Should prostitution be illegal?

Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 10:59 pm

The HNN podcast provides a valuable contrasting view, thanks D_A. The conversation by the hosts after the speech was helpful. Humanist ethics and secular dialogue have much to offer, when it comes to inclusive debate.

But, is this what we are talking about here? Aren't we talking about voluntary prostitution? Cherry, your statements taken at face value represent this. Am I right? What do I do when I see legalisation being advocated by the women themselves? Do we deny them the right to do sex for money in a safe environment? Do we deny them the same rights and protections that everybody should have?

On the other hand I do not wish to see young Asian women (for example) being brought into my country as bonded immigrants, who are forced to 'pay off' their transport etc. by becoming prostitutes. That's a violation of rights, trafficking in human slavery and downright plain immoral.

Just Arrived Joined: Sep 04, 2009 Posts: 8

forcing anyone into anything is against the law. You make it sound like I wanted it to be illegal. I want it regulated and taxed. Street walking and pimping should be illegal. I don't watch news braodcast or listen to radio broadcasts about the industry, because most reporters have never been in my shoes and don't really know what they're talking about. Any country where it's legal, does not have the problems that we do.

I believe that penalties should be harsher for human trafficing and for tricks who get caught with underage girls. Pimps should just be shot in the head. They're a waste of natural resources and have no real value in society.

The thing that makes me laugh is that the people with the strongest oppinions, have never had anything to do with the business and don't have a clue. I've actually been paid just to talk to someone, to sit there in garters while the guy did a striptease (which I have to say was the finniest thing I've seen in life), I've talked a husband out of cheating on his wife and given him his money back. Most men want whats called a "girlfriend experience" and only really desire closeness.

Most of the females that I know, don't use drugs, don't rip men off and live normal lives outside of work.

Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:05 am

Cherry wrote:

You make it sound like I wanted it to be illegal.

No, I understand your position exactly. I take your position at face value & accept your right to seek a legal environment to do so. I live in a city where that is the case and I'm not saying much more than that.

I was commenting on the feminist position that 'Digital Atheist' linked to in the Humanist podcast. I was making the point that to paint everybody with the same brush misses the complexity of the debate. The speaker was pushing hard the position that all prostitution is human trafficking.

I'm actually happy that you've posted here as I'd like to hear first hand from those involved.

Just Arrived Joined: Sep 04, 2009 Posts: 8

Sorry, misread what you wrote.

feminists are usually manly lesbians who have nothing better to do than push their views onto others. I believe in equality, but think that they push it too far. In my oppinion, the feminest movement messed up the family unit. I can take care of myself, but I believe that women should stay home and raise her children. Kids now, are on the most part, disrespectful slackers.

I'm not being trafficed, lol. I've been approached by "managers" as they like to call themselves now. I told them that when they get on their knees and suck a d***, then I'll throw them a few bucks. Until then, what I make is mine.

I want it legal, so that I can go work at a brothel without having to move to Nevada.

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 5:51 pm

Sorry for waiting so long to respond to this thread. Things have been busy.

Cherry wrote:

feminists are usually manly lesbians who have nothing better to do than push their views onto others. I believe in equality, but think that they push it too far. In my oppinion, the feminest movement messed up the family unit. I can take care of myself, but I believe that women should stay home and raise her children. Kids now, are on the most part, disrespectful slackers.

Cherry, since you are fond of generalization, I would like to share some things that can be said to be generally true about prostitution - and are easier to back up than your backwards and disrespectful claims about feminists, women, and kids.

a.
Most prostitutes do not become prostitutes by choice - even those who work in Nevada.

b.
Jobs for which you must take a .357 magnum to work so that you are not sodomized by your clients are not very good jobs.

c.
Legalization of prostitution does not stop crime. It only changes the nature of it.

It troubles me that the only people to comment on this thread are men and one female person who has made every insinuation that she herself is a prostitute. It would help me to come to a conclusions about this idea, if I had some more information from different positions. How about fathers and brothers of prostitutes? How about women who are not prostitutes. I know that there are women in this forum. I'd love to hear from you guys.

I'm not abandoning the legalization bandwagon; however, I am made less confident by the narrow sample of opinion offered here.

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 7:51 pm

DigitalAtheist wrote:

a.
Most prostitutes do not become prostitutes by choice - even those who work in Nevada.

Meaning they're forced into it by their circumstances? If so, I'd say this is true for just about every human decision, not just those we find distasteful.

I agree with you DA that Cherry makes a lot of generalizations I don't agree completely with. However, paying someone for sex (as long as we live in a society where we "pay" for things) from my perspective isn't "immoral", and would further add that it is mostly illegal (immoral) because of puritanical conditioning. We have been conditioned to see a perfectly normal human function (sex) as something that is dirty, something that should be hidden. Imagine a world where it was thought of as no different then eating.

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:44 am

But, we do not need to legalize eating in order to protect the chefs. Is it different that way?

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:00 pm

DigitalAtheist wrote:

But, we do not need to legalize eating in order to protect the chefs. Is it different that way?

Hmmm... It's more like we don't need to legalize the preparation of food for sale (chefs and cooks) because we mostly don't have the same superstitious stigmas attached to eating as we do with sex. Let's face some reality here, people's health is probably just as adversely affected by what they eat as it is by sexual diseases. In fact, it might be possible to build a strong case that the destigmatization of sex might actually improve overall health.

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:45 pm

MockingGods wrote:

DigitalAtheist wrote:

But, we do not need to legalize eating in order to protect the chefs. Is it different that way?

Hmmm... It's more like we don't need to legalize the preparation of food for sale (chefs and cooks) because we mostly don't have the same superstitious stigmas attached to eating as we do with sex. Let's face some reality here, people's health is probably just as adversely affected by what they eat as it is by sexual diseases. In fact, it might be possible to build a strong case that the destigmatization of sex might actually improve overall health.

This may be the crux of this debate.
MG, what I think that you are doing here is comparing prostitutes not to chefs (subjective human beings) but instead to food (objects to be consumed.) I think you can see where I'm going with this. I know from your previous posts that you are not exactly into the subjugation of people, so I think that we should really sort through our words. Let me know if I have misinterpreted.

I don't think that removing the superstitious stigma(ta Laughing

) attached to sex will prevent prostitution or improve the lot of prostitutes. In fact, eradicating this stigma may in fact render prostitution obsolete. Very Happy

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:46 pm

… all this talk of food… I'm getting hungry!

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:39 pm

DigitalAtheist wrote:

Sorry for waiting so long to respond to this thread. Things have been busy.
b.
Jobs for which you must take a .357 magnum to work so that you are not sodomized by your clients are not very good jobs.

c.
Legalization of prostitution does not stop crime. It only changes the nature of it.

I think b and c are affected by blocking prostitutes from using the legal system.

If the woman can bring charges against the customer for rape that would go a long way to reducing the need to bring a gun. I think it affects c by reducing the crime done against the prostitutes.

I can't help with limited number of people responding in this thread.

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:25 pm

DogmaBites wrote:

DigitalAtheist wrote:

Sorry for waiting so long to respond to this thread. Things have been busy.
b.
Jobs for which you must take a .357 magnum to work so that you are not sodomized by your clients are not very good jobs.

c.
Legalization of prostitution does not stop crime. It only changes the nature of it.

I think b and c are affected by blocking prostitutes from using the legal system.

If the woman can bring charges against the customer for rape that would go a long way to reducing the need to bring a gun. I think it affects c by reducing the crime done against the prostitutes.

I can't help with limited number of people responding in this thread.

Hey, Dog.

What shocked me most about this thread, was how quickly (and seemingly uncritically) people jumped onto the legality bandwagon. I don't think that this is a simple problem that may be solved overnight. Maybe legalization is the best mode for harm reduction. Maybe it's not. To get a better idea of the complexity, we can look to Amsterdam, where legalization has led to other problems. The red-light district in that city is one of the world's most common destinations for human trafficking. In order to stop this, we would have to legalize and standardize prostitution in all countries around the world. Alternately, we could outlaw it all around the world – but that hasn't worked well either. Either way, imagine the bureaucratic insanity that would be!

In my country, I don't think that prostitutes are blocked from the legal system by the system's own rules. I do believe that there may be misinformed people within the system who abuse the rules because of their own bias and ignorance.

Maybe there is no way to ensure that humans can simply respect each other, and treat each other like fellow human beings. No matter how much we try to romanticize this situation, it is still the trading of human beings for cash. Is this the prostitute's own free will? Again, that's arguable.

The Learned Joined: Oct 16, 2005 Posts: 125

I say make it legal. Society would be much better off if it were. There would probably be less crime of rape. The woman entering into that profession would undergo strict medical examinations and so would their clients have to present some sort of health background check. It would and should be treated just like any other profession. The main reason such a thing as prostitution is illegal is because of the extreme religious mentality that is dominating our society. IF it weren't for those idiots, it would have been legal years ago.

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:37 am

Sorry it took me so long to respond, I intended to do it much sooner.

DigitalAtheist wrote:

This may be the crux of this debate.

It certainly is one of the most poignant aspects of it.

Quote:

MG, what I think that you are doing here is comparing prostitutes not to chefs (subjective human beings) but instead to food (objects to be consumed.) I think you can see where I'm going with this.

I'm afraid, good sir, that under humanities current state of economic dispersal, we are all objects to be used and consumed. When you agree to be employed, you are essentially selling your body and often your health for monetary compensation. Only through governmental action have we seen improvement in this model and less exploitation. It stands to reason that only through legalization of prostitution, will we see regulation that improves their standard. That said, I'm not a proponent of this overall paradigm. In fact, it is this paradigm (labor for money for goods) that is responsible for such things as prostitution.

Quote:

I know from your previous posts that you are not exactly into the subjugation of people, so I think that we should really sort through our words. Let me know if I have misinterpreted.

No, I'm not for the subjugation of human beings. But as long as we live in a world were we "sell things", I see very little reason why consensual sex shouldn't be among them. Coerced sex for payment is another matter altogether. In a sense, nearly all humans are coerced into working, whether it be in legitimate or illegitimate employment. This is why it's become known as, "earning a living"; which basically says, "work or you don't deserve to live".

Quote:

I don't think that removing the superstitious stigma(ta ) attached to sex will prevent prostitution or improve the lot of prostitutes.

My thesis here is that this stigma (which is, IMO, the result of mostly religious suppression ) is why it's illegal in many countries and states. I am rather convinced that legalization and regulation would improve their lot.

Quote:

In fact, eradicating this stigma may in fact render prostitution obsolete.

As long as we sell things that are desired (such as sex) I don't see prostitution becoming obsolete. However, eradicating the stigma might decrease demand.

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:49 pm

I'm also sorry for taking so long to respond, but I am taking a while to think about these things. This is indeed a hefty subject.

MockingGods wrote:

DigitalAtheist wrote:

I know from your previous posts that you are not exactly into the subjugation of people, so I think that we should really sort through our words. Let me know if I have misinterpreted.

No, I'm not for the subjugation of human beings. But as long as we live in a world were we "sell things", I see very little reason why consensual sex shouldn't be among them. Coerced sex for payment is another matter altogether. In a sense, nearly all humans are coerced into working, whether it be in legitimate or illegitimate employment. This is why it's become known as, "earning a living"; which basically says, "work or you don't deserve to live".

Yes, there is a big difference between consensual and coerced. The line is grey, however. How you define that line, may be a great deal different from M. Foucault's position. I believe that it was him (not only him, though) that posited poverty to be the chief basis for crime. That is, of course, arguable, but it does illustrate the relative nature of this definition.

MockingGods wrote:

DigitalAtheist wrote:

MG, what I think that you are doing here is comparing prostitutes not to chefs (subjective human beings) but instead to food (objects to be consumed.) I think you can see where I'm going with this.

I'm afraid, good sir, that under humanities current state of economic dispersal, we are all objects to be used and consumed. When you agree to be employed, you are essentially selling your body and often your health for monetary compensation. Only through governmental action have we seen improvement in this model and less exploitation. It stands to reason that only through legalization of prostitution, will we see regulation that improves their standard. That said, I'm not a proponent of this overall paradigm. In fact, it is this paradigm (labor for money for goods) that is responsible for such things as prostitution.

I'm not sure that it's enough to merely say that prostitutes are bottom-rungers of social hierarchy and then leave it at that. There is some notable difference that my own failures of eloquence are obscuring. I think that it lies in the fact that "work" is a public – and therefore manageable – undertaking, and that prostitution happens (usually) in private. There are no written contracts, no waivers or consent forms. Nor do I believe that johns in a legal environment would willfully submit their identities to the public domain. It is not a public undertaking (as "work" is) and it is subject to entirely different considerations. In this light, these considerations are not prudish and puritanical – they are very practical. I really don't think that the law can protect women who are put (by themselves or others) into this private and potentially dangerous environment. You haven't convinced me.

MockingGods wrote:

DigitalAtheist wrote:

I don't think that removing the superstitious stigma(ta) attached to sex will prevent prostitution or improve the lot of prostitutes.

My thesis here is that this stigma (which is, IMO, the result of mostly religious suppression ) is why it's illegal in many countries and states. I am rather convinced that legalization and regulation would improve their lot.

Keeping the above issues of private/public work out of the argument, it is possible that a well-managed legalization may work to improve the lot of prostitutes. How do we devise a well-managed system is the question. To compare, the financial system in the U.S. was "well-managed" up until August 2008. How do we protect the "investment" of the prostitutes in your system?

MockingGods wrote:

DigitalAtheist wrote:

In fact, eradicating this stigma may in fact render prostitution obsolete.

As long as we sell things that are desired (such as sex) I don't see prostitution becoming obsolete. However, eradicating the stigma might decrease demand.

This is also my opinion. Apologies for my hyperbole.


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile