Should prostitution be legalized?

[meg]

Yeah, Atheist, I do include you in that. I think you and I actually agree more than disagree on much of this stuff.

 

[pgwenthold]

I hope you're including me in that, because that's the position I've had right from the start. I have said any number of times in this thread that not only must prostitution laws be made to safeguard the prostitutes, they must be enforceable and enforced.

I guess I am trying to figure out how "legalize prostitution" got interpreted as "legalize rape, assault, and murder."

In fact, everyone I have heard have been insisting that legalizing prostitution goes the OTHER direction. For example, right now, when a prostitute is assaulted, what recourse does she have? Yeah, she can call the cops, but 1) she doesn't know the guy's name, and 2) she runs the risk of being arrested herself.

Yes, it is possible that she can do it, but there are also serious reasons why she can't/won't.

Make it legal, and there is no hesitation to call the cops.

Who is more likely to call the police in the case of a fight: a legal casino or an illegal gambling ring? Shoot, the legal casino has professional security on staff, while a illegal gambling ring is going to have what, the mafia?

No, legalizing prostitution will not END all violence against women and/or prostitutes. However, that isn't the question. The real question is, will it make it worse?

If it doesn't make it worse, then it is not an argument against legalization.

 

[meg]

For example, right now, when a prostitute is assaulted, what recourse does she have? Yeah, she can call the cops, but 1) she doesn't know the guy's name, and 2) she runs the risk of being arrested herself.

Yes, it is possible that she can do it, but there are also serious reasons why she can't/won't.

Make it legal, and there is no hesitation to call the cops.

I don't believe that is necessarily true. I think it's more complicated than that. You did not include, for example, the social stigma associate with prostitution, even in places where it is legal, law enforcement is less likely to take seriously the rape of a hooker. There is more of an attitude of "you walk down dark alleys with strange men, what do you expect?"

I think that if you think that legalization of prostitution would result in less rape, - or in more rape convictions, then that is a testable thing. The proper thing to do would be to look at the research of places that have legalized prostitution, and look at their rape statistics. Then state your case.

Just telling me, "if prostitution were legal, a raped prostitute would have no hesitation to call the cops" means nothing. You are [as far as I know] not an expert on rape, on prostitutes, or on cops, so I really have no reason to believe you know anything at all about the subject.

If, however, you can show me the rape statistics of some number of different places that have legalized prostitution and can show that that rate changed because of the change in prostitution laws, well, then you've got something I'm very interested in hearing about. I might even agree with you then, that you've got a good argument for changing the law.

Who is more likely to call the police in the case of a fight: a legal casino or an illegal gambling ring? Shoot, the legal casino has professional security on staff, while a illegal gambling ring is going to have what, the mafia?

No, legalizing prostitution will not END all violence against women and/or prostitutes. However, that isn't the question. The real question is, will it make it worse?

If it doesn't make it worse, then it is not an argument against legalization.

And if it doesn't make much difference at all, is it worth the cost?

When I look at the various reports from places that have legalized prostitution, I see that many of the "obvious" arguments are just not true. Crime does not necessarily go down. Trafficking does not go down. The reports from the prostitutes themselves do not say that their life or their job is better. Some actually report it being worse. For instance, in the Netherlands, since the sex industry has grown, their competition is fiercer, so they make less money, and feel compelled to have to do things they wouldn't use to do, like have sex without a condom, or perform acts they don't wish to do. Prostitutes do not report less violence, rape, or abuse. To the contrary, more is reported. (to be fair though, I have a hard time telling if there is just more numbers, or more per capita, or if the same amount is occurring, but more is being reported)


I agree that if it doesn't make it worse, it is not an argument against legalization.

And if it doesn't make things better, it is not an argument for legalization, either.

 

[The Atheist]

Yeah, Atheist, I do include you in that. I think you and I actually agree more than disagree on much of this stuff.

I'm sure we do!

I've put in my diary to look up the review at the end of June - it looks like it's the first time that legalisation has taken place with set judicial reviews in place.

I look forward to us talking about it more then.

 

[GreyICE]

Actually, this sounds like the beginnings of a halfway decent plan to me. I think you've got a ways to go before you're ready to submit it to your town council, though.

What would be the incentive to get prostitutes to register and get an ID card? Would there be any negative reaction for those that choose not to?

You mean besides free STD tests, rehab offers for anyone who wants them, career councilling if they want to switch professions, and an anonymous but legal form of recognition that can help them protect themselves if something goes wrong?

Well that ties into number 2 - customers who see the card can call the number, find the date of the last STD exam, or simply know that the possibility is there. Even though Condom use would be heavily encouraged, it is still reassuring. Is there any way to FORCE them to register? Well we could hit them with criminal charges if they don't have it. What charges? Tax evasion.

Any thoughts as to how the access to free/reduced STD costs, healthcare, etc should be financed?

I'd suggest the tax dollars they're paying.

How would you keep people who aren't prostitutes from accessing the free/reduced cost healthcare?

Well it would only be in relation to their line of work in forms of healthcare. And no, that wouldn't involve plastic surgery (though I suppose you could try to write that off as a business expense, but honestly that's for the guys at the IRS to deal with). I don't suppose a nominal fee (like $30) would hurt, but honestly, I don't see many people applying for a prostitute card in order to get cheap/free STD tests. Its like all the male-male or female-female roommates who might get a gay marriage for the tax breaks - somehow it isn't happening.

You mentioned brothels forming, or allowing them to form.. Where? Anywhere in town? Out of town? Any restriction on size or operating hours? Do the neighbors in a community have a right to declare whether they want a brothel on their block or not? Do the people of a town have a right to vote whether they want prostitution in their town or not?

They'd have to follow all zoning restrictions that any other commercial business would, obviously, and they'd also be limited by local regulations as to what advertising would be allowed. I don't see any restriction on size or operating hours making sense - if the demand is there for a hundred person brothel, trying to hide it somewhere seems a mite bit hypocritical. The people in a town could decide to zone it out of the town, the same way people sometimes do Wal-Mart or other stores, but as to the actual service, no, they would not have the right to zone it out (you can't zone out services, only places of work).

The idea of an 800 number johns could call to find out a prostitute's latest std results is interesting. I suspect that would be in complete violation of current hipaa laws, though. Do you think we need to change those too?

I would tend to doubt it, because the name of the prostitute is not being given out. Its like checking someone's credit rating on a business transaction. Could you punch in random numbers and get a computerized voice saying "February 10th, 2008"? Yeah sure, and if you get your jollies that way, heh. Just type dates into Microsoft Sam.

I very much like the idea of this:


and would like to hear what real methods you might suggest to accomplish it, and how this would be financed. This, in my opinion is the only aspect of your plan that seem to be getting close to what would improve protection for prostitutes.

Its simple. Currently pimps are operating because of two things - they can operate safe places of business, and they can find clients. With the internet (see: Craigslist) things are already becoming easier for independent operators. Now imagine that the prostitutes weren't afraid of police stings. There is absolutely no reason not to imagine that things like the Craigslist erotic service section (which is already notorious) would blossom across the net. With place of business merely being something subject to zoning laws, and would potentially include motel rooms, which would no longer have to worry about the law when advertising (oh come on, you know those places exist already) pimps would have no role. Then the only thing they have left is abuse. Offer free career counseling, abuse help, offer to get them access to womens shelters if they're abused, have a hotline they can call anonymously for advice (cost to operate per year: maybe $500,000 - chump change) and voila - they have every incentive you can give them to turn their pimp in. Now crush the sucker under every charge you can throw at them.

How long do you think they'll last in those conditions? They're history.

Pushers are harder, but with there being no real penalty for them turning over people who offer drugs to the police, and with easy access to rehab and counseling to get them back on their feet, the problem with drugs is only the one we always have.

According the DOJ paper I linked to before, ( http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/38790.htm )
89% of women in prostitution want out.

With career counseling, no negative stereotypes attached to them in the position, and the knowledge that their position is accepted by the government and there are those willing to help, it would only get easier to get out. How easy is it to get out of prostitution if there's a charge for that on your permanent record any employer can access? Versus no charge and counseling?

60-75% of women in prostitution have been raped,

Under this they would be offered legal protection. The state could make legal contracts available to them that would protect them. Action that went outside the bounds of the contract could be punishable in a court, and charges could be brought without admitting to breaking the law. Is it perfect? No. There will still be problems. But it will be better.

70-95% percent were physically assaulted,

Assault is a crime. With no crime attached to the prostitution act, those violent (I can't use the word I want on this board) will be locked up in prison for a long, long time - exactly where they belong.

68% met the criteria for post traumatic stress disorder in the same range as treatment-seeking combat veterans

I hope that the assault and rape reductions as well as the greater feeling of acceptance might help this, but all I can say is that career counseling will be provided, and they can have access to social workers to help them. We can't make good choices for people, all we can do is extend a hand, instead of slapping them in the face (with a charge that makes it even harder for them to leave the business).

According to this list of "prostitution facts"
http://www.rapeis.org/activism/prostitution/prostitutionfacts.html

"78% of 55 women who sought help from the Council for Prostitution Alternatives in 1991 reported being raped an average of 16 times a year by pimps, and were raped 33 times a year by johns. (Susan Kay Hunter, Council for Prostitution Alternatives Annual Report, 1991, Portland, Oregon) 85% of prostitutes are raped by pimps. (Council on Prostitution Alternatives, Portland, 1994)"

Well the elimination of pimps might help this, as may the openness of the system. Like roaches, rapists, pimps, and people so craven that they beat up a prostitute fear open examination of their actions. The current closed, secret system merely fuels this.

Girls and women in prostitution have a mortality rate 40 times higher than the national average.

I desperately hope an open system can lower this, but all I can say is that we can't make good choices for people. The most dangerous (legal) job in America is currently fisherman. We could mandate that all fish be grown in farms, and ban fishermen. And it would probably cut down mortality. Is that right?

75% of women in escort prostitution had attempted suicide

Prostituted women comprised 15% of all completed suicides reported by hospitals.

If we give them an escape, maybe we can prevent this. Currently that black mark on the legal record is equivelent to the scarlet A in terms of ever getting a job again.

ID cards and STD tests are all well and good, but they don't protect prostitutes from their most prevalent danger; assault, rape and murder by their own pimps and johns, and the mental anguish they suffer from living through the ordeal.

I hope I have detailed that this is not true, although partial prevention is not perfect, the legal system, properly implemented (instead of willy-nilly legalization, or Nevada's Brothel-slavery implimentation) would help the prostitutes.

There are many many posts championing a prostitute's rights to sell her vagina, yet only a few of us are championing a prostitute's right to work without being raped, assaulted or murdered.

I suspect that the individual liberty that most concerns some here is more about a man's "freedom" to purchase a hooker if he wants one, and that he really couldn't care less what happens to her before or after that.

I champion both! I merely see this as a better way to conduct the system. I suspect that, if you consider it, you will to.

GreyICE, I like that you are really starting to think seriously about this. And I think you are on to something. I hope you will spend some more thought on the above, though, before you declare "Now you have full legalization, and improved protection."

I hope you appreciate I have thought clearly about this. The problem is, I am a strict adherent to the church of unintended consequences. The consequence of illegalization was to make the prostitutes even less safe, not the intended consequence (eliminating prostitution). A well thought out legalization plan, rolled out over the entire US from the federal level, and supported by understanding people who do not hate prostitutes, but want to help them, could be of great benefit.

 

[Michael C]

As for legalization as opposed to making new laws, here's my plan - drop any and all laws pertaining to it, then make new laws. Create registration, which would give them an ID card, access to free/reduced cost STD costs, healthcare, etc., as well as certify when they had their last STD exam. Allow brothels, etc., if they want to form, but do NOT force the creation of Brothels. The registration would be a database inaccessible to any non-governmental agency. Offer rehab to anyone who wants it, make it attractive, and make sure it is not tied to any ID system accessible to anyone. There would be an 800 number where you could call with a prostitutes ID number, and get the date of their last STD exam and the results. Their ID card would not have their legal name on it, but it would have a number and a picture.

Now you have full legalization, and improved protection. Now we can land like a ton of bricks on the actual evils in the system - the pimps and the pushers. Coercion is against the law, and it is wrong. Currently there's a large problem with prostitutes testifying, because they are breaking the law, and because they are unsure of their income and status after their pimp is gone. This removes that fear. Crush the pimps, make the concept as out of date and foreign as speakeasies or the people who brewed bathtub gin in their basement.

OK, there's some regulation for the prostitutes. But how do you regulate the clients? Evil doesn't just come from pimps and pushers: there are evil clients as well, those that take advantage of the situation to hurt and humiliate. I'd be happy if someone can produce statistics proving me wrong, but all I have read points to the fact that the "good" clients are in the minority. Moreover, even if there are more good clients than bad, the prostitute still needs protection from the bad ones.

I have said any number of times in this thread that not only must prostitution laws be made to safeguard the prostitutes, they must be enforceable and enforced.

Yeah, Atheist, I do include you in that. I think you and I actually agree more than disagree on much of this stuff.

Count me in too. Prostitution laws must be made to safeguard the prostitutes. The big difficulty is working out how to do this.

If you have sex with somebody, you put yourself in a very vulnerable position. Most of us reduce the risks by spending some time getting to know the person before making the decision to sleep with them. Depending on your attitude to taking risks, you may spend hours, days, weeks or even months on this "courtship period". During this period, each person normally has the choice to opt out if they realise that having sex with the other person isn't what they want. This social mechanism isn't perfect, but it's good enough to protect most of us from having sex with somebody who may rape us, rob us or otherwise abuse us.

In the prostitute/client situation there is no time for a "courtship period" where each partner can size the other one up. Both partners are at risk, but the prostitute is, in the long run, more at risk than the client. She is in this situation more often than he is, and it is easier for a man to rape a women than for a woman to rape a man. When a prostitute accepts a client, what guarantee does she have that he won't rape her? What guarantee does she have that he isn't going to harm her, mentally or physically? What guarantee does she have that he is free from STDs? The idea of a number where a client can call to check up on the prostitutes ID is fine, but how is the prostitute going to check up on the ID of the client?

 

[pgwenthold]

I agree that if it doesn't make it worse, it is not an argument against legalization.

And if it doesn't make things better, it is not an argument for legalization, either.

Why should there have to be a reason to make something legal?

The only reason needed to make something legal is "there is no reason to make it illegal"

There are countless number of activities for which I can not come up with a reason that they should be legal. For example, suppose I want to stand in my driveway on one foot during a rainstorm and sing Judy Garland songs. Should that be legal? It does not benefit society in any way, and, in fact, I run the risk of catching pneumonia if I breathe rainwater into my lungs as a take a deep breath to belt out Somewhere Over the Rainbow.

So what argument is there for that activity being legal aside from, 1) I want to do it, and 2) there is no reason to make it illegal?

 

[GreyICE]

OK, there's some regulation for the prostitutes. But how do you regulate the clients? Evil doesn't just come from pimps and pushers: there are evil clients as well, those that take advantage of the situation to hurt and humiliate. I'd be happy if someone can produce statistics proving me wrong, but all I have read points to the fact that the "good" clients are in the minority. Moreover, even if there are more good clients than bad, the prostitute still needs protection from the bad ones.

Count me in too. Prostitution laws must be made to safeguard the prostitutes. The big difficulty is working out how to do this.

If you have sex with somebody, you put yourself in a very vulnerable position. Most of us reduce the risks by spending some time getting to know the person before making the decision to sleep with them. Depending on your attitude to taking risks, you may spend hours, days, weeks or even months on this "courtship period". During this period, each person normally has the choice to opt out if they realise that having sex with the other person isn't what they want. This social mechanism isn't perfect, but it's good enough to protect most of us from having sex with somebody who may rape us, rob us or otherwise abuse us.

In the prostitute/client situation there is no time for a "courtship period" where each partner can size the other one up. Both partners are at risk, but the prostitute is, in the long run, more at risk than the client. She is in this situation more often than he is, and it is easier for a man to rape a women than for a woman to rape a man. When a prostitute accepts a client, what guarantee does she have that he won't rape her? What guarantee does she have that he isn't going to harm her, mentally or physically? What guarantee does she have that he is free from STDs? The idea of a number where a client can call to check up on the prostitutes ID is fine, but how is the prostitute going to check up on the ID of the client?

Well consider if it was legal. Would there be a market for love motels? Well yes, there is currently, so its not about to go away. And with no need to deny the nature of their main clientele, not to mention increased ease of deal making and contract signing, it wouldn't be long before some offered protection services. Press a button, and love hotel security shows up and throws the client out on his ass. Brothels would also have a similar system (at least that's my bet).

Can we FORCE them to use that? No. Nevada tried, with the Brothels, and that system just doesn't work. However, we can offer them the opportunity to. Our current system doesn't allow that.

We can't make good decisions for people. If people choose to act in a risky manner, we have to let them, or turn into a padded-room society. But it being illegal just makes the behavior riskier. Can you honestly think of one way that prostitution being illegal helps these women?

 

[meg]

I know what you mean, Michael C.

I keep trying to figure out how to equalize the transaction between prostitute and john, also.

One idea I keep rolling around is, what about some kind of similar ID card system for johns? When a man decides he wants to become a john, he can provide a DNA sample as well as a whatever samples are required for STD tests. He is then issued a similar ID card as the prostitute, and the prostitute is also able to call a number and check on his status. Perhaps that status would include not only disease information, but prior convictions for violent behavior. Her calling that number could perhaps even "connect" the two numbers in some fashion, so that if she turns up dead or in the hospital, law enforcement would be able to pull the records and find out who her last call that night was. Prostitutes would not be required to only take johns who show a card, but it could be highly encouraged.

Actually, perhaps this ID card system could be used by any two people considering having sex with each other, not just those using prostitutes. My understanding is that disease testing prior to a sexual relationship is becoming more and more common. Perhaps this system could help facillitate people to make sure that neither partner is carrying an STD.

As a caveat, I do realize that such a system would probably be outrageously expensive. And that properly safeguarding individual rights to privacy as well as data integrity would be a significant challenge. Identity theft would be an issue, for sure.


Just a thought.

 

[meg]

Why should there have to be a reason to make something legal?

The only reason needed to make something legal is "there is no reason to make it illegal"

There are countless number of activities for which I can not come up with a reason that they should be legal. For example, suppose I want to stand in my driveway on one foot during a rainstorm and sing Judy Garland songs. Should that be legal? It does not benefit society in any way, and, in fact, I run the risk of catching pneumonia if I breathe rainwater into my lungs as a take a deep breath to belt out Somewhere Over the Rainbow.

So what argument is there for that activity being legal aside from, 1) I want to do it, and 2) there is no reason to make it illegal?

I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this, but I think your analogy doesn't really fit.

You are assuming some sort of blank slate here, which is not appropriate to this particular situation.

I think things are assumed to be legal unless they are specifically made illegal, and that is the case in this area anyway, with prostitution. There are already laws against it. Someone somewhere has already shown enough evidence or reason to the good people of this community that they decided to make prostitution illegal. And over the years, law enforcement staffing, financing, training, and management has been working to comply with the laws.

If someone is proposing to change the laws, they should be prepared to show some good reason to do it. Why else should town councils or state legislatures bother to meet or vote about it? You are proposing a change of legislation, which will cost taxpayers money. The minimum cost is just the cost of legislators time, and the cost involved in actually changing whatever laws are on "the books". This proposed legislation might cost a lot of money, though. It might mean restructuring our law enforcement staff and/or tasks. It might mean rewriting other anti-discrimination laws to include sex workers. It might mean all sorts of things, all depending, of course, on what is meant by "make it legal".

I don't think anyone, yet, has actually shown "there is no reason to make it illegal". To do that, wouldn't one have to actually argue against some of the reasons that communities have had for making illegal?

 

[pgwenthold]

I don't think anyone, yet, has actually shown "there is no reason to make it illegal". To do that, wouldn't one have to actually argue against some of the reasons that communities have had for making illegal?

Exactly what are those, meg?

"God says it's a sin" is not going to be acceptable to me. "The majority finds it distasteful" is equally invalid (or should we make sauerkraut pizza illegal?)

Show me any legitimate reasons that it should be illegal, and THEN show me that having it legal would make the situation worse, and then there might be a case for making it illegal.

However, if your reasons are, "prostitutes are subject to rape, assault, and murder," then there is no case, because legalizing it isn't going to make it worse.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I know what you mean, Michael C.

Actually, perhaps this ID card system could be used by any two people considering having sex with each other, not just those using prostitutes. My understanding is that disease testing prior to a sexual relationship is becoming more and more common. Perhaps this system could help facillitate people to make sure that neither partner is carrying an STD.

As a caveat, I do realize that such a system would probably be outrageously expensive. And that properly safeguarding individual rights to privacy as well as data integrity would be a significant challenge. Identity theft would be an issue, for sure.


Just a thought.

Wow, I really like the idea of a generalized system. Basically have a "sexual health status" card with your picture and an id number (used to check status on the web or by phone). The cost of the program should just be built into the card (e.g. you pay $200 a year or something for the card which includes the testing). Prostitution is then only legal when both people have the card. Regular people can have the card and use it to verify their partners status for casual hookups as well. Not sure if it's the best system overall but it sounds way better than what we have. It does go against certain principles that I have but everyone needs to compromise on occasion.

 

[meg]

Exactly what are those, meg?

"God says it's a sin" is not going to be acceptable to me. "The majority finds it distasteful" is equally invalid (or should we make sauerkraut pizza illegal?)

Show me any legitimate reasons that it should be illegal, and THEN show me that having it legal would make the situation worse, and then there might be a case for making it illegal.

However, if your reasons are, "prostitutes are subject to rape, assault, and murder," then there is no case, because legalizing it isn't going to make it worse.

I have no idea, pgwenthold. And I'm not particularly interested in spinning my wheels to research the reasoning behind every law regarding prostitution in every state or municipality in the country.

And whether people credit their beliefs about crime to a mythological being really is kind of irrelevant. I would venture to guess that a certain percentage of people would say that murder or theft should be illegal because "god says its a sin", but that doesn't mean that murder or theft should automatically be made legal. People create their religions to reflect their belief systems.

Non-mythological reasons why a society might choose to make prostitution illegal could be:

1. Prostitutes are subject to rape, assault and murder.
2. Brothels in the neighborhood make property values go down.
3. Areas where prostitution is rampant attract other behaviors and crimes we consider to be antisocial (drug use, violence, etc)
4. Prostitution contributes to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases
5. Prostitution contributes to the human trafficking industry.
6. Prostitution itself creates an unequal balance of power. (I believe the Swedish argument revolves around this) Prostitutes are victims of sexual inequality.


I have not been talking about prostitutes being raped, murdered or assaulted as an argument for or against prostitution. I bring it up in discussion with those who argue that legal prostitution by itself would somehow magically "provide protection for the prostitutes". Looking at statistics in places where prostitution has been legalized shows that this is not the case. It is an empty argument. Prostitutes, whether legal or not, are the most raped and assaulted class of women on the planet. And if you genuinely wish to protect prostitutes from the hazards they face, you have to do a lot more than just legalize prostitution. There is some evidence to suggest that just legalizing prostitution actually puts more women in danger. By reducing negative pressure, demand for prostitutes is increased, which is filled by human traffickers that fulfill the demand by coercing and forcing more women into prostitution. The Netherlands is (are?) spending huge amounts of money now to combat traffickers, which were attracted to their country by their change in prostitution laws.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Personally I think all laws should have 2 sections. The actual code of the law and then the "intent" section that describes why the law exists and what it's intent is. Judges could then use the intent section to throw out cases that don't match the laws intent. It also forces people to be clear about the reasons things are illegal (e.g. if it's a moral objection without any factual basis that should be clear in the law).

Laws should also automatically expire and need to be re-voted on to be renewed.

 

[Beerina]

I know what you mean, Michael C.

I keep trying to figure out how to equalize the transaction between prostitute and john, also.

One idea I keep rolling around is, what about some kind of similar ID card system for johns? When a man decides he wants to become a john, he can provide a DNA sample as well as a whatever samples are required for STD tests. He is then issued a similar ID card as the prostitute, and the prostitute is also able to call a number and check on his status.

How about the government just get the hell out of the way?

You are all assuming STDs transmitted via legal prostitution are some kind of massive problem. Perhaps it won't be.

Do we need massive regulation before simply letting people be free? This should not be our default world-view.

 

[Michael C]

How about the government just get the hell out of the way?

You are all assuming STDs transmitted via legal prostitution are some kind of massive problem. Perhaps it won't be.

STDs are not the main problem. The main problem is abuse of the prostitutes, both mental and physical.

 

[CaptainManacles]

I don't believe that is necessarily true. I think it's more complicated than that. You did not include, for example, the social stigma associate with prostitution, even in places where it is legal, law enforcement is less likely to take seriously the rape of a hooker. There is more of an attitude of "you walk down dark alleys with strange men, what do you expect?"

Just like with trafficing and violence, that's a problem in enforcing the laws we already have. Rape is still rape, and corrupt sexist police are still corrupt sexist police. I see no reason to imagine that it might get worse, and if you're the one advocating taking away people's control over their lives, I would think it would be encumbent on you to offer up some kind of proof that wasting time and resources and ruining otherwise innocent people's lives is somehow worth it.

I think that if you think that legalization of prostitution would result in less rape, - or in more rape convictions, then that is a testable thing. The proper thing to do would be to look at the research of places that have legalized prostitution, and look at their rape statistics. Then state your case.

Just telling me, "if prostitution were legal, a raped prostitute would have no hesitation to call the cops" means nothing. You are [as far as I know] not an expert on rape, on prostitutes, or on cops, so I really have no reason to believe you know anything at all about the subject.

This is a problem I've noticed is rampant lately. It's like people want to jump on the skepticism/critical thinking bandwagon without really giving it real thought. Since when do weak correlational studies trump clear, uncontestable logic? Maybe you make a point about social stigma, that's another issue altogether, but you don't end an argument just by saying "you're not an expert, so there" or "cite meaningless studies or I don't believe you" It's not testable. The only way to test it would be to take 100 or so random countries, and force some of them to adopt prostitution and some of them not to, and see where that takes you. Otherwise you're just talking about anecdotal evidence.

 

[Lensky1917]

I guess if I am going to make myself known I might as well start here.

First, I find it amusing that the views on prostitution should be observed through a "poll". I also have an issue with the title of the thread conflicting with the title of the poll.

I voted that prostitution should be legalized, but should be regulated. It would most likely have to be regulated by The State.

 

[meg]

Welcome to the forum Lensky1917!

 

[Lensky1917]

Thank you. Tell me, are you really a "psychic reader"?