Why is prostitution illegal?

Ivor the Engineer said:
No, what I'm saying actually, is men and women should be free, as far as is possible, from the coercive forces which make them consider prostitution, but they should also be free to set up as an independent and regulated business which may involve them (if they so wish) having sex with clients who pay for their company for a period of time. I.e. there is no contractual obligation for them to have sex with anyone, they pay tax on their earnings and they have the same legal rights and responsibilities as everyone else.
Click to expand...

Oh, this is bullcrap. You've got absolutely no argument as to why prostitution should be illegal, and that shows itself nicely when you admit that you're fine and dandy with people having sex for money...just so long as, you know, they aren't prostitutes or anything.

Why not, and this might sound crazy but hear me out, why not have prostitutes who are able to set up an independent and regulated business, who pay tax on their earnings and have the same legal rights and responsibilities as everyone else? See how it's exactly the same as what you propose, only I get rid of the part where to make myself feel better I pretend that they aren't really prostitutes, and instead they're 'escorts' or some other such euphemism.

Ivor the Engineer said:
I don't mind prostitution, so long as the vast majority of those engaged in it actively chose it, and go about their business responsibly and discretely.
Click to expand...

Well, you're certainly helping the cause of voluntary, responsible and discrete prostitution by arguing it should be illegal. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Ron_Tomkins said:
Why is prostitution illegal?


No, I mean why? Why??? WHyyyyyy????????
*cries*
Click to expand...

There, there, Ron.

The self-proclaimed biggest bigot conservative Republican deceased (thank goodness) Senator from North Carolina said that prostitution is illegal because: "demeans motherhood and undermines the traditional family."

So there you have it: high morals and political grandstanding. :)
 
Last edited:
Ivor the Engineer said:
No, what I'm saying actually, is men and women should be free, as far as is possible, from the coercive forces which make them consider prostitution, but they should also be free to set up as an independent and regulated business which may involve them (if they so wish) having sex with clients who pay for their company for a period of time. I.e. there is no contractual obligation for them to have sex with anyone, they pay tax on their earnings and they have the same legal rights and responsibilities as everyone else.
Click to expand...

Let's see how this would work with something else that has recently been prohibited, like alcohol.

Using your model, we make the buying and selling of alcohol illegal, but allow establishments to sell people seats at a bar for a period of time and then be served alcohol if both parties agree. How much should the customer pay for the seat? One customer might just want a shot of cheap bourbon or a domestic beer, while the other might want half a dozen fancy drinks made with top-shelf liquor. Both, however, have just paid for a seat at the bar: same seat, same price?

In your model, The bartender is not obligated to serve them at all: if the bartender refuses to serve anything but ginger ale, the customer has no recourse, since the customer didn't buy any alcohol, he just bought the use of a seat at the bar for a period of time. You think such a customer might end up feeling cheated?

Don't you think it would be a bit difficult to run a bar on this model? If so, why do you think your escort service model would work any better? Isn't it better to set up systems where financial transactions are transparent, and both sides know exactly what they are agreeing to? Beer, $4 domestic, $6 imported, mixed drinks $7 and up, top shelf $10? No confusion?
 
More pro-legalisation arguments from New Zealand

As Tsukasa Buddha linked in an earlier post, the NZ government seems to be pretty happy with legalisation. Here's a link to a summary: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0805/S00449.htm and the complete report: http://justice.govt.nz/prostitution-law-review-committee/publications/plrc-report/index.html

Also a quick note on some of the numbers for trafficking thrown about in this thread, there's a lot of comparing apples to oranges. A swedish policeman claims 105 to 130 active prostitutes in Stockholm, a believable number. Then he manages to claim Oslo (pop 500k) has 5000. Let's just say that 1% of the population in Oslo is not actively selling sex. That's just about 30-40 potential customers per prostitute. 5000 is probably an estimate of the total number of different women who visit Oslo in a year, and even that might be high. Similarly, I guess the number for Finland represents the number of women from the baltic countries that travel through Finland to Europe for sex work. As they are all EU-countries, there is nothing illegal or neccessarily coercive about this.

It seems to me that that most of the public debate on prostitution is based on myths rather than facts, an inability to recognize the varied aspects and vast differences between different forms of prostitution, and a lot of underlying sexual moralism. So are there any brave politicians who are able to educate the voting public instead of just pandering to their preconceptions?

// CyCrow
 
Last edited:
Gurdur said:
You mean unlike kicking prostitutes? Indeed.

Or did you want to get more .... intimate with the dead horse?

Just idlely wondering. :p
Click to expand...

I know a prostitute who doesn't have sex with her clients. She kicks them. Yes. In the place you're thinking of. Hard.

...and no, I've never been a client, (not my thing). She's a close friend I've known for years.

Hey, since there is no real sex, does that make her a prostitute or a really really rough massuse????? :D
 
JFrankA said:
I know a prostitute who doesn't have sex with her clients. She kicks them. Yes. In the place you're thinking of. Hard.

...and no, I've never been a client, (not my thing). She's a close friend I've known for years.

Hey, since there is no real sex, does that make her a prostitute or a really really rough massuse????? :D
Click to expand...
Actually, it makes her a professional dominatrix (though i believe "domme" is the latest trendy term). If there's no sex, there's no prostitution.
 
If there's no sex, there's no prostitution.
Click to expand...

It's clearly a sexual thing though so it's not that simple really: is penetration required? Is a hand-job enough? What about just jacking off in the same room?
 
Good points, both of Cyborg and Luchog. My friend didn't consider it sex because they paid to be tied and kicked, but if the client had an orgasm, hey, the client couldn't control it.

And the truth is that people can have an orgasm without being in a sexual situtation, or even be stimulated. So there's a big, gray area here.......
 
cyborg said:
It's clearly a sexual thing though so it's not that simple really:
Click to expand...
Legally, yes, it is just that simple. At least in my state.
is penetration required? Is a hand-job enough? What about just jacking off in the same room?
Click to expand...
Any sexual stimulation of the genitalia qualifies. Kicking someone in the crotch doesn't.
 
Last edited:
But some men get "stimulation of the genitalia" from being kicked in the crotch.

It's just archaic to attempt to legislate sex.

Legislating against abuses while staying out of who exchanges what sort of stimulation for what makes a lot more sense.
 
I can't believe this thread is still alive, with people still trying to rationalize old religious hatred memes of human sexuality with new, non-religious reasons to do the same.

...and for the same reason, because politicians use the arguments to get people behind them to gain power.
 
Beerina said:
I can't believe this thread is still alive, with people still trying to rationalize old religious hatred memes of human sexuality with new, non-religious reasons to do the same.

...and for the same reason, because politicians use the arguments to get people behind them to gain power.
Click to expand...


No less than four totally bogus strawmen packed into two sentences. Not bad! :)

Actually, to be more accurate, one is a myth, not a strawman, and the other 3 can be described as myths or strawmen depending on POV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom