Why is prostitution illegal?

Maybe this have been answered in earlier posts in this thread:

The countries where prostitution is illegal, is it also illegal to buy sex?

In Norway for instance it is legal to sell sex but pimping is illegal. And probably buying sex will be illegal in a couple of years.
 
kerikiwi said:
Since Dann seems to be a lot cause, I'll try this one.
Why is it a false dichotomy?
Either people should be punished for selling sex (illegal) or they should be able to make that choice (legal).
Click to expand...

Hiya kerikiwi,

pardon me if I say thanks for illustrating why it's a false dichotomy.

1) Something can be illegal without being punishable.

Example: abortion in Germany is actually technically illegal, but there is no punishment whatsoever in any way for properly-done abortions.

What is the reason for that? So doctors cannot be forced to do abortions if their personal ethics conflict with the procedure. That's the only reason.

2) Choice: choice is a complex thing. We make age, sanity and IQ distinctions about how much power of choice one can be expected to really have; for a child under say 16, we don't ascribe that much power of choice to the child to say that that child can choose prostitution if the child wants to.

Runaway girls in Britain, typically under 17, very often routinely prostitute themselves in the worst and unsafest of conditions, in car and lorry parks, for phone_cards of all things (so they can natter away to their mates). So they're setting themselves up for violence, infections and the whole later psychological damage shebang.

So making that (prostitution under 18) illegal in some way seems a bloody good idea; it means the police can target the johns, the customers.

Personally, I'm all in favour of legal prostitution, when it is also heavily controlled and checked, where the prosis are given free health check-ups, counselling regarding drug abuse, and incentive programs to get out of prostitution.

I am against simply making prostitution illegal overall, since usually that means the police do not target the johns, but target the prosis instead, and it leads often to corruption in police, town council & government, as well as a subclass of prosis with heavy drug abuse ratios, and a subclass of pimps.

I am against making prostitution legal without any controls or regulation.

See now why I see the whole debate as being reduced to a simplistic false dichotomy?
 
It is difficult to untangle this because there are so many different levels of argument going on. We cannot answer the question "why is prostitution illegal" simply, because there is no one answer: there are many reasons for the legal/illegal status of any act.

One basic premise underpinning the argument that prostitution should be legal rests on the proposition that prostitution is inevitable given our basic physical/genetic make up. This is the hogamous higamous argument, I think, and it is exemplified in Passing Trucker's post.

Passing Trucker said:
Unlike supposedly "decent" women, sex workers understand what men need to have on a regular basis. In contrast, "decent" women often give you "not tonight, I have a headache" line, then later cry foul when her husband wanders elsewhere to seek out what she had deprived him in the bedroom.
Click to expand...


Passing Trucker's argument leads directly to the legitimisation of rape, because not everybody has money to buy sex. Since he characterises sex (for men but maybe not exclusively for men, that is not clear from his post) as a "need" and also as a "right", then men without the money are justified in rape: it makes no sense to apply moral or legal judgment to this issue since it is presented as a biological imperative.

This argument is familiar and it serves as a justification for prostitution as a protection for the majority of women. Those with no money will still rape since they "must"; but more will choose to pay for prostitutes where they can, in circumstances where rape is illegal. Rape is usually illegal in societies which are not in crisis, at least, and prostitution is presented as a safeguard for most women; and also for most men if it is accepted that sexual fidelity of women is important for reasons of inheritance etc (that is a complex argument in itself but if necessary we can explore it too)

This idea legitimises a lack of freedom for women, since it leads to the idea that any woman who is "unprotected" is "fair game": and it is profoundly insulting to men. I personally see no evidence whatsoever that men in general are biologically constituted in this way; and I confess to being puzzled that they accept this picture of themselves without outrage. Leaving that aside I do not see any reason to suppose that a small group of human beings should be sacrificed to service a biological imperative for the protection of the majority even if that biological imperative exists

Those who argue that prostitution is different from rape ,eg:

Michelle Lyon said:
The mistake some are making in this thread is in thinking of prostitution and rape as the same thing, across the board, and they aren't the same. They certainly overlap in some ways, but they're not the same.
Click to expand...

are correct if the imperative is accepted and they seek only to justify this particular way of dealing with it. I don't.

