Why is prostitution illegal?

[JFrankA]

As to the question of exploitation, the same article does conclude that exploitation comes from:

1) the degrees and forms of exploitation vary by size, location, and house rules;

So we need better regulations regarding the house and the rules it lays. (Uhm..no pun intended).

2) that the work conditions in many legal brothels are incompatible with fair and legal work practices that exist and are enforced in other legal and regulated industries

Again, this can be done with further regulation on house rules. But the one the study talks about the most comes from a different source:

3) that part of the exploitation experienced by legal prostitutes comes from outside the brothel culture itself in the form of social stigma.

It goes on to conclude:

These stereotypes are premised on the assumptions that: 1) sex is different than other kinds of physically embodied or emotional labors; 2) prostitution is dirty; 3) prostitutes are whores in the bad girl, negative sense of floozies who **** with husbands and ruin families; 4) prostitutes and prostitution are vectors of disease and violence, respectively; and 5) that prostitution is not legitimate work.

It is these stereotypical beliefs about prostitutes and prostitution that reinforce negative social stigma, and in doing so, contribute to a culture of exploitation of the working women themselves. The combination of these sexist, patriarchal and moralistic value judgments and stigma, and the economic exploitation of the marketplace for interactive service industry work generally, which together create more exploitation of legal, working prostitutes than the circumstances or experiences of their labors.

The patterns of exploitation and empowerment documented above are meaningful in and of themselves, especially to the extent that these conditions help shape the life experiences, work conditions and contemporary history of the women who labor as legal prostitutes. They also challenge still dominant tendencies among academics and activists, media and policy makers, to reduce all prostitutes and forms of prostitution to sameness and pass judgments as if all systems and contexts in which prostitution occurs are the same. This, in itself, is part of the web of problems facing legal prostitutes and contributing to their exploitation.

This is what I mean by prostitution is illegal only because of "moral" reason and political grandstanding. This stigma is played out even moreso while prostitution is illegal. And it's used as the reasons to keep it illegal.

 

[Fiona]

Thanks for restating, JFrankA.

Prostitution is illegal for two reasons. Self-rightous moralistic stances and self-servering policital showboating.

I did not ask you about prostitution in particular. I asked you why things are illegal, in general. But no matter. Law is not made by individuals taking a moral stance: politicians do not get votes by showboating on issues which do not chime with the voters views. I do not think you understand how law works if you believe that either of these can explain any law.

1. What kind of message does prostitution send to men? This is only a perception and I notice a perception that men are the evil ones here, without regards to the other genders who might partake in a prostitute.

To me, it is the equivelent of a religious persons saying to me something like if there was no god, everyone would be killing and raping at will. It's a slippery slope arguement that has no weight. It is a moral stance.

I have not seen this argument made, so I cannot comment on it at present. What may be slightly related is my own view, which I have previously discussed with you in another thread. One can only take moral responsibility for yourself and your own behaviour. Prostitution does not "send a message" of any sort. Each person must make a decision about the kinds of relationships they will have with other people: some have a relatively free choice and some have little or none. As I understand it you found on the idea that the prostitute has choice and is fully worthy of respect. I wonder what you make of I Ratant's last post? Part of the problem here is that there are so many different stances around this issue and we have already seen attributions of views which are not held, so I do not wish to make that mistake. However there is no doubt that at least some of the people who use prostitutes do not give them any respect; some abuse them; some murder them; and some talk in the "practical" yet truly revealing terms that I Ratant uses. Nothing will follow from legalisation which will change that kind of mindset; nor will making it illegal change it. I do believe it is largely men who use prostitutes and who display that kind of view, but anyone who uses prostitutes should seriously ask themselves what kind of person it makes them. It is not about what she is doing: it is about yourself. I know you do not even understand this, judging from your previous responses, but this stance has nothing to do with thinking men are evil: it is to do with believing that those who exploit other people are doing something wrong. That is indeed a moral position and I see nothing wrong with having morals; I am very surprised to find you do, apparently, and I cannot honestly believe that is what you mean. But if it is then we must differ. Your second paragraph above makes no sense. There is no implication of a slippery slope that I can see: you either respect other people as moral agents and therefore not objects for your use: or you do not. If you do not then you may use prostitutes and you may do so in full knowledge of the circumstances in which most find themselves. This has nothing to do with law. It may inform where you source these objects of your gratification but the question is irrelevant to the reasons for illegality because law is not made by individuals on the basis of moral stance. That is just not how it works

2. Prostitution is caused by poverty, and there coerersive and exploitive. Another perception based on a philosophy, making the philosophy a reason to get on some sort of moral bandwagon. Well, sorry, that may be true some of the time, (and sorry, I'm not conviced one bit), but it is not an ineviability.

Most women who have a choice do not choose prostitution. Most men who have a choice do not choose it either. That is not philosophy it is fact.

In my little opinion, people who are saying that prostitution should remain illegal for this reason, or just preaching this without giving a possible way of helping the people in this situtation is using prostition as political grandstanding and is therefore exploiting prostitutes themselves. (And doing it without even touching them! Good job!) This is a political stance. And the intent is not to solve the problem of the people suffering in this profession, but to prove that they are more "right" than everyone else.

I am sure it is your opinion. However those of us who wish to see effective policy in relation to this issue do see it as a political issue: at least I do. I believe that we should work towards giving real choice and that means reducing the inequalities in our society and in our world. Your attribution of motive is ridiculous and it is insulting, to those who believe that making prostitution illegal will further that goal. I do not happen to believe that myself but I have no reason at all to think that those who do are dishonest or hypocritical. There is evidence on this very thread that legalising prostitution has worsened the conditions for many prostitutes in the countries where that has been done.I do not think that evidence is conclusive because there are many confounding factors, as is usual in social issues. Nevertheless it exists. You can ignore that evidence if you like. But then I am driven to the conclusion that you are just trying to prove you are more "right" than everyone else.

3. Prostitution causes human trafficking. Again, a political stance. Simply, no it doesn't. Human trafficking can be used for sex purposes, but prostition doesn't cause that. If someone says that, they might as well say that the meat, toothpaste, chocolate industry also cause human trafficking as well. Human trafficking has gone up over the past few years dispite prostitution being illegal or semi-legal, as the case with Sweden.

If someone has said that prostitution causes human trafficking I did not see that. There is evidence that human trafficking is done to provide prostitutes for the sex industry, and I do not think that is deniable. There is also evidence that where prostitution is legal human trafficking increases to provide a supply of prostitutes. Again there are confounding factors but that evidence is there and trying to turn it upside down does not further your case. Your last sentence in the paragraph above is fatal to your argument.

As a side note, it occurs to me that there is the big influx of prostitutes to the Dutch may not all be because of human trafficking, but because it's legal for both seller and buyer. So that prostitutes who want to operate legally and do this job just move there. ...someone should look that up.....

That possibility is addressed in some of the texts already linked here. You are trying to explain the evidence away . How do you imagine that very poor women from very poor countries get to the Netherlands, JFrankA?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

My two cents:

The issue with the discussion is that there are two things that seems connected, but they really aren't... at least not in the way people think they are

1) People who due to financial and social circumstances in their life, end up selling their bodies
* ...Some of them end up pretty badly
*... Some of them don't

2) People who are in a well financial status and/or have a good education level and choose to engage in prostitution
*... Some of them actually end up very successfully
*.... Yes, the possibility that some of them actually end up badly is also possible



Making prostitution illegal is a waste of time. Acting from the mindset that making prostitution illegal is changing the negative outcomes of both possibilities is a nonsense way of thinking. The reasons why people end up without a job or in a drug problem are the consequence of a series of circumstances that are beyond the person's ability to predict, mixed with the person's personal choices.

And if you want proof, just look at the fact that prostitution is illegal and bad things still happen to people.

Drugs and guns (without a permission) are also illegal, and we still have a lot of issues with those too.

 

[JFrankA]

I did not ask you about prostitution in particular. I asked you why things are illegal, in general. But no matter. Law is not made by individuals taking a moral stance: politicians do not get votes by showboating on issues which do not chime with the voters views. I do not think you understand how law works if you believe that either of these can explain any law.

Fiona, sorry, but I have to make one little adjustment to your statement to make so I agree with it. The bolding is my adjustment.

I did not ask you about prostitution in particular. I asked you why things are illegal, in general. But no matter. Law is not supposed to be made by individuals taking a moral stance: politicians are not supposed to get votes by showboating on issues which do not chime with the voters views. I do not think you understand how law works if you believe that either of these can explain any law.

I am no lawyer. But I am a voter and an American citizen. I know it's not supposed to work like that, but sometimes, I think it does. In this case, yes. It's an easy target, it involves "SEX", (and say that in a "red state" and hear all the disapproving cries coming from it), moreover, it involves a practice that it totally "unchristian". Unfortunately, fear, god and "family values" are all weapons used a lot by politicians to change voter's minds.

Add "supposed to" to that statement and I will agree with you.

I have not seen this argument made, so I cannot comment on it at present. What may be slightly related is my own view, which I have previously discussed with you in another thread.

It is not my statement. It is a statement someone on this thread repeatedly made that I completely disagree with. I was illustrating why some people believe it should stay illegal.

One can only take moral responsibility for yourself and your own behaviour. Prostitution does not "send a message" of any sort. Each person must make a decision about the kinds of relationships they will have with other people: some have a relatively free choice and some have little or none.

Here I completely, without question, fully agree with you.

As I understand it you found on the idea that the prostitute has choice and is fully worthy of respect.

I feel that there is always a choice. Somehow, there is. However, some choices are a so difficult, so overwhelming, that it could be a bigger sacifice to take choice "A" instead of choice "B". This leads to what someone said earlier, which was, basically something like: It was a bad, and suffering choice, but I would've taken it myself and I completely understand why you took it. The other choice would've been much more difficult. I really don't think we should get into too much detail about this philosophy right now because it would derail the thread. Let us leave it at I understand that when some people, for example, such as the victims of human trafficking, are in prostitution, have no choice.

I wonder what you make of I Ratant's last post?

Honestly, I wasn't sure if he was being funny sarcastic or serious. If he was being funny sarcastic, eh, no big deal because I joke like that all the time without really meaning what I'm joking about. However, if he was serious, it would make me very sad.

Part of the problem here is that there are so many different stances around this issue and we have already seen attributions of views which are not held, so I do not wish to make that mistake. However there is no doubt that at least some of the people who use prostitutes do not give them any respect; some abuse them; some murder them; and some talk in the "practical" yet truly revealing terms that I Ratant uses.

Again, Fiona, I agree with you. One reason why what I call political showboat works so well....

Nothing will follow from legalisation which will change that kind of mindset; nor will making it illegal change it.

Here, I don't quite agree with you. As long as it's illegal, for both prostitute and client, there will always be a stigma of "criminal" stamped on it. Making it legal for both wears the ink off a little.

I do believe it is largely men who use prostitutes and who display that kind of view, but anyone who uses prostitutes should seriously ask themselves what kind of person it makes them. It is not about what she is doing: it is about yourself. I know you do not even understand this, judging from your previous responses, but this stance has nothing to do with thinking men are evil: it is to do with believing that those who exploit other people are doing something wrong.

I agree with you, except one point: I DO understand what you are saying.
You know I make pornography. I've admitted as much. I can tell you that first and formost, I do not wish to exploit my models. I have been told that I am the most respected, fair, honest and pleasant filmmaker that the models ever worked with. If a model doesn't want to do what I request her to do, she doesn't have to do it and I still pay her or him. In fact, I get offers from models I've never even contacted because I am so fair and respectful. Now some people might say that it doesn't matter that I am that way, that I'm still exploiting them regardless. Well, I've thought about it a lot, yes I've done soul searching here, and I do not agree.

I will admit that eariler in my youth I have gone to a prostitute. I won't lie. But I will tell you that I've kept my respect for her, talked to her, treated her like a human. Now a lot of people won't, mosty men, I'll agree with that. But I think exploitation is actually in the eye of the beholder. Because if that prostitute or any of the models I film ever, ever say to me "I don't want to do this", or "I don't want this produced", I will respect their wishes.

Let me give you another angle of exploitation. I work as a customer service rep. There are times when customers want a free item and/or have it shipped to them overnight for free. They will yell, scream, lie, threaten, and no, there's no physical threatening, as I'm sure there are with prostitutes, but I know there would be if the customers were physically near me. And most of the time, I have to give them what they want. Am I (and my company) being exploited? I think so at that time. Most of the time, no. I can imagine it being a lot worse for a prostitute, but the point I'm making is that I don't

That is indeed a moral position and I see nothing wrong with having morals; I am very surprised to find you do, apparently, and I cannot honestly believe that is what you mean.

You're right, I don't see anything wrong with a having a moral position, but I feel a lot of people use morals to force their beliefs and their judgements of others on others. More simply put, there seems to be a lot of people who use their morals to bully and intimidate other people.

But if it is then we must differ. Your second paragraph above makes no sense. There is no implication of a slippery slope that I can see: you either respect other people as moral agents and therefore not objects for your use: or you do not.

Don't worry, it's only a misunderstanding, and I'm sure I didn't explain what I meant. What I feel is that when someone says to me something like if there is this thing (or lack of this thing), it will cause everyone to think (and do) this other thing that's incredibly horrible and scary. That's what I was refering to as a slippery slope. It hasn't anything to do with a moral position, it has to do with the negative judgement of everyone if they don't follow a person's particular moral stance.

If you do not then you may use prostitutes and you may do so in full knowledge of the circumstances in which most find themselves. This has nothing to do with law. It may inform where you source these objects of your gratification but the question is irrelevant to the reasons for illegality because law is not made by individuals on the basis of moral stance. That is just not how it works

Sorry, Fiona, I'm afraid I'm misunderstanding you here. Please rephrase?

I am sure it is your opinion. However those of us who wish to see effective policy in relation to this issue do see it as a political issue: at least I do. I believe that we should work towards giving real choice and that means reducing the inequalities in our society and in our world.

I do too. Unfortunately, it's been my experience that a lot of corrupt politicians uses prostitution, geez, even just plain old sex as a "fear weapon" to the well-meaning, but gullible voters.

Your attribution of motive is ridiculous and it is insulting, to those who believe that making prostitution illegal will further that goal. I do not happen to believe that myself but I have no reason at all to think that those who do are dishonest or hypocritical.

My apologies to you, Fiona and the rest of the thread. I was venting out some frustration. I do feel, however, that someone who just cries out "it's wrong" without providing some kind of possible discussable solutions, then it's just grandstanding. I've seen that in a lot of threads, not just here, but even in politics,

There is evidence on this very thread that legalising prostitution has worsened the conditions for many prostitutes in the countries where that has been done.I do not think that evidence is conclusive because there are many confounding factors, as is usual in social issues. Nevertheless it exists. You can ignore that evidence if you like.

I am not ignoring the evidence. I am merely stating that keeping prostitution has not worked for a long, long time. I have also stated that legalizing prostitution will not solve all the problems, but it is the first step to make it better. Keeping it illegal makes making policies to help protect streetwalkers impossible. Even with it being legal to sell, illegal to buy, it's doesn't help the most destitute prostitute. But, making it legal, we can fix the policies so the problems that do exist can be tackled.

For one example, if it was illegal to make cakes, and people are making cakes. If a cake maker is using spoiled ingredients, or if a cakemaker is using superior ingredents, both will be treated equally: both will be arrested. However, once legal, there can be programs that help the people who use spoiled ingredients can be helped to get better ingredents without interfering with the superior ingredent using baker.

As I said, it's not a cure-all. But it is a real start. (Not that phony, "Swedish law" that does nothing for the suffering streetwalker, and in fact, seeds a more negative stigma towards all prostitutes).

But then I am driven to the conclusion that you are just trying to prove you are more "right" than everyone else.

I am sorry I am giving that impression. I don't think I am. But if I seem that way, then I'm sorry and I'll be more aware of when I am doing that. However, I do feel that if I'm guilty of that, I'm sure that there are others on this thread who are doing that as well.

If someone has said that prostitution causes human trafficking I did not see that.

I think it has been said in other threads, it's been implied here, in my humble opinion.

There is evidence that human trafficking is done to provide prostitutes for the sex industry, and I do not think that is deniable. There is also evidence that where prostitution is legal human trafficking increases to provide a supply of prostitutes.

And I agree with you about human trafficking, Fiona, but then again, I have also seen exaggerations.

That possibility is addressed in some of the texts already linked here. You are trying to explain the evidence away . How do you imagine that very poor women from very poor countries get to the Netherlands, JFrankA?

No, Fiona, I just try to see all the sides. I have run across a couple of articles that state that the numbers of people who are human trafficked are exaggerated. People who are happy with being prostitutes and want to be legal are being counted with the trafficked. I don't know. I have to research it further. I don't find that possibility far-fetched, because expanding those numbers and coming up with a sound bite cure all solution helps to make some people look like they are "moralistic", when in fact, all they're really doing are making things worse. I haven't posted these links yet, because I am still not sure of the source. But it did bring up a point no one here has mentioned.


I hope I've cleared some of my opinion up. Sorry about the wall of text. I'm off to play some well deserved World of Warcraft now.

...yes, I am a rogue on that game.

Thanks for your response.

 

[Belz...]

I do think if prostitution is legalised, the illegal sex trade will grow as well.

That makes no sense, whatsoever.

It only makes no sense if you think legalising prostitution means all conditions under which it is currently performed would become legal too.

Except that is what the evidence says.

Oh, so it makes sense to say that illegal sex trade will grow if prostitution, something currently illegal, is made legal ?

How does that work ?

It's like saying that legalising pot will make illegal pot trade more prevalent. How does that work ?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Oh, so it makes sense to say that illegal sex trade will grow if prostitution, something currently illegal, is made legal ?

How does that work ?

It's like saying that legalising pot will make illegal pot trade more prevalent. How does that work ?

It's like saying having higher priced original CD's increases the number of copies sold in the black market.

Prostitutes working in regulated brothels would charge higher prices than those working in the unregulated, illegal sector.

The only sensible way to reduce the problems prostitute creates or perpetuates is to reduce demand. That requires changing public opinion.

 

[KarlG]

No. It's leasing out someone to hold or use a product.

Why is that different to leasing out someone to hold or use a penis?

 

[JFrankA]

It's like saying having higher priced original CD's increases the number of copies sold in the black market.

Prostitutes working in regulated brothels would charge higher prices than those working in the unregulated, illegal sector.

...aaaand this is the reason to keep prostitution (or the buying of prostitution) illegal because...........?

The only sensible way to reduce the problems prostitute creates or perpetuates is to reduce demand. That requires changing public opinion.

Agreed about the "changing public opinion" part. However, keeping either the sale, buying or both of sex illegal will do nothing to change public opinion to a more positive one towards prostitutes. It starts with making both buying and selling sex legal. (Note the word "start").

You are never, ever, ever going to reduce demand. Sorry.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

...aaaand this is the reason to keep prostitution (or the buying of prostitution) illegal because...........?

It isn't. I was trying to explain why making the buying and selling of sex legal does not only not solve the problems associated with prostitution, but makes them worse, since the market expands.

Agreed. However, keeping either the sale, buying or both of sex illegal will do nothing to change public opinion.

So social norms and marketing have no effect on individual behaviour?

It starts with making both buying and selling sex legal. (Note the word "start").

I think the status of prostitution under the law is one of the last things a government needs to worry about if any were really interested in tackling the myriad of problems which lead people into prostitution and keep them there.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

You are never, ever, ever going to reduce demand. Sorry.

Cigarettes?

 

[JFrankA]

Cigarettes?

...............last I checked.....cigarettes are legal.........

Sooooo maybe we're both right and wrong:

Making prostitution legal might actually reduce demand.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Why is that different to leasing out someone to hold or use a penis?

Would you think there is a difference if you were the one having to perform the task?

 

[dann]

Who is claiming it as a majority? It exists, though (it = prostitutes who aren't financially (or otherwise) coerced. dann), and that is all that matters.

1) People who due to financial and social circumstances in their life, end up selling their bodies
* ...Some of them end up pretty badly
*... Some of them don't

2) People who are in a well financial status and/or have a good education level and choose to engage in prostitution
*... Some of them actually end up very successfully
*.... Yes, the possibility that some of them actually end up badly is also possible

Some of them? How many? What is the percentage?

Some people who are shot end up pretty badly. Some don't.
Some victims of other kinds of violence end up pretty badly. Some of them don't.

Yes, I know, even prostitutes who are financially coerced have some kind of choice.
So do a few of the people who get in the way of a bullet ... "and that is all that matters" ???

 

[JFrankA]

Would you think there is a difference if you were the one having to perform the task?

????Why would that make a difference?

...sorry, I'm not following the logic again. For example, I don't cook. Wouldn't do it for anything. I even hate microwaving stuff. Does that mean that since I wouldn't cook, I shouldn't allow others to as well?????

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

????Why would that make a difference?

<snip>

Because of the different emotional impact stemming from the different level of physical intimacy involved in the tasks.

For example, it's less emotionally traumatic to kill thousands of people from an airplane than with your bare hands.

 

[JFrankA]

Because of the different emotional impact stemming from the different level of physical intimacy involved in the tasks.

For example, it's less emotionally traumatic to kill thousands of people from an airplane than with your bare hands.

...it is??????

I'll remember that when I decide to kill someone..... I'll kill that person while s/he is in a group of people so I can kill the whole group and not feel so badly about it.......

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

...it is??????

Yes.

 

[JFrankA]

I'm sorry, it seems to me that your points, Ivor, has been going down a looping, curvy-wervy, twisty-wisty turns of red herrings. This is what I've been getting from your statements:

Buying sex should be illegal because it's hard to cope with having sex with one man you're not attracted to just like killing one person is hard to cope with instead a whole group of people.....

Buying sex should be illegal because by becoming legal it sends the wrong message out to all those evil men clients....

Buying sex should be illegal because I wouldn't do that......

Buying sex should be illegal because I wouldn't enjoy selling sex........

Buying sex should be illegal because it would cause the demand for sex to increase ...wait...decrease... uhm...well, anyway, legal prostitutes would cost more than illegal prostitute....

Buying sex should be illegal because it would cause prostitutes to hang out together and we all know how bad that can be......

Buying sex should be illegal because that will prevent evil, awful men to stop abusing prostitutes.....

Buying sex should be illegal because I don't want people to have sex right there on the street out in the open.......

Buying sex should be illegal because the sight of a streetwalker on a street is just bad........

Buying sex should be illegal because it looks like streetwalkers are no longer on the street...well, they aren't seen as often.......

Buying sex should be illegal because when the police bust into a prostitute's room while they are with a client, they will arrest the evil, horrible man and leave her alone.......

.....this is what I've been getting from your arguements, Ivor. Now if I'm getting any of this wrong please accept my apologies and clear it up for me. Because, I'm sorry, it really, really sounds like a bunch of moralizing red herrings to me.

 

[cafink]

Because of the different emotional impact stemming from the different level of physical intimacy involved in the tasks.

For example, it's less emotionally traumatic to kill thousands of people from an airplane than with your bare hands.

This still doesn't answer the question. Why should an action's emotional impact have any bearing on its legality? Should someone who kills thousands of people from an airplane be punished more or less harshly than someone who does it with his bare hands? As a previous poster alluded to with his "cooking" example, there are many actions (cleaning bathrooms, performing autopsies, and slaughtering pigs, for example) that I find more "emotionally traumatic" than what I actually do for a living. Many of them I wouldn't do for any price (at least, not any price I could realistically convince someone to pay me), but that doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to do them.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

This still doesn't answer the question. Why should an action's emotional impact have any bearing on its legality? Should someone who kills thousands of people from an airplane be punished more or less harshly than someone who does it with his bare hands? As a previous poster alluded to with his "cooking" example, there are many actions (cleaning bathrooms, performing autopsies, and slaughtering pigs, for example) that I find more "emotionally traumatic" than what I actually do for a living. Many of them I wouldn't do for any price (at least, not any price I could realistically convince someone to pay me), but that doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to do them.

I don't think prostitution should be illegal. I think buying sex directly should be illegal. I have few problems with discrete, independent escort services which offer company for a period of time to a client. If the escorts and clients mutually agree to have sex during their time together, what they do is up to them.