posted
I think instances of unwanted prgnancies/abortions would go down significantly. A condom would have to be worn at all times, for protection from STDs if for no other reason. Meanwhile, if the woman were smart she would be on birth control as well. The chance of getting pregnant while using both forms of birth control is pretty slim.
Also, even if the illegal sex trade didn't disapear, it would certainly be significantly smaller, which I think would be good in and of itself.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the one hand I think it should be legalized because it would give women more authority over their own bodies. That's my primary reasoning.
I also think that regulating it would make it safer, which is the biggest problem as it stands.
But I do have a big worry. There was a time when the idea of running advertisements for strip clubs on the radio simply wouldn't have happened, and now it happens all the time. One radio commercial actually advertises for employment, and makes it sound like stripping is smart career choice. Then there's the advertising for sex toy shops, etc. And all of this is on radio stations that run school closing announcements, so they know children are listening.
In the past, no one would have questioned censoring commercials like that, but in the last couple of decades, the country has decided that the first amendment overrides basic propriety, so it doesn't matter what you're advertising. The only reason prostitutes don't advertise on radio or TV is that they would be advertising an illegal activity.
On the one hand I've very strongly in favor of the first amendment, but I think that eventually we're going to have to amend the constitution to allow certain kinds of restrictions, and this would be one of them.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:A condom would have to be worn at all times, for protection from STDs if for no other reason.
This would be the very first illegal extra offered at legal establishments - no condom, for an additional fee. It wouldn't stop there.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that would all depend on how strong the enforcement was, presumably. Also, whores are, presumably, not stupid; given the additional power they get by legalising, might they not be part of the enforcement themselves?
Ack, I've created a monster! It was only meant as a dobie...
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
If you're trying not to be sexist, Pix, I think you're doing an awfully bad job of it. Perhaps rather than discarding someone, their time ran out and they were kicked to the curb?
Some actor, Charlie Sheen, I think, was quoted as saying "I don't pay women to have sex with me. I pay them to leave afterwards." That's one reason someone might be interested in this sort of arrangment, because they're looking merely for a physical release, not an emotional entanglment. Recently out of a divorce and not ready to start dating again, but want to have sex occasionally, for example.
Another reason, frankly, is people who are can't find someone they want to date. Call it "unlucky in love." Whether it's a temporary thing, or a long dry spell between relationships, or someone who's such a jerk they can't keep a significant other, those people exist and might want to pay for sex.
There are, obviously, moral judgements that you could make about the above possibilities. *shrug* But I think many people would find them worth the squick factor. Heck, even with it illegal, many already do.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
The women themselves would presumably be a part of the enforcement procedure. And violations would result in a fine, if not a revoking of their license.
The problem with enforcement, is other than videotaping every single session, how do you monitor it? And that brings into question the right of privacy. I think more than "No condom" extras, you're going to see a lot of illegal sales of sex sessions. That also brings into question the liklihood of bribery.
"Mr. John, I see your wife answered the phone. I'm sure she would be interested in learning about your, ahem, extra curricular activities. If you'll forward payment by Friday in the amount if five thousand dollars, then she'll never have to find out."
That sounds like more of a lucrative side business than condoms to me, besides, you don't have to cut the prostitute in on the profits of that side venture.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay: How was I being sexest? I said person, not assuming the prostitute was male or female. Nor the john was male or female.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I'm projecting. I'm basing my interpretation on the attitude that I believe is still common in our society that looks down on a woman who has a lot of sex partners but high-fives a man who does. You rarely, if ever, hear people say a woman was just using a man for sex, and terms like thrown away or discarded are almost universally applied to women, implying that their only value is in sex and once you've got that they're disposable.
So it felt to me that you were writing your post with women still in the prostitute role in your head, and throwing in the gender-neutral language so as not to look sexist. I probably wouldn't have even thought about it if you hadn't said you were trying not to be sexist. But that, combined with terminology that I think is applied to women 90%+ of the time, seemed incongruous to me.
And, in all honesty, I don't think it's necessarily sexist to assume that the woman is going to be in the selling role the majority of the time, whether it's legal or illegal. At this time in our culture, women still have more control over sex than men do. A woman who decides she wants a one-night stand can pretty much go out and get one for free, no strings attached, although she maybe can't walk up to her first choice of partner and do so. A man who decided he wants a one-night stand may or may not be able to find one. For both of them it depends to some extent on how attractive, outgoing, funny, charming, and/or apparently wealthy they are, but I believe a lot less so for a woman. So when it comes to paying for it, there is going to be more demand for women than men.
If prostitution was to become legal, I would hope we could change our collective mindset about a woman's role in the casual sex act. Male or female, you're paying for a service. What that service is and what the price is should be clearly negotiated ahead of time, although given that there can be a range of performance within the service I would imagine that additional tipping might become common. Anyway, you are hiring the person involved, not using him or her. Although the attractiveness of the person might make a difference on if you engage their services or not, and how much you're willing to pay, you are buying the time and the service, not the person. When the act has been completed, you're not discarding them. You're going about your business, and they're going about their own. They're not sitting there heartbroken that you've left them and trying to find solice in the next customer to come along. Discard implies that they wanted to stay with you, if only you'd let them. I doubt that is very often the case.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in terms of protecting the prostitutes themselves, you can always have a panic button in the room in case things get out of hand.
I think you're right Lyrhawn. Legalization could almost shift the majority of risk from the prostitutes to the johns. I don't think the illegal sale of videos would be as much of a problem, simply because we already have a healthy porn industry, but the blackmailing scheme sounds like it would be both effective and hard to prosecute.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A condom would have to be worn at all times, for protection from STDs if for no other reason.
This would be the very first illegal extra offered at legal establishments - no condom, for an additional fee. It wouldn't stop there.
Following the Wikipedia link Amanecer posted, there does not seem to be a prevalence of STDs in the legalized brothels in Nevada. Granted, the site could be biased or factually incorrect but it does list a lot of sources if you question the material. Further, it would not be in the brothel's best interest to have their independent contractor (prostitute) contract an STD. Some of those reasons might include reputation loss, lawsuits and repeat-business loss. This would encourage the brothel to discourage sex without condoms.
Judges might offer to convict a man of a crime for an additional fee. Doctors might let a man die on an operating table for an additional fee. Zookeepers might let you see the elephants mate (thus violating their privacy) for an additional fee. Just because abuses can occur doesn't mean we shouldn't have judges, doctors and zookeepers.
But maybe those are unfair parallels. What about massage parlors? Massage therapists might give a "happy ending" for an additional fee. Any of the acts that might occur under the euphemism "happy ending" could also be performed by a prostitute and without a condom. Should we make massage parlors illegal?
I don't like the line of reasoning you used here, Dag. If you showed evidence that abuses would occur in a legalized prostitution situation it would be better than this speculation. Of course, that would be less fun and harder to argue with, too. Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, Jonny. I find the same problem with the blackmail argument as well. Making prostitution legal doesn't make blackmail legal. Illegal things don't change their status just because an unrelated law changes.
quote:lyrhawn: The problem with enforcement, is other than videotaping every single session, how do you monitor it?
You enforce it just like states enforce selling-alcohol-to-a-minor laws. Videotaping is not necessary. (I'm not saying I agree with all sorts of sting operations, but it would be a much less intrusive method to check for compliance with a hypothetical condom law.)
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree, Jonny. I find the same problem with the blackmail argument as well. Making prostitution legal doesn't make blackmail legal. Illegal things don't change their status just because an unrelated law changes.
quote:Just because abuses can occur doesn't mean we shouldn't have judges, doctors and zookeepers.
My point is that regulation and legalization will not necessarily lead to a reduction in STDs as claimed. The incetives spoken of already exist.
quote:But maybe those are unfair parallels. What about massage parlors? Massage therapists might give a "happy ending" for an additional fee. Any of the acts that might occur under the euphemism "happy ending" could also be performed by a prostitute and without a condom. Should we make massage parlors illegal?
You're acting as if I said the condom thing was a reason to keep it illegal. I never said that. I said it would likely keep one of the advantages of legalization from being realized.
Please, if you want to disagree with my conclusions, make sure they are my conclusions.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You misunderstand, Nato. I - and maybe Lyrhawn too, can't remember and too lazy to check - ultimately think prostitution should be legal. But it's foolish to say, "blackmail is already illegal" and assume it will work out. Of course blackmailing would still be illegal. The difference being argued is between illegal and enforceable. The victims of such a scheme would be the ones least likely to report the crime. Blackmailing is difficult because both the perpetrator and the victim want as few people to know about it as possible.
It's been widely agreed that it would be difficult, and possibly even unethical, for the government to step in and stop married men going to brothels. And they would probably represent a significant, if not majority, portion of the brothel-going community. That means a lot possible targets, whom, with a little effort, can be exploited easily and with almost no recourse.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that is a risk that they would be well aware of when they chose to break their marriage vows, and can decide if they want to deal with or not. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand what you're saying, Juxtapose, I just disagree with you. I don't think legalization of prostitution would lead to that many more blackmail targets. Plenty of men already cheat on their wives and are potentially vulnerable to such a crime. However, I think few brothel owners would resort to blackmail because there'd be few faster ways to get shut down as soon as somebody called you on it.
I'd honestly be more worried about anti-prostitution protesters staking the places out and taking pictures of customers and license plates as has happened to some small-town adult shops.
But on the whole, I don't think this issue is very germane to the subject of legalization. It's like saying bridges should be illegal because sometimes people do heroin under them.
quote:And that is a risk that they would be well aware of when they chose to break their marriage vows, and can decide if they want to deal with or not.
Very true, I thought of making this argument myself actually. Then I remembered that it'll be the kid's college fund that gets tapped to pay the blackmail. Saying it's all the father's fault is well and good - and true - but it doesn't change the fact that it hurts the family too.
Nato, yes there are many men who already cheat on their wives. But if you have legalized prostitution in brothels, now you know exactly where many of them will be. Now, if I've decided I'd like to blackmail men for fun and profit, I can simply wait accross the street with a camera and take pictures of men coming out, follow some, find out who's married (preferably with kids), make a few phone calls, and end up a few grand richer.
And again, I don't think this is a reason to keep prostitution illegal. Lyrhawn suggested, and I agree, that this could be a big problem that arises from the trade. I have been racking my brain trying to think up a way to combat this type of situation, but nothing springs to mind.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
There's no point trying to figure out how to combat it since any idiot can figure out a way to goto a brothel without getting caught. You take a rental, wear a hat and a fake mustash, wear cloths you usual don't wear, go in the middle of the night keep jamming ECCM's on you etc etc. Spy stuff.
How is blackmail usually taken care of now? Probly ineffectively but there are ways to get out of blackmail if your clever enough.
Btw, Panic buttons is how its usually done from what i've read.
IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't see how legalizing prostitution would somehow solve all of the other problems existing now. For example, stripping and porn is legal. While some dancers and porn stars are undoubtedly making a lot of money, enjoying their careers, and feeling empowered, I'm sure there are many more that are still being victimized, abused, controlled, and exploited.
The way I see it, the legalization of prostitution along with controls, taxes, and regulation will push the price of a prostitute into the range where it would only cater to people that can afford to pay for escorts now, which is higher than the general public would probably be able to pay. The demand for cheap, unregulated sex available to anyone will just go up creating an increase in demand for prostitutes willing to work under those conditions. If there isn't a huge supply of people willing to whore themselves out for only a few bucks with less than optimal conditions, then the exploitation begins.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eljay: My whole "trying not to be sexist" was because I wanted to say some unkind things about men and their ability and desire to boink anything. I used the gender neutral language because I know there ARE male prostitutes out there, though rare, and some women DO use them.
quote:The demand for cheap, unregulated sex available to anyone will just go up creating an increase in demand for prostitutes willing to work under those conditions.
I'm having trouble parsing this part of your argument, camus. I think you mean the demand will stay the same and the supply will fall, because I don't see how it could possibly make the demand increase. Legalized prostitution won't suddenly make people hornier. I think most men would opt for the legal venue, so long as they can afford it. Competition would likely keep prices reasonable, and taxes (say, a 25% tax on the total fee) would only really increase the price...25%.
Also, I'm having trouble understanding what you mean when you say "the exploitation begins." With regulation, there can be limits placed on how big a cut the house can take. Inevitably, the girls would make more money, and would have legal recourse against abusive johns/pimps/madams, without fear of implicating themselves. If you mean exploitation of the illegal prostitutes, well, that happens now. The number of illegal prostitutes could only go down, and if you agree that the legal variety would be abused and exploited less than the illegal ones then, most likely, abuse and exploitation decrease.
I don't like the fact that these (probably desperate) women are being exploited, and legalizing the industry would lend them some small measure of self-worth. It would, to an extent, protect them. But if some women, and there certainly would be some, persist in plying their trade illegally, then there's little more we could do for them than we already (hypothetically) have.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose a psychiatrist or doctor or even a pharmacist could blackmail a client, too. They would lose their liscense and it would be very bad for business. Plus blackmail is still illegal. And folks could (and possibly do) wait outside strip bars and porn shops to photograph clients.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see how it could possibly make the demand increase. Legalized prostitution won't suddenly make people hornier.
Prostitution is essentially legal right now, depending on how you define it, but it's priced outside of the range for most of the people that are actually interested in paying for it. That is one reason why the illegal prostitution business is thriving. Legalize it, and that opens up the market to all the people that wanted it before but either couldn't afford it or didn't want to break the law. So yes, demand would indeed go up.
quote:Competition would likely keep prices reasonable, and taxes (say, a 25% tax on the total fee) would only really increase the price...25%.
This I doubt. You would have an increase for taxes, cost in complying with safety regulations, benefits, and beter wages (do you think a pimp actually pays a prostitute a good wage now). Yes, there would be competition, but certain costs can only be cut by so much.
quote:If you mean exploitation of the illegal prostitutes, well, that happens now.
Yes, that is what I mean, and yes, I recognize that is happening right now. However, I disagree that regulations will suddenly cause the illegal activities to go down. There will always be a demand for what cannot be obtained in a legal manner. Will the general public recognize the difference between an establishment that complies with government regulations and an illegal one? Would they even want to know?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I assume you're talking about the escort services up there. So with "legalized prostitution," you're arguing that we're actually simply expanding legal prostitution. So, in effect, supply of legal prostitution jumps, quantity demanded (which is different from demand) increases, and price, logically, falls.
Caveat: It's been a while since I took micro-econ, but this sounds right to me. Anyone who knows better, please chime in.
quote:You would have an increase for taxes, cost in complying with safety regulations, benefits, and beter wages (do you think a pimp actually pays a prostitute a good wage now). Yes, there would be competition, but certain costs can only be cut by so much.
In terms of benefits and wages, the model that has generally been discussed here, and hence the model I've been working under, is one where the brothels are hiring the prostitutes as independant contractors, not as employees. So there's no benefits or wages to pay. For the brothel, the only real expenditures would be normal business costs and security. The prostitute, as her own employer, would have to provide her own medical expenses, including STD testing. And the john pays the tax.
Since all this is hypothetical, it would be difficult at best to prove that illegal prostitution would drop outside of what I've already written. Perhaps someone who paid a bit more attention in economics could do a better job.
Yes, some peopee will seek out the illegal simply because it is illegal. I think, though, that most men would be willing to pay a few extra dollars to avoid the risk of prosecution. Which is why I think they will care if an establishment is legal, along with the fact that it's in their interest to know which brothel houses girls that have up-to-date STD testing and so forth.
As to how the public could diffrentiate, how do you know when you visit a restaraunt that it passed it's last health inspection? Also, since there would be far fewer brothels than restaraunts, it'd be pretty simple to list regulated (accredited, maybe) brothels on a website.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if the same people who are for the legalization of prostitution are also for the legalization of marijuana or other drugs.
The principles behind being for legalization for both seem to be the same--just as long as you're not hurting anybody else, let people do what they want--and tax the hell out of it.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, in effect, supply of legal prostitution jumps, quantity demanded (which is different from demand) increases, and price, logically, falls.
Assuming that supply of legal prostitution does indeed jump, which I am not.
quote:In terms of benefits and wages, the model that has generally been discussed here, and hence the model I've been working under, is one where the brothels are hiring the prostitutes as independant contractors, not as employees.
Regardless of who is paying for certain costs, the brothel or the prostitute, certain costs are still incurred and the amount is still passed on to the consumer.
quote:Yes, some peopee will seek out the illegal simply because it is illegal.
While that may be true, that isn't my argument. I don't think that people will seek it out simply because it is illegal. Rather, one example is that they might seek out services that are themselves legal, just not necessarily obtainable in a legal way. For example, a person may want a certain type of prostitute. If there are none available through the local legal channels, then they may seek other means. This may include visiting a brothel that does not comply with government standards.
quote:I think, though, that most men would be willing to pay a few extra dollars to avoid the risk of prosecution
Perhaps, but current trends suggest that many people are indeed willing to risk prosecution and many other problems in order to satisfy a desire.
quote:As to how the public could diffrentiate, how do you know when you visit a restaraunt that it passed it's last health inspection?
Let me rephrase my question. Would people care whether they are visiting a legal or illegal brothel? I think not since I doubt the person would be prosecuted. If anything, the brothel would be prosecuted and the consumer would be viewed as the victim and be free.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Prostitution is essentially legal right now, depending on how you define it, but it's priced outside of the range for most of the people that are actually interested in paying for it. That is one reason why the illegal prostitution business is thriving. Legalize it, and that opens up the market to all the people that wanted it before but either couldn't afford it or didn't want to break the law. So yes, demand would indeed go up.
I don't think I'm understanding this. Prostitution is priced outside the range of most people who want to use prostitutes, and this is why prostitution is thriving?
Also. I really don't think all prostitutes are that expensive now. Actually, I'm almost entirely sure that they aren't.
And ElJay:
quote:At this time in our culture, women still have more control over sex than men do.
I agree with this statement entirely. Actually, I think in the last discussion I had concerning sex and men vs. women, the guy I was talking to said, "You women hold ALL the power when it comes to sex. You just don't realize it some of the time."
Edit to add: I kind of feel partly like the double standard that exists between men and women is sort of a response to the fact that women are for some reason considered to hold more power or control when it comes to the sex. Like maybe men (not nowadays probably, but maybe back when these ideas were being formulated) resented the idea that women could control who did and didn't get laid, and thus responded by trying to shame them...somehow...*thinks*
I guess I'm wondering how often people have arguments like the ones my roommate and her boyfriend used to have. They inevitably lead to him yelling at her, "Oh yeah? Well, you're such a ho that I slept with you the FIRST NIGHT!"
...for some reason, this did not imply anything negative about his character.
quote: Assuming that supply of legal prostitution does indeed jump, which I am not.
Wait, we legalize prostitution and supply of legal prostitution doesn't increase? You wanna rethink that one?
quote:Regardless of who is paying for certain costs, the brothel or the prostitute, certain costs are still incurred and the amount is still passed on to the consumer.
Right, I'm basically saying that, instead of the pimp making obscene profit, the money that used to go to him goes to pay for a good chunk, if not all of those costs, with little cost left over to pass to the johns.
quote:For example, a person may want a certain type of prostitute. If there are none available through the local legal channels, then they may seek other means.
which is exactly why widening the avenues of legal prostitution would prevent the illegal variety.
quote:Perhaps, but current trends suggest that many people are indeed willing to risk prosecution and many other problems in order to satisfy a desire.
Yes, when no similar alternative is available.
quote:If anything, the brothel would be prosecuted and the consumer would be viewed as the victim and be free.
Probably true, except for the john being viewed as the victim part. Also, this doesn't address the issue of STDs that I raised earlier.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like maybe men (not nowadays probably, but maybe back when these ideas were being formulated) resented the idea that women could control who did and didn't get laid, and thus responded by trying to shame them...somehow...*thinks*
You're getting at, I think, that men decided that since women have power over sex, they should have the responsibility too.
And I don't hear things like that often, and yet, somehow, way too often. Guy's kind of a jackass.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why don't we legalize buying legislation from representatives in congress?
Why don't we legalize buying an "innocent" verdict from a jury?
Why don't we legalize buying government contracts from public servants?
Why don't we legalize theft? Make people lock up and protect their own stuff and not ask the police to deal with theives?
Why don't we legalize embezzling? Extension of the above reasoning.
I'm rather shocked that so few are against legalizing prostitution. There are some things that are just too corrupt to make legal.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the difference is that those crimes...wait for it...hurt people. As in there is definitely a victim there.
And it's because prostitution is corrput that I think it should be legalized and cleaned up. I know that's not what you meant when you used the word, but there you are.
quote:I wonder if the same people who are for the legalization of prostitution are also for the legalization of marijuana or other drugs.
I would be, for marijuana anyway. I think it could have basically the same status as alcohol. Other drugs, I'm not so sure about. Definitely not heroin or cocaine.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wait, we legalize prostitution and supply of legal prostitution doesn't increase? You wanna rethink that one?
You're assuming that there are thousands of people just dying to become prostitutes if only it were legal? And don't forget about all the prostitutes that are being forced into it right now that would love to get out of it if only they had the chance.
quote:Right, I'm basically saying that, instead of the pimp making obscene profit, the money that used to go to him goes to pay for a good chunk, if not all of those costs, with little cost left over to pass to the johns.
I suppose that's entirely possible, though I have a hard time believing it. Instead, what I see happening is something like the RIAA where the record labels are making all the money. Some artists end up making millions of dollars, but the majority of them are underpaid for the service they're providing, imho. Also kind of like how CEO's make an outrageous amount of money compared to the rest of the workers.
quote:Probably true, except for the john being viewed as the victim part.
Why would he not be viewed as a victim if he didn't know that the brothel was illegal? Sure, he could have asked, and the brothel could have provided him some fake documentation.
quote:Also, this doesn't address the issue of STDs that I raised earlier.
The fear of STDs doesn't exactly seem to be stopping people now. This is also true regarding legal sex. There are many easy ways to prevent, or at least reduce, the threat of STDs, yet people are still getting them.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder if the same people who are for the legalization of prostitution are also for the legalization of marijuana or other drugs.
For me the case for making drugs illegal rests on their addictive properties, so that's a different issue. That said I'd probably support legalizing prostitution and marijuana, yes.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: I would be, for marijuana anyway. I think it could have basically the same status as alcohol. Other drugs, I'm not so sure about. Definitely not heroin or cocaine.
Why marijuana and not heroin or cocaine?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there are still health effects, neh? If the argument for legalizing a drug (like that for legalizing prostitution) is, "It's my body, I should be able to do what I want with it," why only legalize less harmful drugs? Or minimally harmful sex (as compared to unprotected sex, severe S&M, etc.)?
It seems like most of the arguments on this thread have been simultaneously libertarian ("whatever people want to do, as long as they're not hurting anyone") and anti-libertarian ("but we'll allow the government to regulate and tax it to high heaven.") Is there a philosophical difference between regulation and illegalization, or is it only a difference of type? To me it seems like the latter, and I'm surprised people would call for legalization, but simultaneously call for regulation.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think selling one's body for the direct personal use by another human being is inherently corrupting.
I disapprove of it for that reason when men do it and when women do it. For every "happy" prostitute, there are many, dozens, scores, maybe hundreds more who are miserable and loathe their "occupation".
Yes, it's quite possible that this misery is due entirely to the fact that the "oldest profession" is currently "mismanaged". But it seems to me that the far more reasonable alternative to "legalize and regulate" would be first to take proactive efforts to reduce the need and desire and misery in prostitution currently, so we'll have more data to go on.
I don't like the idea of human beings buying or even renting other human beings. It smacks of slavery to me, and voluntary slavery is something that strikes me as maybe even worse than involuntary slavery.
Furthermore, I wonder: if stripping objectifies women, if pornography does so, if Hollywood's potraryl of women objectifies the female gender, what would prostitution do? It seems to me that at best it would change the mindset from, "Don't objectify women," to, "Don't objectify these women. These other women, though, it's OK."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't like the idea of human beings buying or even renting other human beings. It smacks of slavery to me, and voluntary slavery is something that strikes me as maybe even worse than involuntary slavery.
Human beings are "rented" all the time. The folks who sign my paycheck are paying me to use my mind and body to perform a service.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For every "happy" prostitute, there are many, dozens, scores, maybe hundreds more who are miserable and loathe their "occupation".
Evidence?
quote:I don't like the idea of human beings buying or even renting other human beings. It smacks of slavery to me, and voluntary slavery is something that strikes me as maybe even worse than involuntary slavery.
quote:But there are still health effects, neh? If the argument for legalizing a drug (like that for legalizing prostitution) is, "It's my body, I should be able to do what I want with it," why only legalize less harmful drugs?
Well, in my mind, we're getting into hazy territory with those harder drugs. To my best recollection, heroin and cocaine, especially crack, are highly physically addictive, are linked with secondary crimes, and in the case of coke, can make people violently...violent. Basically, I'd argue that, just like my right to flail my fist ends before it hits your nose, my right to do what I want with my body ends when it makes me highly prone to violence and thievery.
EDIT
quote:voluntary slavery is something that strikes me as maybe even worse than involuntary slavery.
posted
Yes, but if you regulated and legalized the use of these harder drugs with safe places to get high, additional enforcement and penalties on the illegal use of it, provided rehab and a support system, and of course taxed the heck out of it, then it would be ok, right?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: For starters, much public assistance requires being willing to take a job if offered. Would we exempt prostitution jobs from this requirement? If not, aren't we saying something about prostitution that makes it different from any other job?
Wasn't that an issue in Germany a while back? I seem to remember that thread...
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: With regard to public assistance, there has been at least one instance of an OJT job training provided under a Federal workforce developement program. Every time I have been to Washington for workforce development meetings someone always asks if it really happened or if it is an "Urban Legend" It really happened.
So the hypothetical story that became erroneously reported as real in Germany actually did happen in the US? (Am I reading this correctly?)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think another problem with hard drugs is that they're addictive. So although you might be perfectly capable of making the decision when you first start, you probably won't be after you get into it. That kind of defeats the point of doing what you want with your body.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: But there are still health effects, neh? If the argument for legalizing a drug (like that for legalizing prostitution) is, "It's my body, I should be able to do what I want with it," why only legalize less harmful drugs? Or minimally harmful sex (as compared to unprotected sex, severe S&M, etc.)?
I believe most states do not currently classify unprotected sex, severe S&M, etc. as illegal although there are a few with sodomy laws still on the books (I think the military still classifies sodomy as anything other than the missionary position). If a woman were to do all the things a prostitute would do, only for free, would that be wrong? Should that be legislated? If a woman marries a rich man only for his money, and the man only marries her for the sex, and they both agree it's a good arrangement, is that wrong? Should that be legislated or made illegal?
I feel like we're treating this whole subject as theoretical when it is legal in Nevada, and has been for over 25 years.
Edit:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't like the idea of human beings buying or even renting other human beings.
I think this quote starts getting to the heart of the matter. People want it illegal because they don't like it. Whether for their personal moral reasons, for religious reasons, for plain ol' squick factor reasons, etc. they don't like it. And making it illegal makes it wrong for anyone to do.
Dag, I'm formulating my response to your reply. When my brain finishes percolating, I'll pour out a response.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: For starters, much public assistance requires being willing to take a job if offered. Would we exempt prostitution jobs from this requirement? If not, aren't we saying something about prostitution that makes it different from any other job?
Why wouldn't this be considered a specialized job? (Just like -- I'm guessing -- theater actors' jobs aren't really appropriate for welfare work requirements. If you don't have the aptitude, including the desire, you really can't do the job as required.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why wouldn't this be considered a specialized job? (Just like -- I'm guessing -- theater actors' jobs aren't really appropriate for welfare work requirements. If you don't have the aptitude, including the desire, you really can't do the job as required.)
I don't think people get to turn down ditch-digging jobs because they aren't inclined to take them.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is, it is considered unskilled labor, right?
So is low-level prostitution.
quote:Edited to add: That is, I'd compare this to other forms of acting. Are there cases of people in the US being required to do other acting jobs?
("Acting jobs" would be a more appropriate analogy than "ditch-digging," yes?)
I don't think so at all. Acting jobs are highly sought after and the person recruiting for them usually has to turn down far more than he hires.
I'm thinking of the people who end up in street prostitution now. Almost none of them auditioned for the job.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
