societal notion of "saintly love" and "sinful lust". His idea was that one did not subject the object of "saintly love" (one's spouse) to the same naughty practices that came under the heading of "sinful lust".
Click to expand...

John Money was the most unethical "researcher" in the history of social science.
 
billydkid said:
Can there really be any reasonable debate about whether a person owns themselves? Or that any two adults of sound mind should be able to able to have sex together if they choose to? The money thing is really completely incidental. The truth is that people who oppose prostitution oppose it, really, because they oppose sex except under the auspices of their preferred superstition
Click to expand...

I take issue with your broad accusation. While the libertarian in me advocates legalizing prostitution in the United States (and Scandinavian countries), I believe that situations in other countries are such that it is worth considering the outlawing of prostitution in some cases. In some southeastern Asian countries, the balance of power between men and women is so lopsided that many women are forced into prostitution. My hesitancy to advocate the legalization of prostitution there has nothing at all to do with my opposing sex except under certain auspices. Similarly, the rate of infectious diseases among prostitutes in some third world countries is so high that I might use health concerns as a reason to limit the legality of that activity. It isn't always about one's moral attitudes about sex.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
Illegal to buy but not to sell? How do they intend to enforce it?
Click to expand...
That doesn't strike me as particularly odd, since that's the way it is in Canada. It's illegal to try to hire a prostitute, but it's not illegal to be one.

As far as I know, anyway- I've never tried to test such laws.
 
Ladewig said:
I take issue with your broad accusation. While the libertarian in me advocates legalizing prostitution in the United States (and Scandinavian countries), I believe that situations in other countries are such that it is worth considering the outlawing of prostitution in some cases. In some southeastern Asian countries, the balance of power between men and women is so lopsided that many women are forced into prostitution. My hesitancy to advocate the legalization of prostitution there has nothing at all to do with my opposing sex except under certain auspices. Similarly, the rate of infectious diseases among prostitutes in some third world countries is so high that I might use health concerns as a reason to limit the legality of that activity. It isn't always about one's moral attitudes about sex.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying - but those societies are defective on many levels. It may protect women to outlaw prostitution is these societies or it may not - prostitution will happen anyway. In an unjust society everything is screwed up. Outlawing particular behaviors or activities doesn't change that. I would argue in generally that criminalizing behaviors only further victimizes people who are already screwed. In much the same way the war on drugs has become, by and large, a war against the under class and like every great exercise in social engineering the primary victims are invariably the powerless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom