Why is Prostitution Illegal???

[Cecilie1200]

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Which, unfortunately for you, does NOT say that the only reason something can be criminalized is if it violates someone's rights. It's not even close.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why is this practice , which is older than time itself , Illegal in almost every State in this country???

Who's "Rights" are being violated if two consenting adults engage in sex , and one is paid for the service??

no one's rights are being violated. It should, therefore, be legal.

Again, when did THAT become the only applicable standard? We criminalize lots of things that don't violate anyone's rights.

 

[Father Time]

Condoms have got what, an 89% effectiveness rate? And how are you going to "force" them all to wear condoms? Are you going to station a Sex Police officer next to every bed to check?

We make it law, we make it law to pay taxes thus you can say the government is forcing you to pay taxes, of course no government agent is going to stand by you making sure you file taxes. However should the government find out you didn't pay taxes you'll face the unholy wrath of the IRS.

Same thing applies (just replace IRS with something more relevant).

We make it a law? You mean the way we made it a law that you couldn't sell sex? But this whole thing is about people ignoring the law, thus the need to just legalize it. They didn't obey the no prostitution law, but they're going to obey the wear a condom one? And if your attitude is, "We pass a law, and then some people will just ignore it", that's not going to do much to curb disease, is it?

It worked for alcohol, when it was illegal people would make booze out of ...some type of alcohol used in manufacturing which would be poisonous if improperly made. Lots of people got sick and died from that and other poorly made alcohol but now we don't have to worry about dieing from just one beer.

It could be similar to health inspection, we can use STD tests for the hookers.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Like I said, in the places where I've been that it's legal (Europe, Brazil, etc), people seem to have a healthier attitude towards sex.

Incidentally, most of those countries are Christian by the way.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Our body is sacred. Moreover, the constitution protects human dignity. If we engage in paid sex then what is left of us? It's not like other legal services where we could just engage on it. Our body is not a commodity.

Of course our body is a commodity. I'm being paid right now to be here and talk on the phone. The people I'm talking to have financial issues and I try to help them solve their problems. What would be the big difference if it was guys that wanted to get off and I talked to them to help them solve that problem? I don't get how there's some magical line that says it's ok to sell yourself to do this but not that. Anyone that trades their time/skill for money is whoring themselves out.

Sorry, but being paid to go to work and talk on the phone is not your body being a commodity. You're selling your time and conversation, and possibly thought. As for paid phone sex, that already is legal, because again, that's not your body being a commodity. And no, selling your work effort is not "whoring yourself out". Little weak on the concept, obviously.

You don't get how there's a line between acceptable and unacceptable? So you think if anything is acceptable legal behavior, then everything should be, because all lines are just arbitrary?

I feel kind of sorry for you that you value yourself and physical intimacy so little that you really think allowing another human being inside your body is equivalent to telemarketing or credit counseling or whatever your job title is.

Unfortunately, your argument against Amanda's statement depends upon us accepting your world view as an underlying premise. You draw a line at physical intimacy.

It may be a line that is commonly drawn and therefore, it easily attracts public support. The question is, is it my "right" to do with my body as I like or not? Popular "rights" do not need protecting only unpopular ones. So, if it is my "right," then I may burden society with that right regardless of society's disapproving eye.

You use the razor of what is "acceptable" or "unacceptable" and those are of course normative terms. It depends on who you ask. If you ask a soldier on a two year unaccompanied tour whether it's acceptable to visit a whore in a host country where prostitution is legal, I'll lay money that it's acceptable. (I don't have to lay money. I've been there and I can tell you it's acceptable.) If you ask a room full of Boston blue blooded matriarchs, then you can bet your bottom dollar it won't be acceptable. So where does that get you? Is the more conservative answer the "right" answer and everyone else is wrong? Doubtful.

I also think that another unaccepted, from my prospective, premise of your statement is that in your "valuing physical intimacy" section you fail to understand the distinction between a physical act and emotional intimacy and assume the confluence of both as part and parcel of intercourse. I suppose the majority of people never go through the process of differentiating these and separating them from each other, but I would venture to say that whores and others who have a lot of sexual intercourse do.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Of course our body is a commodity. I'm being paid right now to be here and talk on the phone. The people I'm talking to have financial issues and I try to help them solve their problems. What would be the big difference if it was guys that wanted to get off and I talked to them to help them solve that problem? I don't get how there's some magical line that says it's ok to sell yourself to do this but not that. Anyone that trades their time/skill for money is whoring themselves out.

Sorry, but being paid to go to work and talk on the phone is not your body being a commodity. You're selling your time and conversation, and possibly thought. As for paid phone sex, that already is legal, because again, that's not your body being a commodity. And no, selling your work effort is not "whoring yourself out". Little weak on the concept, obviously.

You don't get how there's a line between acceptable and unacceptable? So you think if anything is acceptable legal behavior, then everything should be, because all lines are just arbitrary?

I feel kind of sorry for you that you value yourself and physical intimacy so little that you really think allowing another human being inside your body is equivalent to telemarketing or credit counseling or whatever your job title is.

Unfortunately, your argument against Amanda's statement depends upon us accepting your world view as an underlying premise. You draw a line at physical intimacy.

It may be a line that is commonly drawn and therefore, it easily attracts public support. The question is, is it my "right" to do with my body as I like or not? Popular "rights" do not need protecting only unpopular ones. So, if it is my "right," then I may burden society with that right regardless of society's disapproving eye.

You use the razor of what is "acceptable" or "unacceptable" and those are of course normative terms. It depends on who you ask. If you ask a soldier on a two year unaccompanied tour whether it's acceptable to visit a whore in a host country where prostitution is legal, I'll lay money that it's acceptable. (I don't have to lay money. I've been there and I can tell you it's acceptable.) If you ask a room full of Boston blue blooded matriarchs, then you can bet your bottom dollar it won't be acceptable. So where does that get you? Is the more conservative answer the "right" answer and everyone else is wrong? Doubtful.

I also think that another unaccepted, from my prospective, premise of your statement is that in your "valuing physical intimacy" section you fail to understand the distinction between a physical act and emotional intimacy and assume the confluence of both as part and parcel of intercourse. I suppose the majority of people never go through the process of differentiating these and separating them from each other, but I would venture to say that whores and others who have a lot of sexual intercourse do.

Good points all Tech. One thing that I thought was interesting, was up until the 13th century, priests were required to be single, but, they were all allowed to on occasion visit brothels.

That came to a quick stop when the man who became Pope caught syphillis, and then banned the practice for the whole priesthood.

Then......there are the Puritans who were so uptight that England kicked them out.

Nope......legalize prostitution and there will be quite a few less problems. Think about this.....if a woman who is currently being victimized by a pimp was able to legally go out and make money having sex, then the pimp would be out of business, and would then be actionable to legal prosecution if they tried to keep a woman working for them.

Trust me........legalize it and the pimps will be out of business and the women would no longer be victimized. Need proof? Go to the red light district in Catania Sicily sometime. Most of the girls that work there are independent agents with no pimps.

And, the place is patrolled regularly by the Italian military police, the Caribineri.

 

[frazzledgear]

Why is this practice , which is older than time itself , Illegal in almost every State in this country???

Who's "Rights" are being violated if two consenting adults engage in sex , and one is paid for the service??

Its because this isn't an issue of "what the heck, its been around for thousands of years and hey its all about sex and that is a private issue as President Clinton somehow proved by degrading the White House and gettting blowjobs from an intern and then later perjured himself so he could get a lawsuit settled in his favor and all that somehow "proved" its just a "private issue", right?". Just which one of you lying ass, two-faced liberal nutjobs want to try and convince the rest of us you'd still believe that if it had been BUSH who had done that while President, huh? Sometimes the hypocrisy just leaves me breathless.

Prostitution is an issue of whether society itself BENEFITS from the practice or not and whether it harms a particular segment of the human population that is involved or not. Hard to argue that selling the bodies of some people in society so that the bodies of the opposite sex who happen to be much wealthier can get their rocks off somehow benefits all of society - and keep a straight face, isn't it? I couldn't even keep a straight face while typing that one sentence. Yeah, yeah there is male prostitution but prostitution through the ages has overwhelmingly been females who see no other way of providing for themselves in life except for selling their bodies for cold cash. And the men who think so little of the other half of the human race that they have no qualms about the females they degrade, pay for, barter for -and sell into sexual slavery.

If life is all about "he who has the most orgasms, gets to win", then this topic doesn't even make sense to some people on this thread, does it? But I'm not among those who think life is just a meaningless event and therefore whatever some whore asks in exchange for a blowjob is the equivalent of the Holy Eucharist.

You liberal nutjobs ever stop to think that if life is really a random and meaningless event -how horribly and inexplicably ironic it is that the highest form of life in the known universe has spent its entire existence trying to discover the meaning of life?

I'm a Liberal nutjob???? ROTFLMFAO......

You're the one talking about how "Society" benefits......as a "Whole".....by not allowing some people to excercise their liberties.

Spoken like a true communist.

Its not our jobs to determine what is right or wrong for anyone to do (if they arent violating someones rights) in respect to the common good.....the Constitution say's nothing about that.

Prostitution by consenting adults in no way violates the Constitution......regardless of how I personally feel about it. The sad thing about Democracy is that if 51% of people dont want the other 49% to have a right to do something....they are subject to that rule.

With your logic....if enough people thought piercings or tattoos on individuals were a detriment to society somehow , their right to do so could theoretically be taken away by majority rule.

P.S. - Try not to confuse Liberal with Liberty.....the difference is there is no Agenda for me.....

I know you are no liberal nutjob and had no intention of you taking it that way. The "liberal nutjob" comment was about whether liberals would still be insisting it was entirely a private issue if a Republican President had committed perjury in order to get a lawsuit settled in his favor if part of what he perjured himself over was whether he was getting sexual favors from underlings in the Oval Office. Which was off topic anyway.

I know that far more liberals think prostitution is somehow a "victimless" crime and therefore should be legal -than conservatives do. However Libertarians also believe the same. But there are a couple of problems with this.

Prostitution is not a victimless crime unless you truly believe a prostitute sells her body because she enjoys it AND willingly chose this occupation over the opportunity to support herself by some other means. Supporters of legalized prostitution so often have some kind of notion in their mind of either the hooker with a heart of gold and emotionally healthy who falls in love with her john who loves her back -or a beautiful high class call girl making a better living than she could possibly make doing anything legitimate. In either case, this idealized prostitute is always having a good time sexually herself and is always young, always good looking and never ages.

Unfortunately, that isn't the true picture of prostitution. Most prostitutes are high school drop-outs with a poor education and no skills or teen runaways who are economically forced into prostitution in order to support themselves. Ask any cop who sees the same women arrested over and over for prostitution how dramatically their appearance changes -looking years older than they really are in just a very short time. Once their appearance goes, their asking price for their services also takes a nosedive -but their ability to provide for themselves with another job hasn't changed. So their standard of living just keeps dropping with the odds that will ever improve dropping right along with it. Legalizing prostitution actually attempts to cut out this class of women but in fact, it only creates a new level of prostitution in addition to this class. Legalizing it results in men patronizing the legal brothels who wouldn't have paid for the services of a prostitute before -but in no way reduces the demand of those who were already paying for the low end, cheap services of the most economically desperate women and are unwilling to pay more for it now.

Prostitution is an emotionally stressful job for the vast majority of prostitutes who recognize their "career" is one of nonstop humiliation for themselves and that those who use their services actually have little to no respect for them as human beings. And the women ending up with little self respect as well. That doesn't change by legalizing it. They learn to mentally distance themselves while degrading themselves in exchange for cash as a self-defense mechanism, they are not sexually enjoying themselves and many find they can't enjoy sex even when they form a relationship. Their ability to make and maintain a healthy relationship is very poor. Prostitutes are far more likely to run through a series of men who only inflict more damage to their self-image while being verbally and/or physically abused. Emotionally healthy men are extremely unlikely to choose as a mate and potential mother of their children - a woman who makes a living selling her body to other men for cash. That fact never changes by legalizing prostitution.

Prostitutes are a throw-away class for whom the vast majority of the population have no real respect -male and female alike. Which is why they are so often the target of violence by their johns and pimps. To say nothing of the fact they are the most common target of serial killers who believe they are unlikely to be quickly missed by anyone and police unlikely to spend much time concerned about the disappearance or murder of a prostitute. Women with healthy family situations where their absence would be quickly noticed - are highly unlikely to turn to prostitution. Many pimps deliberately get their stable of hookers addicted to drugs in addition to the use of violence as a means of controlling them.

Legalizing prostitution has never once rid a society of this seedy and the most depraved aspects of prostitution and what it does to those so economically desperate they are driven to it. It has only added another level of prostitution to that which already existed and will still exist. Legalizing it won't clear the streets of desperate runaways, drug addicted, mentally ill or homeless women who are economically desperate enough to agree to perform sex acts on a john for a few dollars. Legalizing it doesn't suddenly provide all prostitutes with a living wage, a pension plan and health insurance and allow all prostitutes to charge more for their services. It doesn't increase the respectability of the job, doesn't give them greater self esteem, doesn't improve their ability to form healthier relationships. And it doesn't change the demand for the low-end, cheap services of the most desperate in society who will still put themselves at the highest risk in exchange for a few bucks.


In spite of the fact that proponents of legalized prostitution insist they will drop - the rates of STDs, AIDS and violence/crimes against prostitutes doesn't change. None of that drops. That is because legalizing prostitution only increases the size of this segment of society who sell their sexual services for cash -while increasing the size of class of those now willing to pay for it. But doesn't eliminate the most economically desperate who are willing to put themselves at the greatest risk. Or eliminate the class of men willing to pay for low end cheap services and the riskiest kind of sex and still unwilling to pay more for it in a legal brothel.

No little girl grows up dreaming of becoming a prostitute. Legalizing it won't change the fact it is an role primarily held by desperate women economically forced to it as the only means of support they believe is open to them. Calling a woman a "whore" is a really nasty insult and statement about what kind of woman the insulter considers her to be. A statement about the belief she is the kind of woman with so little self respect she would sell herself. Most often said by a man. It isn't EVER intended to be a compliment about her choice of career. Legalizing it won't change that.

The fact that desperate women will sell their bodies is a contributing factor to the male mentality that women are not their full equal in society. It reinforces male dominance and diminishes the role of women to all those men who consider themselves superior to women. And unfortunately, that male mentality has predominated throughout history and in most countries -still does. It is men who invariably rationalize the loudest that legalizing the act for women who are so economically desperate they are willing to humiliate and debase themselves by sexually servicing a stranger who has no concern for her welfare whatsoever and is highly unlikely to ever consider her his equal in society -somehow causes no harm to anyone and is therefore a "victimless" crime. Of course it harms someone and reinforces that harm with each trick. The fact a man shoved a bill in her hand doesn't change that either.

I do not see in ANY way how legalizing prostitution improves the human condition, sorry.

 

[mightypeon]

Legaliszed prostituion is about the same as legalized alcohol consumption.
And if you take precautions, you propably will have less deaths from fucking than from drinking alcohol.
at least thats the case in Germany were both are legal.

 

[frazzledgear]

Like I said, in the places where I've been that it's legal (Europe, Brazil, etc), people seem to have a healthier attitude towards sex.

Incidentally, most of those countries are Christian by the way.

What is "healthier" about increasing the size of the segment of society that has divorced sexual activity from any emotional involvement and attachment to their partner and relegates it to nothing but a commodity to be bought and sold? I see nothing healthy there at all.

Forming a society is a pact among its members -no matter where that society is formed. And whether a society flourishes or disintegrates and collapses depends on whether its members have chosen a pact that expects and encourages a certain level of moral behavior from its members because doing so is considered to make a better society that benefits all. Or has decided they need nothing more from its members than the lowest common denominator and with an absence of any societal pressures on members to strive for any higher level of moral behavior.

History has shown over and over and over again -that societies which have chosen the latter -have already guaranteed their inevitable collapse as a result of the moral decay. Societies, like governments -collapse when a critical mass in society are no longer satisfied with the conditions that exist. The reason for having a society where members are expected to strive for a higher level of moral behavior is because that is the kind of society that satisfies the most people. Widespread immorality has never satisfied the majority for very long -and in fact, a society that tolerates widespread immoral behavior from its members has historically turned out to be a very poor environment for raising emotionally healthy future generations. And society isn't just about what Joe and Sally want to RIGHT NOW TODAY -it is an institution that evolved for the benefit of generations to come. Not just for today.

An absence of societal pressures on members to strive for a higher level of moral behavior has never once resulted in improving the human condition. Not once.

 

[Amanda]

Our body is sacred. Moreover, the constitution protects human dignity. If we engage in paid sex then what is left of us? It's not like other legal services where we could just engage on it. Our body is not a commodity.

Of course our body is a commodity. I'm being paid right now to be here and talk on the phone. The people I'm talking to have financial issues and I try to help them solve their problems. What would be the big difference if it was guys that wanted to get off and I talked to them to help them solve that problem? I don't get how there's some magical line that says it's ok to sell yourself to do this but not that. Anyone that trades their time/skill for money is whoring themselves out.

Sorry, but being paid to go to work and talk on the phone is not your body being a commodity. You're selling your time and conversation, and possibly thought. As for paid phone sex, that already is legal, because again, that's not your body being a commodity. And no, selling your work effort is not "whoring yourself out". Little weak on the concept, obviously.

You don't get how there's a line between acceptable and unacceptable? So you think if anything is acceptable legal behavior, then everything should be, because all lines are just arbitrary?

I feel kind of sorry for you that you value yourself and physical intimacy so little that you really think allowing another human being inside your body is equivalent to telemarketing or credit counseling or whatever your job title is.

Sure it is. What's the big difference if I'm using my mouth to talk into a phone or suck a dick? or use my hands to type on a computer or give a hand job? I'm selling the use of my body either way.

Acceptable and unacceptable are subjective, so I guess I don't see the point in using terms like that to try to make a point.

 

[frazzledgear]

Of course our body is a commodity. I'm being paid right now to be here and talk on the phone. The people I'm talking to have financial issues and I try to help them solve their problems. What would be the big difference if it was guys that wanted to get off and I talked to them to help them solve that problem? I don't get how there's some magical line that says it's ok to sell yourself to do this but not that. Anyone that trades their time/skill for money is whoring themselves out.

Sorry, but being paid to go to work and talk on the phone is not your body being a commodity. You're selling your time and conversation, and possibly thought. As for paid phone sex, that already is legal, because again, that's not your body being a commodity. And no, selling your work effort is not "whoring yourself out". Little weak on the concept, obviously.

You don't get how there's a line between acceptable and unacceptable? So you think if anything is acceptable legal behavior, then everything should be, because all lines are just arbitrary?

I feel kind of sorry for you that you value yourself and physical intimacy so little that you really think allowing another human being inside your body is equivalent to telemarketing or credit counseling or whatever your job title is.

Sure it is. What's the big difference if I'm using my mouth to talk into a phone or suck a dick? or use my hands to type on a computer or give a hand job?

How sad that you really can't tell the difference. Think a man cannot tell the difference between the woman he hired to answer his phones -and the one he hired to suck his dick? Which one do you REALLY think he respects more?

Would you be able to tell the difference if it were your daughter? Would you tell HER there is no real difference and therefore she should be just as willing to sell her sexual services to any guy willing to part with a few bucks as she would be to answer someone's phones? If so -then I'm real glad you aren't my mother. My mother not only had FAR more respect for herself than that -she expected me too as well.

 

[Father Time]

I know you are no liberal nutjob and had no intention of you taking it that way. The "liberal nutjob" comment was about whether liberals would still be insisting it was entirely a private issue if a Republican President had committed perjury in order to get a lawsuit settled in his favor if part of what he perjured himself over was whether he was getting sexual favors from underlings in the Oval Office. Which was off topic anyway.

I know that far more liberals think prostitution is somehow a "victimless" crime and therefore should be legal -than conservatives do. However Libertarians also believe the same. But there are a couple of problems with this.

Prostitution is not a victimless crime unless you truly believe a prostitute sells her body because she enjoys it AND willingly chose this occupation over the opportunity to support herself by some other means. Supporters of legalized prostitution so often have some kind of notion in their mind of either the hooker with a heart of gold and emotionally healthy who falls in love with her john who loves her back -or a beautiful high class call girl making a better living than she could possibly make doing anything legitimate. In either case, this idealized prostitute is always having a good time sexually herself and is always young, always good looking and never ages.

So people have to take jobs they hate because of hard times. That's Life, and it doesn't matter it's if whoring themselves out, working at a coal mine or some other thankless task they still chose it willingly. But yeah I'm sure all those poor girls who chose prostitutes all had some other choice available to them at the time and they chose the illegal job.

If you have to be a prostitute you have to be a prostitute, criminalizing it won't change that.

But hey not every prostitute is 'forced' to do so from economic conditions so why make their job illegal?

Unfortunately, that isn't the true picture of prostitution. Most prostitutes are high school drop-outs with a poor education and no skills or teen runaways who are economically forced into prostitution in order to support themselves. Ask any cop who sees the same women arrested over and over for prostitution how dramatically their appearance changes -looking years older than they really are in just a very short time. Once their appearance goes, their asking price for their services also takes a nosedive -but their ability to provide for themselves with another job hasn't changed. So their standard of living just keeps dropping with the odds that will ever improve dropping right along with it.

Compare that to working at coal mines and other dangerous jobs.

Legalizing prostitution actually attempts to cut out this class of women but in fact, it only creates a new level of prostitution in addition to this class. Legalizing it results in men patronizing the legal brothels who wouldn't have paid for the services of a prostitute before -but in no way reduces the demand of those who were already paying for the low end, cheap services of the most economically desperate women and are unwilling to pay more for it now.

If it doesn't reduce demand then why is it a bad thing?

Prostitution is an emotionally stressful job for the vast majority of prostitutes who recognize their "career" is one of nonstop humiliation for themselves and that those who use their services actually have little to no respect for them as human beings. And the women ending up with little self respect as well. That doesn't change by legalizing it.

Yeah but the conditions prostitutes face does go up with legalization. Take for example rape. Potential john rapes a hooker. The hooker can go to the cops but wait if she does she will get in trouble for being a prostitute so she better not if she wants to keep her job. Legalize it and that problem goes away.

They learn to mentally distance themselves while degrading themselves in exchange for cash as a self-defense mechanism, they are not sexually enjoying themselves and many find they can't enjoy sex even when they form a relationship. Their ability to make and maintain a healthy relationship is very poor. Prostitutes are far more likely to run through a series of men who only inflict more damage to their self-image while being verbally and/or physically abused. Emotionally healthy men are extremely unlikely to choose as a mate and potential mother of their children - a woman who makes a living selling her body to other men for cash. That fact never changes by legalizing prostitution.

Where are your sources for any of this?

Prostitutes are a throw-away class for whom the vast majority of the population have no real respect -male and female alike. Which is why they are so often the target of violence by their johns and pimps.

The fact that they can't go to police also helps a lot. Once again legalize it and that problem goes away.

Legalizing prostitution has never once rid a society of this seedy and the most depraved aspects of prostitution and what it does to those so economically desperate they are driven to it. It has only added another level of prostitution to that which already existed and will still exist. Legalizing it won't clear the streets of desperate runaways, drug addicted, mentally ill or homeless women who are economically desperate enough to agree to perform sex acts on a john for a few dollars. Legalizing it doesn't suddenly provide all prostitutes with a living wage, a pension plan and health insurance and allow all prostitutes to charge more for their services. It doesn't increase the respectability of the job, doesn't give them greater self esteem, doesn't improve their ability to form healthier relationships. And it doesn't change the demand for the low-end, cheap services of the most desperate in society who will still put themselves at the highest risk in exchange for a few bucks.

But it does improve all sorts of stuff so if you care about them oh so much to think you can make decisions for them why aren't you pushing for legalizing it?

In spite of the fact that proponents of legalized prostitution insist they will drop - the rates of STDs, AIDS and violence/crimes against prostitutes doesn't change. None of that drops. That is because legalizing prostitution only increases the size of this segment of society who sell their sexual services for cash -while increasing the size of class of those now willing to pay for it. But doesn't eliminate the most economically desperate who are willing to put themselves at the greatest risk. Or eliminate the class of men willing to pay for low end cheap services and the riskiest kind of sex and still unwilling to pay more for it in a legal brothel.

Actually you're dead wrong, in Nevada it's legalized and they require condoms and frequent STD checks. You think that won't decrease STDs?

No little girl grows up dreaming of becoming a prostitute. Legalizing it won't change the fact it is an role primarily held by desperate women economically forced to it as the only means of support they believe is open to them. Calling a woman a "whore" is a really nasty insult and statement about what kind of woman the insulter considers her to be. A statement about the belief she is the kind of woman with so little self respect she would sell herself. Most often said by a man. It isn't EVER intended to be a compliment about her choice of career. Legalizing it won't change that.

The fact that desperate women will sell their bodies is a contributing factor to the male mentality that women are not their full equal in society. It reinforces male dominance and diminishes the role of women to all those men who consider themselves superior to women. And unfortunately, that male mentality has predominated throughout history and in most countries -still does. It is men who invariably rationalize the loudest that legalizing the act for women who are so economically desperate they are willing to humiliate and debase themselves by sexually servicing a stranger who has no concern for her welfare whatsoever and is highly unlikely to ever consider her his equal in society -somehow causes no harm to anyone and is therefore a "victimless" crime. Of course it harms someone and reinforces that harm with each trick. The fact a man shoved a bill in her hand doesn't change that either.

I do not see in ANY way how legalizing prostitution improves the human condition, sorry.

Who gives a shit what the john thinks of her? Hoenstly why should that matter? There's also male prostitutes so any man who uses that as proof of women's inequality is an idiot.

And there is no victim, the women chose to do it. Blab all you want about economic factors the fact still remains that they could've chosen not to be a prostitute and yet they didn't.

It's just that simple.

Or are you going to tell me that anyone working at a job that has negative health effects makes the workers victims? Because if that's the case then we can make football players poor victims of a bad profession, speaking of which you really think conditions for football players would improve if we made the sport illegal. Really you've gone on and on about prostitution being this horrible job (with no sources) and yet you still support arresting prostitutes who are 'forced' to work at the job. It sounds almost sadistic in nature (I wonder if sadism is part of the human nature).

If they didn't want to work at such a horrible job as whoring themselves but chose to anyway then they either liked it better than the alternatives or had no other alternatives and now you want to discourage them from being prostitutes. If it works they have to choose a job they wouldn't prefer as much or if it doesn't work they're worse off than legalized prostitution.

But hey I mean you always know best, any alternative is better than prostitutes there can't possibly exist worse alternatives that they would then have to pursue.

Hooray for the nanny government making decisions for everyone.

 

[Father Time]

History has shown over and over and over again -that societies which have chosen the latter -have already guaranteed their inevitable collapse as a result of the moral decay.

Societies of all types collapse throughout history. Even the ones based on very puritan 'moral' beliefs are now gone.

Oh and would you mind providing a source for societies collapsing or degrading if people are allowed to have 'loose morals' because it seems like a carbon copy of the slippery slope fallacy.

 

[Father Time]

Legaliszed prostituion is about the same as legalized alcohol consumption.
And if you take precautions, you propably will have less deaths from fucking than from drinking alcohol.
at least thats the case in Germany were both are legal.

Aye alcohol is a bad decision

{insert long winded speech on the horrors of alcoholism here}

but I don't see many people begging the government to make sure people don't choose that bad decision.

 

[Neser Boha]

Good grief, I give up.

Go ahead, legalize prostitution. That way nobody has to worry about the poor wretches.

Actually, AllieBaba... Legalizing prostitution would make it better for those - as you call them - wretches. They would be better protected - against violence, abuse, and STDs, etc. Furthermore, the 'market' would get regulated, which would also take - I believe - largely care of the human trafficking issue AND would the states would increase their tax revenues (those can be used to combat human trafficking and sex slavery, etc.)

If there were legal 'red light' districts all throughout the country, the prospect of getting an illegal and indeed an enslaved prostitute imported somewhere from Uzbekistan would be much less attractive to them weirdos... also, going to a whore-house would be safer not only to the prostitutes, but also customers themselves simply because they would 1. know that they don't have to worry about getting an STD, 2. know they don't have to worry about getting into problems with the law... I think actually legalizing prostitution is a major step at solving the problem of human trafficking. I'm totally for legalizing it.

Whether I think prostitution is moral, right/wrong, or whatever I think of people engaging in it - whether on the selling or buying side - is completely irrelevant... because logically, I can pretty safely conclude that it's better for the society as a whole to go along with legalizing it rather then keeping suppressing it and therefore fueling black market and illegal actions - of all kinds.

 

[Amanda]

Sorry, but being paid to go to work and talk on the phone is not your body being a commodity. You're selling your time and conversation, and possibly thought. As for paid phone sex, that already is legal, because again, that's not your body being a commodity. And no, selling your work effort is not "whoring yourself out". Little weak on the concept, obviously.

You don't get how there's a line between acceptable and unacceptable? So you think if anything is acceptable legal behavior, then everything should be, because all lines are just arbitrary?

I feel kind of sorry for you that you value yourself and physical intimacy so little that you really think allowing another human being inside your body is equivalent to telemarketing or credit counseling or whatever your job title is.

Sure it is. What's the big difference if I'm using my mouth to talk into a phone or suck a dick? or use my hands to type on a computer or give a hand job?

How sad that you really can't tell the difference. Think a man cannot tell the difference between the woman he hired to answer his phones -and the one he hired to suck his dick? Which one do you REALLY think he respects more?

Would you be able to tell the difference if it were your daughter? Would you tell HER there is no real difference and therefore she should be just as willing to sell her sexual services to any guy willing to part with a few bucks as she would be to answer someone's phones? If so -then I'm real glad you aren't my mother. My mother not only had FAR more respect for herself than that -she expected me too as well.

I get so tired of the moralizing. If it came down to starving and living in the street or turning tricks, I wouldn't even have to think about it, I know what I'd do. Anyone that wouldn't fight to survive shouldn't be passing on their genes. And you can tell your mom I said so.

 

[dilloduck]

Sure it is. What's the big difference if I'm using my mouth to talk into a phone or suck a dick? or use my hands to type on a computer or give a hand job?

How sad that you really can't tell the difference. Think a man cannot tell the difference between the woman he hired to answer his phones -and the one he hired to suck his dick? Which one do you REALLY think he respects more?

Would you be able to tell the difference if it were your daughter? Would you tell HER there is no real difference and therefore she should be just as willing to sell her sexual services to any guy willing to part with a few bucks as she would be to answer someone's phones? If so -then I'm real glad you aren't my mother. My mother not only had FAR more respect for herself than that -she expected me too as well.

I get so tired of the moralizing. If it came down to starving and living in the street or turning tricks, I wouldn't even have to think about it, I know what I'd do. Anyone that wouldn't fight to survive shouldn't be passing on their genes. And you can tell your mom I said so.

I ain't telling my mom. She'd hunt you down and let you live with her instead.

 

[Care4all]

Legaliszed prostituion is about the same as legalized alcohol consumption.
And if you take precautions, you propably will have less deaths from fucking than from drinking alcohol.
at least thats the case in Germany were both are legal.

Aye alcohol is a bad decision

{insert long winded speech on the horrors of alcoholism here}

but I don't see many people begging the government to make sure people don't choose that bad decision.

we did that already, prohibition....no?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Legaliszed prostituion is about the same as legalized alcohol consumption.
And if you take precautions, you propably will have less deaths from fucking than from drinking alcohol.
at least thats the case in Germany were both are legal.

I've enjoyed both there and had no accidents or incidents from either. I did spend some time talking with one or two of the sex workers? whores? prostitutes? take your pick of name. One I, recall (it's been a very long time ago and the DM rate was 3.5 to the dollar meaning you could get laid for $20 in most establishments) but I digress. The girl in question said she was just picking up some money for college over the summer. She looked rather like Amanda's pic but with dark hair.

Due to Germany having legalized prostitution, it is very regulated and it seems on the face of it to be very safe. There is mandatory STD screening monthly for the girls. If a customer acts up they call the police. The contractual activity is conducted directly with the girl. I would say, as an outside observer, that this is an improvement of the human condition. The alternative is not no prostitution. The alternative is how far underground you push prostitution. My argument would be that the farther you push it underground, the more abusive it is for the providers of the service.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Like I said, in the places where I've been that it's legal (Europe, Brazil, etc), people seem to have a healthier attitude towards sex.

Incidentally, most of those countries are Christian by the way.

What is "healthier" about increasing the size of the segment of society that has divorced sexual activity from any emotional involvement and attachment to their partner and relegates it to nothing but a commodity to be bought and sold? I see nothing healthy there at all.

Forming a society is a pact among its members -no matter where that society is formed. And whether a society flourishes or disintegrates and collapses depends on whether its members have chosen a pact that expects and encourages a certain level of moral behavior from its members because doing so is considered to make a better society that benefits all. Or has decided they need nothing more from its members than the lowest common denominator and with an absence of any societal pressures on members to strive for any higher level of moral behavior.

History has shown over and over and over again -that societies which have chosen the latter -have already guaranteed their inevitable collapse as a result of the moral decay. Societies, like governments -collapse when a critical mass in society are no longer satisfied with the conditions that exist. The reason for having a society where members are expected to strive for a higher level of moral behavior is because that is the kind of society that satisfies the most people. Widespread immorality has never satisfied the majority for very long -and in fact, a society that tolerates widespread immoral behavior from its members has historically turned out to be a very poor environment for raising emotionally healthy future generations. And society isn't just about what Joe and Sally want to RIGHT NOW TODAY -it is an institution that evolved for the benefit of generations to come. Not just for today.

An absence of societal pressures on members to strive for a higher level of moral behavior has never once resulted in improving the human condition. Not once.

From my prospective, there is a balance to be achieved in such things. The US has struck the balance a bit too far to one side. I'm not arguing for no laws or no regulations. But, prohibition is on one end of a spectrum of possible regulations. We tend to try to be absolutists on these "moral" issues and it has never been to good effect.

If you want to talk about never resulting in improved human condition, you can look to our efforts in legislating morality through prohibition of activities. Prohibition of liquor and its consequent effect. Prohibition of drugs and its consequent effects. Prohibition of prostitution and its consequent effects. There is nothing that says you can't have "social pressure" not to engage in the activity. You can have a great campaign to change people's attitudes in favor of your own. The problem comes when you use the coercive hand of government to "force" everyone to adhere to your morals.