Why is prostitution illegal?

[articulett]

I hope you laundered that money.

I don't have the ability to fake pleasure and delight when I find someone repulsive. I think the women who can-- really earn their money.

There are a lot of people who, due to handicaps (or other undesirable traits/fetishes/ vulnerabilities/ deformities, recent widows, social recluses, etc.), would miss out on the pleasures of the flesh if not for paid company. That's a service that is not to be underestimated. It's a job that few CAN do-- and those willing to help out such a thing, deserve whatever money they can get for it. Even men with cerebral palsy and mental retardation have primal sexual urges, you know.

I would have to be in a horribly desperate situation to consider it-- but I also recognize it's not my business to have my government trying to prevent and punish those who engage such activities. I think that money can be much better spent, and it's up to those who offer and use the services to help make the laws regulating such services-- collective bargaining if you will. It's a better use of resources all around. Think of the overall goals-- and not just your own opinions. Solutions should have an intended outcome in mind. If your goal is to keep women from being exploited-- arresting them or their customers for prostitution is unlikely to further that goal.

Most people are exploited in some manner or do some things they don't want to do in order to earn a living. Some find marriage akin to prostitution--he gets sex; she gets financial security-- very ancient exchange. Humans evolved to barter what they have in exchange for the stuff they want. If a woman isn't using some orifices, she might want to rent one out in exchange for something she can use-- money.

I can be recognize the value of choice without ever having an abortion, smoke pot, or prostitute myself. Even if I don't find these things acceptable for me, I recognize that other people have an equal right to choose differently. Legalizing prostitution, works in my state... and where it's illegal-- careful language makes it so that money is not exchanged "directly" for sex. You pay for companionship and entertainment-- and if the girl deems you a likely tipper, she may feel inspired to reward you as she sees fit.

 

[Mobyseven]

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.

For Ed's sake - I know that the options are greater than two. I've said so myself. But in the question, "Should prostitution be legal or illegal?" there are legitimately only two options.

From there, of course positions will branch out, with many different options available. But as a starting point, a place to start the discussion, it is useful to state one's ultimate position, and then explain from there.

For example, it is my opinion that prostitution should be legal, but highly regulated. Other people want it to be illegal, and their positions vary too.

In this situation we have someone who is rambling on with no clear point. In asking him this simple question, the aim is to have him state and then further describe or expound upon his position. At the moment all we have are ramblings such that so position on the legality or illegality of prostitution can be coherently pieced together.

To point out that, within the two options given there are a variety of positions, is fine; don't ignore the fact, however, that the variety of positions can be simplified into two ultimate positions - legal and illegal.

Your comment on libel law is especially confusing to me, as I don't seem to recall a case where a judge ruled, "Well, it's kind of libel and it's kind of not. Let's say that it's only half illegal." Perhaps you could explain what you meant?

 

[Marcus]

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.

Here, here. It shouldn't be the governments decision, the women involved should be able to decide what to do with their own bodies.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I can't think of a better thread to belong in the Sex thread, than this one.

 

[JFrankA]

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.

I'm sorry, IMHO this is nitpiking and making a red herring.

We were basically asking someone to give a clear answer. All this person's answers were unclear, confusing, straying off the subject (just like the post I am making presently ) insulting and frustrating.

We were getting to the basics -- should it be legal? Yes or no? Get that answered, then we can get to the details, the why, then the circumstances when that answer does not even agree with the orginal one.

But with this person, we needed to start with a basic answer. The "Everyone! This is a football!" principle.

Please don't add muck to the mud......

 

[Gurdur]

For Ed's sake - I know that the options are greater than two. I've said so myself. But in the question, "Should prostitution be legal or illegal?" there are legitimately only two options.

And I'm pointing out there are more than two, and the forced dichotomy is a false one. Given the right combination of attached conditions, I could foresee either way being supported --- I can see either position being supportable if the right conditions are combined. Additionally, it looks to me like this has become an unrealistic ideological battle-thread, and I don't see why it need be so; I prefer meandering discussions based on realism and actual life examples. I just prefer real life in all its horrible complexity to forcing simplistic choices.

Additionally, I've worked in the treatment and rehab of young alkies and druggies, many of whom were prosis. For me, this isn't just some abstract theoretical discussion where people can prove themselves "right".

Your comment on libel law is especially confusing to me, as I don't seem to recall a case where a judge ruled, "Well, it's kind of libel and it's kind of not. Let's say that it's only half illegal." Perhaps you could explain what you meant?

Only choices for a debate: Is speech free or not? False binary.
Only choices for a debate: Is an (unspecified) criticism justified or not? False binary

Thus my small example of libel; libel law and cases (and all its history) illustrate why the above two are false dichotomies.

 

[Gurdur]

I'm sorry, IMHO this is nitpiking and making a red herring.

We were basically asking someone to give a clear answer. All this person's answers were unclear, confusing, straying off the subject (just like the post I am making presently ) insulting and frustrating.

We were getting to the basics -- should it be legal? Yes or no? Get that answered, then we can get to the details, the why, then the circumstances when that answer does not even agree with the orginal one.

But with this person, we needed to start with a basic answer. The "Everyone! This is a football!" principle.

Please don't add muck to the mud......

*sigh*

Name-calling won't help. Maybe you should read more closely. Frankly, your complaining of others being insulting when you yourself denigrate with empty words a position contrary to yours is not impressive.

 

[JFrankA]

...where did I call someone a name????? Where did I insult someone?

This person was insulting others, that's all I meant about that.

And again, this is a red herring to the topic at hand, and also, I will admit, just by posting a reply to this, I'm adding to this red herring.

...no offense to anyone please.

Let me add one more thing about this with me. I've been through this discussion with Dann before, at length. I've tried to understand this position, but to me, he evades a direct answer over and over. Some people on this thread know I try to be fair and patient. To be honest, now, I don't have the patience for his lectures. It's the same thing over and over. In my view, I've asked him over and over to clarify, and even have tried to reword what I think he said back to him so I can see his side.

With him, I'm always wrong. Now I know that I'm not always right and I misunderstand things, but I'm not always wrong either.

Simply, I'm tired of this cat and mouse game. Maybe I'm being too personal and I'm sorry if I was insulting, but simply, to me, he's doing a lot of talk without really saying anything.

Now with that explaination, which doesn't honestly matter, and this apology to both you and Dann, can we please get back to the topic?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

There are a lot of people who, due to handicaps (or other undesirable traits/fetishes/ vulnerabilities/ deformities, recent widows, social recluses, etc.), would miss out on the pleasures of the flesh if not for paid company. That's a service that is not to be underestimated. It's a job that few CAN do-- and those willing to help out such a thing, deserve whatever money they can get for it. Even men with cerebral palsy and mental retardation have primal sexual urges, you know.

Which is probably why our hands and arms go all the way down to our genitals.

<snip>

I can be recognize the value of choice without ever having an abortion, smoke pot, or prostitute myself. Even if I don't find these things acceptable for me, I recognize that other people have an equal right to choose differently. Legalizing prostitution, works in my state... and where it's illegal-- careful language makes it so that money is not exchanged "directly" for sex. You pay for companionship and entertainment-- and if the girl deems you a likely tipper, she may feel inspired to reward you as she sees fit.

If a woman or man chooses to stay with an abusive partner, should the state try to intervene? (s)he gets the odd black eye and cigarette burn in return for financial security. What if (s)he is not very clever, or claims to be ok with being occasionally beaten?

 

[I Ratant]

Which is probably why our hands and arms go all the way down to our genitals.

.
That's what I feel... (daily).. Were it not for the social restriction on self-pleasuring, perhaps more would indulge.
The end result has little difference anyway.
But it is more fun with someone jiggly and giggly to "commune" with.
.

If a woman or man chooses to stay with an abusive partner, should the state try to intervene? (s)he gets the odd black eye and cigarette burn in return for financial security. What if (s)he is not very clever, or claims to be ok with being occasionally beaten?

.
I've seen this a few times. I've even watched a judge tell the victim she had the power to prevent her abuser from approaching her ever again, and she refused the offer.

 

[JFrankA]

I have to say that I agree with articulett completely, and she is saying it more elloquintly than I could ever dream.

If a woman or man chooses to stay with an abusive partner, should the state try to intervene? (s)he gets the odd black eye and cigarette burn in return for financial security. What if (s)he is not very clever, or claims to be ok with being occasionally beaten?

As to this question, my opinion, as cruel as it may sound, no: the government shouldn't interfere if (s)he doesn't want the situtation to change .

It is my observation that people will make the choices they will make. The government can make all the insentive to "make the right choice" and interfere all they want, but in the end, the people will make the choices, good or bad, that they want (in the situtation that is described above). Even if the person wasn't clever, it is my opinion that it's not the government's responsiblity to make decsions for other people for their own good. Guide people, show alternatives, inspire? Sure. Make those decsions? No way.

Once the person wants protection, seeks it, asks for it, yes, by all means, then the government should step in.

You can throw a drowning person a life preserver, even try to pull them out of the water, but if they don't want to come up, all the forcing in the world won't stop them from jumping back into the water. A person needs to want the help before you can actually give it. It's okay to try, but that's all we can do. We can't force a choice.

Cruel as I might sound, in the circumstance given above, in my humble opinion, it's true.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I have to say that I agree with articulett completely, and she is saying it more elloquintly than I could ever dream.



As to this question, my opinion, as cruel as it may sound, no: the government shouldn't interfere if (s)he doesn't want the situtation to change .

It is my observation that people will make the choices they will make. The government can make all the insentive to "make the right choice" and interfere all they want, but in the end, the people will make the choices, good or bad, that they want (in the situtation that is described above). Even if the person wasn't clever, it is my opinion that it's not the government's responsiblity to make decsions for other people for their own good. Guide people, show alternatives, inspire? Sure. Make those decsions? No way.

Once the person wants protection, seeks it, asks for it, yes, by all means, then the government should step in.

You can throw a drowning person a life preserver, even try to pull them out of the water, but if they don't want to come up, all the forcing in the world won't stop them from jumping back into the water. A person needs to want the help before you can actually give it. It's okay to try, but that's all we can do. We can't force a choice.

Cruel as I might sound, in the circumstance given above, in my humble opinion, it's true.

But presumably you wouldn't want to make domestic violence legal (again)?

 

[JFrankA]

But presumably you wouldn't want to make domestic violence legal (again)?

Noooooo. I would prefer to keep that illegal.

However, but even though domestic violence is illegal, the victim has a choice to file a charge or has a choice to drop it.....

 

[Don At Work]

How about, ignore the "false dichotomy" (that is there or isnt there) and simply answer the question.

THEN, all the explanations can follow. (i.e. It should be ILLEGAL because blahblahblah).
Come down off the fence and choose a side. The fate of the world is not at stake here.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Noooooo. I would prefer to keep that illegal.

However, but even though domestic violence is illegal, the victim has a choice to file a charge or has a choice to drop it.....

Which is why I like the Swedish idea of making selling sex legal, but buying it illegal.

 

[JFrankA]

Which is why I like the Swedish idea of making selling sex legal, but buying it illegal.

Sorry, I might have missed it, but why do you like it this way? Could you please explain?


...sorry, I am a bit dim sometimes...

 

[articulett]

Which is probably why our hands and arms go all the way down to our genitals.

Not everyone has hands... or hands that work. Some people have some pretty bizarre fetishes they are glad someone will indulge as well.

If a woman or man chooses to stay with an abusive partner, should the state try to intervene? (s)he gets the odd black eye and cigarette burn in return for financial security. What if (s)he is not very clever, or claims to be ok with being occasionally beaten?

This is likening something which is harmful to another with something that is not. Men have raped, abused, and considered women as chattel for eons. For some women, getting something in return for things that were often just "taken" as a matter of "entitlement" is a better bargain.

The government really doesn't have a right to regulate what consenting adults do. Pimps, underage girls, trafficking in women, lying to them-- all abuse... all a lot better use of money then the governments interest in regards to whether there is a direct exchange of cash for sex or an indirect bartering of goods and services.

Not every woman in the sex trade feels abused... but lots and lots of women are abused and treated as property due to archaic customs and religions. Often these women are under age and cannot consent. Other women are controlled by pimps who beat them up. Making prostitution illegal doesn't address problems for which we already have laws-- it inflicts your morality on people who don't share you morality. I think you need to read some stories of women who choose the profession where it is legal or can be framed in a legal way before you rush to "save them" from their livelihood.

Yes, the government has a vested interest in preventing the abuse of it's citizens-- but just because you think something is abusive, does not mean it is. If your goal is to prevent exploitation of women, making prostitution illegal does not seem to further that goal-- or at least no evidence has been presented for such a case... likening consensual acts with rape or abuse is a dishonest tactic which shows a lot of presumptions on your part, though you've appeared to have done no research on the topic or investigated whether women who choose the lifestyle in places where it IS legal feel abused. There's lots of grey here-- lots of things that are not exactly sex... and not exactly an exchange of money for sex-- I don't think the government has a right to get involved until or unless someone IS being harmed.

Phone sex, cyber sex, video sex, a hand job, dinner with the implication of sex... there is a lots of grey... does the government really have a vested interest in spying on people to see if they can make a case that money was exchanged specifically for sex? And if so, what would be the goal? In legal brothels, women get police protection and pay taxes of their earnings. They are considered independent contractors who follow the rules of the house in order to have the opportunity to work there. No one is forced to do what they don't want to do-- usually someone else is willing... and condoms are required--girls are regularly tested for diseases.

You are speaking with ignorance and assumptions--there are plenty of documentaries and non fiction accounts of the trade-- read a few of them. Whatever your goals are-- making prostitution illegal, doesn't seem to accomplish those goals... it drives it underground where abuse is much more common, and women are afraid to ask police or anyone for protection.

Non consensual sex is already illegal. So is abuse.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Sorry, I might have missed it, but why do you like it this way? Could you please explain?


...sorry, I am a bit dim sometimes...

Because it works.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6343325.stm

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Articulett,

I don't care about the women who like to have sex for money. They aren't the problem which needs to be solved.

I care about the women who think they have to have sex for money.

Please don't harp on about me inflicting my morality on other people. Everyone inflicts their morality on others eventually. Even you.

 

[articulett]

Because it works.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6343325.stm

No, not according to the article:

She said that because there wasn't supposed to be prostitution, there were no drop-in centres for health checks, and no-one handing out condoms or needles.

Only one of the five had anything positive to say about the legislation.

Eve, 60, who has been working as a prostitute for 40 years, said that the men think twice before they rob or try to beat the women they have paid for, as they are aware that they can be reported to the police.

But, according to another woman, Pia, who had worked the streets since 1979, nothing had really changed.