It seems to me that those who seek to explicitly exclude morality from the issue do so by trying to avoid this underlying premise: they try to found on ideas of "freedom" whether in terms of the market, or in personal terms.

I do not accept that the free market exists for the simple reasons that dann has laid out. I do not find that many economically secure people choose prostitution as a career. I know that some here do argue that this happens but my own experience does not fit with this and all we really have is anecdote on both sides.

That overlaps with the argument from personal freedom. Again it is said that some do choose prostitution for good personal reasons: yet they seem to be a minority. Where prostitution is legal and regulated there is evidence that illegal prostitution continues and is more dangerous for those engaged in it. In the Netherlands the majority of prostitutes are not Dutch women: they are immigrant women who are, of course, much more vulnerable. This does not support the idea of personal choice, since one thing that is certain is that Dutch women have more choice and they do not choose this option much.

http://www.humanityinaction.org/doc...orthen_2000_Illegal_Prostitutes_in_the_NL.pdf

Both arguments (from economic and personal freedom) attempt to portray the moral argument in terms of sexual morality only: but as I have argued the moral question is not about that, so far as I can see. For me, the question of legality/ illegality is not very relevant: legalising prostitution may mitigate some of the worst damage to prostitutes: the men who use them also benefit if there is less risk of disease; and indirectly women who are not prostitutes also benefit from this, since such men do not have sex exclusively with prostitutes. But the evidence from Holland shows this is not much help in any of these ways and so it is a red herring. What we really need to address is the underlying premise I have outlined. Or at least so I think
 
Gurdur said:
No. See above post, please.
Click to expand...

Yes. I've seen the post, and it doesn't change matters one bit. Things can be illegal, or they can be legal.

If you think prostitution should be illegal but that there should be no punishment, such as in Germany, then your position is that it should be illegal.

If you think prostitution should be legal but that it should be heavily regulated and controlled by the government, then your position is that prostitution should be legal.

Such semantic quibbles such as, "Illegal but not punishable," make no difference to the fact that the legal/illegal dichotomy is a true dichotomy and not a fallacy.
 
Fiona said:
Passing Trucker's argument leads directly to the legitimisation of rape, because not everybody has money to buy sex. Since he characterises sex (for men but maybe not exclusively for men, that is not clear from his post) as a "need" and also as a "right", then men without the money are justified in rape: it makes no sense to apply moral or legal judgment to this issue since it is presented as a biological imperative.
Click to expand...
I think you attribute a statement that was not actually made there. Certainly if it was made it can be shot down very simply.
 
I think prostitution should be legalized and made safe. I live in Nevada where it's legal in some counties and they get around it through language and implication in others. It's a victimless crime and it's better to protect the women through the law than have them left to pimps. Moreover, I think it's dishonest to equate legalization of prostitution which many prostitutes feel is empowering them to legalizing rape.

The way they get around the law in Vegas is through escorts or entertainment... you pay for the company... You are free to give money to whom you please. You are also free to have sex with whom you please. It just so happens that some women prefer to have sex with those who like them enough to give them money.

For some women this allows them to make good money for school-- same with exotic dancers... some come to Vegas for a year or two and make enough money for the next year or two. I am against legislating morality and I think the people who should make decisions about this are the women involved in the business. It's the worlds oldest profession because for many women it was the only thing they could offer to earn their keep and those of their offspring. Unless you are offering alternatives-- you are doing nobody any favors by equating it with rape.

Consentual sex is not rape. Prostitution that involves consenting adults is not rape either.
 
It's the oldest profession simply because men had and have more power than women.

That some men consider women objects to be bought and sold for their sexual gratification does not mean we have to endorse that point of view.
 
But in talking to women in the field, many feel that they are the ones in control, because they can set a price and they can choose--

It's up to the women involved to determine whether they are the exploited or the exploiters of mens eagerness to pay for sex.

In the past and in many places, it is the ONLY way for a woman to make money-- a necessity even if she and her children are to survive. Unless there are better options, you're better at protecting such women from rape and venereal diseases then you are from taking away their livelihood. Just because you wouldn't choose such a "job" or you find it exploitative, doesn't mean that the women involved feel so. Some might indeed-- but making it illegal doesn't help the cause. You need to think of the overall goal. Prostitution is an exchange of goods for services-- rape is stealing those services without offering goods.

It's important to make the distinction. Why don't you think the men are being exploited in that their primal urges are encouraging them to spend money for a very temporary pleasure....? Few women have such urges or the need, so they are less likely to be "exploited" in this way. I rented my home to an exotic dancer who paid the entire rent in small bills after a night of shaking her breasts at strangers and making them feel they had a chance-- who is the exploited one?
 
articulett said:
But in talking to women in the field, many feel that they are the ones in control, because they can set a price and they can choose--

It's up to the women involved to determine whether they are the exploited or the exploiters of mens eagerness to pay for sex.

In the past and in many places, it is the ONLY way for a woman to make money-- a necessity even if she and her children are to survive. Unless there are better options, you're better at protecting such women from rape and venereal diseases then you are from taking away their livelihood. Just because you wouldn't choose such a "job" or you find it exploitative, doesn't mean that the women involved feel so. Some might indeed-- but making it illegal doesn't help the cause. You need to think of the overall goal. Prostitution is an exchange of goods for services-- rape is stealing those services without offering goods.

It's important to make the distinction. Why don't you think the men are being exploited in that their primal urges are encouraging them to spend money for a very temporary pleasure....? Few women have such urges or the need, so they are less likely to be "exploited" in this way. I rented my home to an exotic dancer who paid the entire rent in small bills after a night of shaking her breasts at strangers and making them feel they had a chance-- who is the exploited one?
Click to expand...

I hope you laundered that money.;)
 
Mobyseven said:
Yes. I've seen the post, and it doesn't change matters one bit. Things can be illegal, or they can be legal.

If you think prostitution should be illegal but that there should be no punishment, such as in Germany, then your position is that it should be illegal.

If you think prostitution should be legal but that it should be heavily regulated and controlled by the government, then your position is that prostitution should be legal.

Such semantic quibbles such as, "Illegal but not punishable," make no difference to the fact that the legal/illegal dichotomy is a true dichotomy and not a fallacy.
Click to expand...

---> Mobyseven,
very simply:

the dichotomy here as presented is:

do you think that prostitution should be legal or illegal?

That is;
do you think X should be 1 or 2?

Since my position is that it should be:

from the whole set of {a,b,c,d,e...}
I hold that X should be 1+a but not 1+b, or that X should not be 2 alone, but possibly say 2+c instead (see my post above),

then the whole dichotomy between 1 and 2 only without subconditions, subsets and so on is a false dichotomy as presented.
 
Mobyseven said:
.... Such semantic quibbles such as, "Illegal but not punishable," make no difference to the fact that the legal/illegal dichotomy is a true dichotomy and not a fallacy.
Click to expand...

That was not a "semantic quibble", but a real-life example of why the range of choice is not restricted to only two options. Declaring it a "true dichotomy" does not make it so; for others, as you can see, the range of stances is much more nuanced and wide. See above posts.

Or, IOW, trying to force the question in those terms won't work when others insist there are in fact more than 2 options.
 
Pardon the thord reply.
Mobyseven said:
Yes. I've seen the post, and it doesn't change matters one bit. Things can be illegal, or they can be legal.
Click to expand...
No, they can be inbetween. See the laws on libel for example.
kerikiwi said:
..... Either people should be punished for selling sex (illegal) or they should be able to make that choice (legal).
Click to expand...
Mobyseven said:
If you think prostitution should be illegal but that there should be no punishment, such as in Germany, then your position is that it should be illegal.
If you think prostitution should be legal but that it should be heavily regulated and controlled by the government, then your position is that prostitution should be legal.
Click to expand...

These two different responses already start enlargening the field of options, and illustrating why it's originally a false dichotomy.

kerikiwi: " ...Either people should be punished for selling sex (illegal).."

Mobyseven: "If you think prostitution should be illegal but that there should be no punishment, such as in Germany, then your position is that it should be illegal."

The two choices given by kerikiwi and Mobyseven putatively are the same option, making prostitution illegal; but in fact those two choices given by kerikiwi and Mobyseven are not compatible, since one choice involves the attached condition of punishment and the other doesn't.

Again, therefore, false dichotomy.

Question:
BTW, why is it so important to some here to have it only a 2-choice thing? Why is the issue being forced in a dichotomy? When the options are demonstratably much greater than 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom