Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-12-2019, 08:38 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,505
That is all just gobbly-gook. I note that you don't use the term prostitution, but call it "sex work" in an attempt to use buzzwords to legitimize it.

You object to the term "sperm receptacle" but only because it seems demeaning, yet it accurately describes the act.

As far as the civil rights aspect, you know, you could just answer instead of telling me to read the entirety of the regulations, but in any event, there is a problem no matter which way the law rules. If sex is "special" then women certainly should not be required to engage in it if they do not want to, but then again, that is a reason why it should not be for sale. If it is not "special" then they should be required to have sex with a customer in a protected class just like a restaurant owner is required to serve all customers in a protected class. You can't have it both ways.

Empowerment? If that means that I can buy (or at least rent) a woman, as a piece of property or chattel, and perform sexually degrading acts upon her for a period of time, then count me out as supporting empowerment. This is just an ex post justification for engaging in acts which have been historically, across all cultures, religions, and societies, as being an indecent and immoral act. Try to feel good about yourself if you want, and I certainly will not personally insult anyone, but don't expect the rest of us to play along with that fiction.

Again, the real test, and I don't mean to get personal, but if your wife, your daughter, your sister, or someone close to you engaged in prostitution, would you believe that was empowering for her or in any way positive? If so, I think that is terribly misguided. Those people are worth more than providing their bodies to the next guy with money. They are individuals with ideas, thoughts, personalities, and knowledge to share. They should not be reduced to the basest of outdated male prehistoric thoughts of just someone to ejaculate inside.

Last edited by UltraVires; 01-12-2019 at 08:42 AM.
  #52  
Old 01-12-2019, 09:44 AM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
That is all just gobbly-gook. I note that you don't use the term prostitution, but call it "sex work" in an attempt to use buzzwords to legitimize it.

You object to the term "sperm receptacle" but only because it seems demeaning, yet it accurately describes the act.

As far as the civil rights aspect, you know, you could just answer instead of telling me to read the entirety of the regulations, but in any event, there is a problem no matter which way the law rules. If sex is "special" then women certainly should not be required to engage in it if they do not want to, but then again, that is a reason why it should not be for sale. If it is not "special" then they should be required to have sex with a customer in a protected class just like a restaurant owner is required to serve all customers in a protected class. You can't have it both ways.

Empowerment? If that means that I can buy (or at least rent) a woman, as a piece of property or chattel, and perform sexually degrading acts upon her for a period of time, then count me out as supporting empowerment. This is just an ex post justification for engaging in acts which have been historically, across all cultures, religions, and societies, as being an indecent and immoral act. Try to feel good about yourself if you want, and I certainly will not personally insult anyone, but don't expect the rest of us to play along with that fiction.
Ok let me see if I can sum up this post and your previous post.

Presently, in the USA, and in many countries, prostitution is nominally illegal. Some level of force on behalf of the cops, and the extraordinary step of locking a person behind bars is sometimes done if they are caught offering sex for money.

To be totally fair to your position, most prostitutes are not actually jailed for very long even when caught. Sting operations aren't that common and de facto brothels stay in business for years. In addition, in recent years many prostitutes have become "sugar babies", which is basically legal. (it's probably not legal but it's virtually impossible to prosecute)

Nevertheless, some people think that society should reserve the extraordinary step of jailing people not for when other people engage in behavior that we personally and a 50%+1 majority of our peers don't like, but instead it should be reserved for behavior we can show in a concrete manner are actively harming the rest of us.

You have not actually shown an active harm to ordinary people in your arguments against prostitution. You talk about young women being emotionally degraded, or treated badly, but not something that threatens the well being of general society.

Robbery, theft, murder, assault, fraud - these are active acts that definitely harm our well being, and it's generally agreed everywhere that perpetrators should be jailed.

But "emotional harm" because some women are hos? STDs spread to the prostitutes and the willing clients of those prostitutes?

Now, yes, occasionally women have been kidnapped and made to serve as prostitutes. But it sure would be a lot easier for them to be rescued if every client that saw them could just call the police, openly state he'd been to 'such and such brothel' at this address, and they would go make a routine visit and check the ID of this worker to make sure she's not missing and of legal age.

It is overwhelmingly agreed that the protection of the law is part of what makes civilized society and business possible. Taking that protection away is a bad thing.

You also have not addressed the New Zealand example. Do you think the example is false, that by legalizing sex work with sensible policies there has not been a reduction in harm? Because if you believe the example is true - that the reported low rate of negative consequences is factually correct - I don't see how you can continue this debate in good faith.
  #53  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:25 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,505
SamuelA makes some excellent points and I will respond to those, but I have some business to attend to.

However, a thought came into my mind. If sex is something which may be sold (and bear with me here on the principle) then why should rape then be punished as harshly as it is? If society assigns a monetary value to sex, then her damages should be limited to a contract principle, at least in some non forcible instances, no?

If a woman sells her body for sex, and that is legal, then what happens if a man's credit card is declined after the act? Is that a rape or a larceny?
  #54  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:55 AM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
SamuelA makes some excellent points and I will respond to those, but I have some business to attend to.

However, a thought came into my mind. If sex is something which may be sold (and bear with me here on the principle) then why should rape then be punished as harshly as it is? If society assigns a monetary value to sex, then her damages should be limited to a contract principle, at least in some non forcible instances, no?

If a woman sells her body for sex, and that is legal, then what happens if a man's credit card is declined after the act? Is that a rape or a larceny?
This isn't very inconsistent. We have long since agreed that holding a gun to a convenience store clerk's face and making him/her give you a pack of smokes is not remotely the same thing as putting some money down, he/she accepts the money, and gives you the cigarettes. The first case is a crime routinely punished with life imprisonment, the latter is a vice that you are taxed for.

As for the credit card declining : same thing as the convenience store example. If later the transaction gets cancelled by the bank, this doesn't make it a robbery retroactively. And this has been tested by the courts.

Where it actually gets really dicey is when you're talking about free transactions, and the other partner arguing that by not saying anything when you reached over the counter and got your own smokes, they were silently saying no, and yet you've visited another store that same week and that clerk meant yes, yes by the silence...

Last edited by SamuelA; 01-12-2019 at 11:59 AM.
  #55  
Old 01-12-2019, 12:19 PM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,777
Oh, and where there wasn't force involved? We already have this happen routinely. "Skeezy" men or "players" routinely fraudulently misstate their income, their willingness to marry, and so on. Similarly, "gold diggers" and "frigid bitches" routinely make men go on many expensive dates before casting them aside before any intimacy occurs.

There is presently no recourse for this fraud.

Prostitution style relationships are arguably more efficient and honest in some respects.

But for cases where a client promises a large future payment for work performed in advance and fails to pay the contractor...well, it's the same situation as when Trump fails to pay for pianos. Similar recourse (or not) available through the courts. It doesn't become armed robbery.

Last edited by SamuelA; 01-12-2019 at 12:21 PM.
  #56  
Old 01-12-2019, 12:44 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 26,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Nevertheless, some people think that society should reserve the extraordinary step of jailing people not for when other people engage in behavior that we personally and a 50%+1 majority of our peers don't like, but instead it should be reserved for behavior we can show in a concrete manner are actively harming the rest of us.

You have not actually shown an active harm to ordinary people in your arguments against prostitution. You talk about young women being emotionally degraded, or treated badly, but not something that threatens the well being of general society.

Robbery, theft, murder, assault, fraud - these are active acts that definitely harm our well being, and it's generally agreed everywhere that perpetrators should be jailed.

But "emotional harm" because some women are hos?
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
If sex is something which may be sold (and bear with me here on the principle) then why should rape then be punished as harshly as it is? If society assigns a monetary value to sex, then her damages should be limited to a contract principle, at least in some non forcible instances, no?
I was going to question why you, SamuelA, seem so dismissive of "emotional harm" vs. "active harm." It seems to me that the reason we have such stringent laws and social taboos against sexual offenses like rape, sexual assault, molestation, and sexual harassment, is because of the psychological or emotional harm these things cause. It's hard for me to justify why some of these things should be regarded so negatively if I'm not allowed to consider "emotional harm."

I'm not sure how much relevance this has to whether prostitution should be illegal. But at least, it makes me question anyone who bluntly says "Sexual transactions should be treated just like any other transactions": does that mean that sexual offenses and unwanted actions should be treated no different than any other offenses and unwanted actions? and if not, what is it that makes the difference?

Quote:
If a woman sells her body for sex, and that is legal, then what happens if a man's credit card is declined after the act? Is that a rape or a larceny?
We've actually had threads on this kind of issue beforeófor example, Are prostitutes raped if they don't get paid?
  #57  
Old 01-12-2019, 01:47 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,143
Based on supply and demand, prostitution would probably be very difficult to eradicate, were that a worthy goal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
That sounds good as a general theory, but if consistently applied, it would tend to make all laws banning any product or service unconstitutional. Are laws against heroin unconstitutional because it deprives me of my trade...which is selling heroin? What if I am a machine gun manufacturer? A bald eagle hunter?
The post to which you responded did not mention constitutionality. I suggest thinking in terms of tradeoffs and relative harm rather than absolutes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
... But multiply that by a million. Now we have whorehouses with advertisements, increased STDs and unwanted children and yes, the moral argument that it cheapens and demeans sex. I mean, how special is the marital bond during sex between my wife and I when I can purchase sex at the Mustang Ranch a mile and half away? ....
Cigarettes are legal, but advertising is restricted. And STD and unwanted children are generally less of a problem with (sufficiently upscale) prostitutes than with "free" girls.

Trafficking of female slaves is a HUGE problem, and that should be the focus of law enforcement ó not voluntary prostitution. And all too often, the enslaved women are treated by police as criminals rather than victims. Does legalization help or hinder the power of pimps? I'm not sure ó but that is the key question.
  #58  
Old 01-12-2019, 03:08 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
That is all just gobbly-gook.
...ROFL!

Quote:
I note that you don't use the term prostitution, but call it "sex work" in an attempt to use buzzwords to legitimize it.
Most sex workers prefer the term "sex work". It isn't a buzzword. Its accepted terminology used by our government, the United Nations, and people all over the world. It is merely being respectful.

Quote:
You object to the term "sperm receptacle" but only because it seems demeaning, yet it accurately describes the act.
It doesn't "seem demeaning." It is demeaning. Its the height of degradation to use a demeaning term when you have the choice to use a completely different term. Its the height of hypocrisy that you have chosen to use a demeaning term to describe sex workers but you don't use a demeaning term to describe the client.

You reveal yourself here. I can see right through you.

Quote:
As far as the civil rights aspect, you know, you could just answer instead of telling me to read the entirety of the regulations, but in any event, there is a problem no matter which way the law rules.
There is no problem. Its all in your head. The regulation:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Law Reform Act
16 Inducing or compelling persons to provide commercial sexual services or earnings from prostitution
(1)
No person may do anything described in subsection (2) with the intent of inducing or compelling another person (person A) toó
(a)
provide, or to continue to provide, commercial sexual services to any person; or
(b)
provide, or to continue to provide, to any person any payment or other reward derived from commercial sexual services provided by person A.
(2)
The acts referred to in subsection (1) are any explicit or implied threat or promise that any person (person B) willó
(a)
improperly use, to the detriment of any person, any power or authority arising out ofó
(i)
any occupational or vocational position held by person B; or
(ii)
any relationship existing between person B and person A:
(b)
commit an offence that is punishable by imprisonment:
(c)
make an accusation or disclosure (whether true or false)ó
(i)
of any offence committed by any person; or
(ii)
of any other misconduct that is likely to damage seriously the reputation of any person; or
(iii)
that any person is unlawfully in New Zealand:
(d)
supply, or withhold supply of, any controlled drug within the meaning of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
(3)
Every person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
Section 16(3): amended, on 1 July 2013, by section 413 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (2011 No 81).

17 Refusal to provide commercial sexual services
(1)
Despite anything in a contract for the provision of commercial sexual services, a person may, at any time, refuse to provide, or to continue to provide, a commercial sexual service to any other person.
(2)
The fact that a person has entered into a contract to provide commercial sexual services does not of itself constitute consent for the purposes of the criminal law if he or she does not consent, or withdraws his or her consent, to providing a commercial sexual service.
(3)
However, nothing in this section affects a right (if any) to rescind or cancel, or to recover damages for, a contract for the provision of commercial sexual services that is not performed.
Nobody can be compelled to to have sex for any reason. Consent must always be present and can be withdrawn at any time.

Quote:
If sex is "special" then women certainly should not be required to engage in it if they do not want to, but then again, that is a reason why it should not be for sale. If it is not "special" then they should be required to have sex with a customer in a protected class just like a restaurant owner is required to serve all customers in a protected class. You can't have it both ways.
Well you can "have it both ways." We do have it "both ways." You are objectively wrong.

That might upset you: but I don't really care?

Quote:
Empowerment? If that means that I can buy (or at least rent) a woman, as a piece of property or chattel, and perform sexually degrading acts upon her for a period of time, then count me out as supporting empowerment.
BYE!

Quote:
This is just an ex post justification for engaging in acts which have been historically, across all cultures, religions, and societies, as being an indecent and immoral act.
What is fundamentally indecent or immoral about fucking?

Quote:
Try to feel good about yourself if you want, and I certainly will not personally insult anyone, but don't expect the rest of us to play along with that fiction.
It isn't a fiction. We undertook law reform in 2003. The world didn't end. It isn't about "feeling good." It doesn't affect me at all.

Quote:
Again, the real test, and I don't mean to get personal, but if your wife, your daughter, your sister, or someone close to you engaged in prostitution, would you believe that was empowering for her or in any way positive?
What part of my original response to your question did you fail to understand?

The real test is "are sex workers in support of the change, does it make them safer, does it give them the same basic protections as everyone else?"

Because it isn't about me. Or my feelings. If I had a wife or a daughter (and I have a sister) they are not my property. They have agency and get to make their own decisions. It shouldn't be the job of the state to police those decisions because of "how you or I feel about those decisions."


Quote:
If so, I think that is terribly misguided.
Well there's a fucking surprise.

Quote:
Those people are worth more than providing their bodies to the next guy with money. They are individuals with ideas, thoughts, personalities, and knowledge to share. They should not be reduced to the basest of outdated male prehistoric thoughts of just someone to ejaculate inside.
What you think of them is none of their fucking business. Its pretty fucking obvious you treat them with contempt. You are arguing they are "worth more" while simultaneously calling them "sperm receptacle's." We know who you are. We can see right through you.
  #59  
Old 01-12-2019, 04:18 PM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,406
Additionally, it's worth noting that not all sex workers are women, nor do all sex workers do anything involving semen.
  #60  
Old 01-12-2019, 05:28 PM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
This argument only stands up if you think that all a man gets out of marriage is sex. Which, both historically and in the present day, is nonsense.
It's very true that men (and women) get much, much more out of marriage than just sex. But many men never become aware of all the non-sexual ways that marriage benefits them, and consider leaving the marriage when they think they'd be more satisfied elsewhere. And for many, the need for sex is the first motivator that gets them up off the sofa and into the dating scene. This may be less true than in earlier times in history, but most prostitution law dates back to times when stereotypical gender roles were the norm.

So I do tend to think some of the intent behind prostitution laws is to keep women from having to compete with prostitutes for male attention.

People will suggest that maybe society's interests are better served if sex-seeking men just go straight for prostitutes and bypass the dating pool altogether. But I think life is more complicated than that, and many people are interested enough in a relationship that they're willing to invest a little effort in domesticating an unrefined horndog. Women already complain about the lack of available men, and I don't think that situation would improve if prostitution allowed the mainly-sex-motivated men to opt out of the dating pool entirely. But, I could be wrong.
  #61  
Old 01-12-2019, 08:36 PM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
I was going to question why you, SamuelA, seem so dismissive of "emotional harm" vs. "active harm." It seems to me that the reason we have such stringent laws and social taboos against sexual offenses like rape, sexual assault, molestation, and sexual harassment, is because of the psychological or emotional harm these things cause. It's hard for me to justify why some of these things should be regarded so negatively if I'm not allowed to consider "emotional harm."
Ok you missed the plot there. UltraVires was talking about emotional harm to women who aren't prostitutes if other women were allowed to voluntarily become prostitutes without fear of arrest. And I'm saying it's sort of a tyranny of the majority to have laws like that, it's a weak justification. Very much similar to laws against sodomy.

The general public was against it because adults who do not engage in sodomy, nor were they made to witness it, would "emotionally harmed" by just knowing other consenting adults might be engaging in sodomy behind closed doors, without fearing that the state might break in and haul them to jail.

Very much similar to the arguments against prostitution, really. You don't have to ever visit a prostitute, witness an act of prostitution, or prostitute yourself if it were made legal under a sensible regulatory scheme. (you might notice that the New Zealand one doesn't allow advertising except as text print ads, no lurid billboards outside brothels). Yet clearly adults like UltraVires would dislike just knowing that other men and women are doing this and would ask the local lawmakers (and ultimately, the local sheriff) to put a stop to it.

Last edited by SamuelA; 01-12-2019 at 08:39 PM.
  #62  
Old 01-13-2019, 01:55 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Ok let me see if I can sum up this post and your previous post.

Presently, in the USA, and in many countries, prostitution is nominally illegal. Some level of force on behalf of the cops, and the extraordinary step of locking a person behind bars is sometimes done if they are caught offering sex for money.

To be totally fair to your position, most prostitutes are not actually jailed for very long even when caught. Sting operations aren't that common and de facto brothels stay in business for years. In addition, in recent years many prostitutes have become "sugar babies", which is basically legal. (it's probably not legal but it's virtually impossible to prosecute)

Nevertheless, some people think that society should reserve the extraordinary step of jailing people not for when other people engage in behavior that we personally and a 50%+1 majority of our peers don't like, but instead it should be reserved for behavior we can show in a concrete manner are actively harming the rest of us.

You have not actually shown an active harm to ordinary people in your arguments against prostitution. You talk about young women being emotionally degraded, or treated badly, but not something that threatens the well being of general society.

Robbery, theft, murder, assault, fraud - these are active acts that definitely harm our well being, and it's generally agreed everywhere that perpetrators should be jailed.

But "emotional harm" because some women are hos? STDs spread to the prostitutes and the willing clients of those prostitutes?

Now, yes, occasionally women have been kidnapped and made to serve as prostitutes. But it sure would be a lot easier for them to be rescued if every client that saw them could just call the police, openly state he'd been to 'such and such brothel' at this address, and they would go make a routine visit and check the ID of this worker to make sure she's not missing and of legal age.

It is overwhelmingly agreed that the protection of the law is part of what makes civilized society and business possible. Taking that protection away is a bad thing.

You also have not addressed the New Zealand example. Do you think the example is false, that by legalizing sex work with sensible policies there has not been a reduction in harm? Because if you believe the example is true - that the reported low rate of negative consequences is factually correct - I don't see how you can continue this debate in good faith.
First, I am not suggesting that prostitutes should be jailed for long periods of time. The pimps and panderers absolutely should.

Second, you seem to be repeating the Libertarian ideal that so long as my individual act, or a multi-person individual act, considered in isolation does not impart some measurable form of harm on another person, then that act is not a proper purpose of regulation by the government. You repeat this firmly as if it is self evident.

Well, I and most people agree with it in principle but disagree with it in practice, and if we explore it further as I did above, I think nobody agrees with it in practice. Again, that would abolish most of the regulations that the NZ bill has enacted. For example, why can't the brothels advertise? If I pay a billboard company to advertise my brothel, and he willing accepts my money, who does it harm to tell someone an absolute truth that I have UltraVires' Mustang Chicken Ranch off of State Route 50, if you arrive prior to 8pm and purchase a blow job, the second one costs only a penny?

You seem to invoke the Libertarian ideal that the prostitution contract is semi-sacred and should not be touched by the government, but the regulations which also infringe on free choices and contracts are a-okay.

Further, this Libertarian principle, even if it could be practically applied, is simply not one that has been adopted in any society that I know of. Even in a free country like the United States, the government has general police powers to protect the health, safety, and yes, the morals of the people. Laws against fornication, adultery, cohabitation, sodomy, polygamy, prostitution, incest, working on Sundays, etc. have always been held to be within the legitimate power of government for nothing more than the fact that a majority believes that they are harmful to the good order and morality of society. Now I personally don't agree that several of those laws should continue to exist in 2019, but my objection is to the substance of the law, that we are more free sexually than we were before and society should reflect that. I don't have any objection to the power of government to pass those laws simply because there is no tangible physical or economic harm to another.

Again, your argument ignores the aggregation principle. It is not me just sitting at a bar with one other woman and negotiating a prostitution contract. Legalization would mean that millions of these contracts are negotiated, it will be visible to the public including children and young women who might not otherwise have considered a career in prostitution, and that the state will have a widespread presence in its regulation.

You make an excellent point which I believe can be summarized as follows: Outlaw prostitution all you want, but it will still go on. And recognizing that illegal prostitution is widespread, there is tangible harm to these women who can be and are actively exploited, in a condition not much different from slavery, but because of its illegal status, they are unable to go to the police and the courts for relief because they will be arrested and/or told that they should quit committing crimes. Is that a fair summary?

If so, then I believe that these harms can be addressed without taking the drastic step of full legalization. Have an amnesty if a prostitute comes forward on her own volitation. Modify the criminal code so that acts of prostitution when committed under what amounts to duress are not prosecuted or only prosecuted with a very, very minor penalty. Modify the code to include a crime of something like "Aggravated Pandering" whereby if you are keeping women captive in a sense, or plying them with drugs so that they can have the stomach for prostitution, then there are very severe penalties.

As far as New Zealand, I am not versed enough in its law or its experience to comment one way or another. But even if it works as advertised, I think a society that allows selling sex like the selling of a bushel of wheat or cattle has failed in its general duty to be a decent one, at least in that one respect. I'm not saying New Zealand is a failed society.
  #63  
Old 01-13-2019, 02:14 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
This isn't very inconsistent. We have long since agreed that holding a gun to a convenience store clerk's face and making him/her give you a pack of smokes is not remotely the same thing as putting some money down, he/she accepts the money, and gives you the cigarettes. The first case is a crime routinely punished with life imprisonment, the latter is a vice that you are taxed for.

As for the credit card declining : same thing as the convenience store example. If later the transaction gets cancelled by the bank, this doesn't make it a robbery retroactively. And this has been tested by the courts.

Where it actually gets really dicey is when you're talking about free transactions, and the other partner arguing that by not saying anything when you reached over the counter and got your own smokes, they were silently saying no, and yet you've visited another store that same week and that clerk meant yes, yes by the silence...
First, the theft of cigarettes is not comparable to sex without consent, unless we take the extraordinary step of saying that a woman's body is a chattel to be bought and sold (or rented).

Your cite is very instructive. The man gave the prostitute an envelope that he said contained money. After the sex act was complete, she opened the envelope and it contained pieces of paper (not money) and a card with a rose on it.

He was prosecuted and pled guilty. The high court allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea and he later took a plea deal. That case does not settle the issue.

If sex is a service for sale, then we why do we retain the old school morality that it is something sacred in this context. If it is offered for sale, then the theft of the service should logically only be punished as a theft, not an assault. IOW, legalized prostitution does take the extraordinary step of saying that women are chattel to be rented.
  #64  
Old 01-13-2019, 04:15 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
First, I am not suggesting that prostitutes should be jailed for long periods of time.
...so short periods are okay. Gotcha. And fines as well, I'm assuming?

Quote:
Second, you seem to be repeating the Libertarian ideal that so long as my individual act, or a multi-person individual act, considered in isolation does not impart some measurable form of harm on another person, then that act is not a proper purpose of regulation by the government.
I fucking hate Libertarian ideals. This has nothing to do with Libertarianism. It has everything to do with what you continue to ignore: the opinions and life experiences of the people that work in and around the sex industry.

Quote:
You repeat this firmly as if it is self evident.
I do not do this.

Quote:
Well, I and most people agree with it in principle but disagree with it in practice, and if we explore it further as I did above, I think nobody agrees with it in practice.
Except of course everyone that does agree with it in practice.

Quote:
Again, that would abolish most of the regulations that the NZ bill has enacted. For example, why can't the brothels advertise? If I pay a billboard company to advertise my brothel, and he willing accepts my money, who does it harm to tell someone an absolute truth that I have UltraVires' Mustang Chicken Ranch off of State Route 50, if you arrive prior to 8pm and purchase a blow job, the second one costs only a penny?
Fortunately I hate the Libertarian ideal. This isn't about Libertarianism. So this is utterly irrelevant.

Quote:
You seem to invoke the Libertarian ideal that the prostitution contract is semi-sacred and should not be touched by the government, but the regulations which also infringe on free choices and contracts are a-okay.
Except I'm not invoking the "Libertarian ideal." I fucking hate the Libertarian ideal. The industry is regulated. I've shown you the regulations.

Quote:
Further, this Libertarian principle, even if it could be practically applied, is simply not one that has been adopted in any society that I know of.
In case you haven't already figured it out: I hate the fucking Libertarian ideal, and nothing I've said at all has anything to do with Libertarianism.

Quote:
Even in a free country like the United States, the government has general police powers to protect the health, safety, and yes, the morals of the people.
Our laws around sex work are aimed at protecting their health and safety. But morals? You want the police to police morals? Really? Don't you guys market yourselves as "The Land of the Free"? Don't you mean "The Land of the Free unless you act in a way that I consider to be morally repugnant?"

Quote:
Laws against fornication, adultery, cohabitation, sodomy, polygamy, prostitution, incest, working on Sundays, etc. have always been held to be within the legitimate power of government for nothing more than the fact that a majority believes that they are harmful to the good order and morality of society.
If the majority of people think that working on a Sunday is "harmful to the good order and morality of society" then America has bigger fucking problems than I thought.

Quote:
Again, your argument ignores the aggregation principle. It is not me just sitting at a bar with one other woman and negotiating a prostitution contract. Legalization would mean that millions of these contracts are negotiated, it will be visible to the public including children and young women who might not otherwise have considered a career in prostitution, and that the state will have a widespread presence in its regulation.
Holy fucking shit! NOT THE AGGREGATION PRINCIPLE! How could I have forgotten such an important thing? :: googles aggregation principle :: Huh. That doesn't look relevant at all!

Sex work has been legal in New Zealand since two-thousand-and-fucking-three. Fifteen years. There must have been BILLIONS of contracts negotiated by your calculations. We've got fifteen years of data for you to look through if you like. You can see what happened to society before sex work was legalised and how it looks afterwards. Care to make predictions on how things have changed? Do you want to set some metrics? Pregnancies before and after the law change? STD's? Has our country been overrun by sex workers? Are we doomed?

Quote:
You make an excellent point which I believe can be summarized as follows: Outlaw prostitution all you want, but it will still go on. And recognizing that illegal prostitution is widespread, there is tangible harm to these women who can be and are actively exploited, in a condition not much different from slavery, but because of its illegal status, they are unable to go to the police and the courts for relief because they will be arrested and/or told that they should quit committing crimes. Is that a fair summary?
Nope. Not a fair summary.

This isn't about me. Or my thoughts. Or my opinions.

Its about the people you are ignoring. The people that you aren't and wont listen too.

Quote:
If so, then I believe that these harms can be addressed without taking the drastic step of full legalization.
Full legalization is not "drastic."

Quote:
Have an amnesty if a prostitute comes forward on her own volitation. Modify the criminal code so that acts of prostitution when committed under what amounts to duress are not prosecuted or only prosecuted with a very, very minor penalty. Modify the code to include a crime of something like "Aggravated Pandering" whereby if you are keeping women captive in a sense, or plying them with drugs so that they can have the stomach for prostitution, then there are very severe penalties.
And what happens when there is no duress? When sex workers freely and voluntarily engage in sex work?

As I said before:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
In 1997, the NZPC, along with the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women, the National Council of Women, the YWCA, as well as academics and members of parliament from both the left and right wing, came together at a forum to draft a bill.
The proposed law wasn't just plucked out of thin air. All the major stakeholders came together along with members of parliament from both the left and the right to draft this, and it took six years from the start of the process before it made its way into law.

But you have plucked your solution out of thin air. Its a solution based on your thoughts, your opinions, your morality. Did you spend more than ten minutes writing that up? If your solution doesn't involve talking to the people whose lives you are playing with then it isn't a solution that I can take seriously.

Quote:
As far as New Zealand, I am not versed enough in its law or its experience to comment one way or another. But even if it works as advertised,
It does work as advertised.

Quote:
I think a society that allows selling sex like the selling of a bushel of wheat or cattle has failed in its general duty to be a decent one, at least in that one respect.
I think a society reveals itself by how it treats its most marginalised people. And a society that treats sex workers as criminals, that locks them up, that fines them, that treats them like (in your words) "semen receptacles": a society that treats sex workers like that is not a decent one.

Quote:
I'm not saying New Zealand is a failed society.
I am saying that the way the United States treats sex workers is disgusting, disgraceful, and you can do much better than this.
  #65  
Old 01-13-2019, 11:05 AM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Even in a free country like the United States, the government has general police powers to protect the health, safety, and yes, the morals of the people. Laws against fornication, adultery, cohabitation, sodomy, polygamy, prostitution, incest, working on Sundays, etc. have always been held to be within the legitimate power of government for nothing more than the fact that a majority believes that they are harmful to the good order and morality of society.
Well, I guess we've reached our point of disagreement then. I don't see myself as Libertarian - but on the specific idea regarding "morals", since every "moral" you mention specifically is something that doesn't have a factual justification without drawing upon a specific religion, I am against the government policing them.

I think almost everything you mentioned is completely ok, even incest is a questionable thing to regulate without being consistent about it. We let adults with terrible genes reproduce, if we're going to regulate incest we should require all partners undergo a real genetic screening before conceiving. And require couples who have heritable diseases, especially some of the particularly nasty ones like Huntington's, have their embryos screened and prepared in a reproductive clinic (and edited if necessary).

But instead, ancient tribal beliefs of a particular tribe, one that is barely a majority in the USA anymore, are what we use instead.
  #66  
Old 01-13-2019, 12:24 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
If sex is a service for sale, then we why do we retain the old school morality that it is something sacred in this context. If it is offered for sale, then the theft of the service should logically only be punished as a theft, not an assault.
I donít see how that follows. Letís say Iím a prizefighter: my profession involves a contract being drawn up before I collect a paycheck, and in between I get punched in the face a bunch of times and itís all perfectly legal. And if some guy walks up to me on the street and punches me in the face, thatís not theft.

Letís say Iím an actor: a contract gets drawn up, and as weíd all agreed I then get punched because Iím playing a prizefighter. Or say Iím a stuntman: a contract gets drawn up, and as agreed I get punched because Iím standing in for the actor whoíd otherwise get punched because heís playing the prizefighter. Is all of that legal? Figure it is. Is it legal for some guy to walk up to me and punch me because Iím an actor or a stuntman? Figure itís not. Is it theft? Figure itís not.
  #67  
Old 01-13-2019, 08:40 PM
Textual Innuendo Textual Innuendo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Again, the real test, and I don't mean to get personal, but if your wife, your daughter, your sister, or someone close to you engaged in prostitution, would you believe that was empowering for her or in any way positive? If so, I think that is terribly misguided. Those people are worth more than providing their bodies to the next guy with money.
Not much to add given that Banquet Bear is doing such a great job with their empirical, fact-based refutation of your largely incoherent invective here, so all I have to say is...JFC you're a prude.

Go start a church or something if you want to impose your morality on two consenting adults doing something victimless, because at least then it's voluntary on your followers' behalf, but you should not be using the organs of the state to impose your prudishness on the rest of the adults in the country for no more coherent reason than "it's icky and I wouldn't want my daughter to do it".
  #68  
Old 01-13-2019, 11:45 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I don’t see how that follows. Let’s say I’m a prizefighter: my profession involves a contract being drawn up before I collect a paycheck, and in between I get punched in the face a bunch of times and it’s all perfectly legal. And if some guy walks up to me on the street and punches me in the face, that’s not theft.

Let’s say I’m an actor: a contract gets drawn up, and as we’d all agreed I then get punched because I’m playing a prizefighter. Or say I’m a stuntman: a contract gets drawn up, and as agreed I get punched because I’m standing in for the actor who’d otherwise get punched because he’s playing the prizefighter. Is all of that legal? Figure it is. Is it legal for some guy to walk up to me and punch me because I’m an actor or a stuntman? Figure it’s not. Is it theft? Figure it’s not.
I apologize for not being clear. I'm not suggesting that if you throw a prostitute down on the bed, beat on her, and forcibly have sex with her that you have only committed a theft of services. You have clearly committed a battery, perhaps even an aggravated battery, and yes a sexual assault. Why? Because there was no prostitution contract, and therefore no privilege to do any of the above, even if she otherwise would have agreed had you paid.

I am talking about a scenario where you pretended to pay or promised to pay (e.g. an envelope filled with paper, a knowing use of a declined credit card, I'll pay you tomorrow, etc.). Just a thing does not become a retroactive rape anymore than a prize fighter that gets stiffed on his payday may claim that his opponent battered him.

Why? Because in both instances, the physical contact was agreed upon, and just like in any business, if you contract to provide a service, and make a decision not to get the money up front and verify payment, you run the risk of having to make collection efforts down the road. To say that it is rape in this circumstance would be like saying that if I don't pay the plumber for his services that I should be charged with slavery as I required him to work for free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Textual Innuendo View Post
Not much to add given that Banquet Bear is doing such a great job with their empirical, fact-based refutation of your largely incoherent invective here, so all I have to say is...JFC you're a prude.

Go start a church or something if you want to impose your morality on two consenting adults doing something victimless, because at least then it's voluntary on your followers' behalf, but you should not be using the organs of the state to impose your prudishness on the rest of the adults in the country for no more coherent reason than "it's icky and I wouldn't want my daughter to do it".
You act as if I just made up this system of government last Tuesday. If you want to have a Libertarian society, then elect those people who will do so. My ideas have been law across all religions and across all society since the Code of Hammurabi. I think the burden is on you to show the need for the change, especially (and I know it wasn't you that said it) to say that things like polygamy and incest should be permitted.

Perhaps you would like to answer the problems I posed earlier. If the idea is that a prostitution contract is an act of two free people agreeing to a thing which has no harm on any other person, then any regulation of it must fail. Why can't two free people advertise the brothel? Why can't two free people agree to a prostitution contract with no condoms involved?

What if the state proposes that the place must close after certain hours, like is done currently with bars? Why can't two free people engage in a liquor purchase contract at 4am on Sunday morning?

Can a prostitution contract, between two free people, allow for sex on a public park bench? During the school field trip? I mean, who really is it harming? These kids will learn about sex soon enough anyways.

I can keep tossing out examples, but at some point, I think you would say, "Well, okay, that one is a bit too far and I would support that regulation." All that shows is that contrary to having a political philosophy that stands on its own, it just means that we draw the line at different places.

Last edited by UltraVires; 01-13-2019 at 11:47 PM.
  #69  
Old 01-14-2019, 01:21 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
and yes, the moral argument that it cheapens and demeans sex. I mean, how special is the marital bond during sex between my wife and I when I can purchase sex at the Mustang Ranch a mile and half away?
Sorry, but you seem to be saying that other people shouldn't have the sex they want so that you will feel that your sex is more valuable? Because by forbidding prostitution, you aren't just restricting your ability to purchase sex, you're restricting everyone else ability to do so, whether or not they are married, whether or not they share your views, whether or not they feel that their sex is cheapened by the existence of prostitution.

I'm not sure how it's different from banning same-sex marriage so that you will feel that your man with a woman marriage is more special, for instance.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #70  
Old 01-14-2019, 01:50 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post

You object to the term "sperm receptacle" but only because it seems demeaning, yet it accurately describes the act.
It also accurately describes the act between you and your wife. Still, I doubt that you're using these word when you talk to her. There's nothing that makes the sex between a prostitute and her patron, the sex during a one night stand between two partners who just want a good fuck, the sex between two fuck buddies, the sex between occasional lovers, and the sex between you and your wife more or less vile or more or less noble.

I think you can't grasp the concept that not everybody perceives sex as being inherently degrading unless done in some very special circumstances, as you do.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 01-14-2019 at 01:55 AM.
  #71  
Old 01-14-2019, 02:26 AM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You act as if I just made up this system of government last Tuesday. If you want to have a Libertarian society, then elect those people who will do so. My ideas have been law across all religions and across all society since the Code of Hammurabi. I think the burden is on you to show the need for the change, especially (and I know it wasn't you that said it) to say that things like polygamy and incest should be permitted.

Perhaps you would like to answer the problems I posed earlier. If the idea is that a prostitution contract is an act of two free people agreeing to a thing which has no harm on any other person, then any regulation of it must fail. Why can't two free people advertise the brothel? Why can't two free people agree to a prostitution contract with no condoms involved?

What if the state proposes that the place must close after certain hours, like is done currently with bars? Why can't two free people engage in a liquor purchase contract at 4am on Sunday morning?

Can a prostitution contract, between two free people, allow for sex on a public park bench? During the school field trip? I mean, who really is it harming? These kids will learn about sex soon enough anyways.
You do understand that this statement is bullshit, right? Our knowledge of the past is imperfect but for one thing, many societies have openly had various forms of prostitutes and brothels without anything like today's form of industrialized and relatively efficient policing. A law nobody enforces is a meaningless piece of paper.

And the park bench example - for most of human history adult members of the village had very little privacy. Realistically this probably happened all the time.

In any case, the park bench example does affect other people who witness it. This is different from if the partners are asked to take it inside, or at least out of view of the public.

Which come to think of it, there are public parks in France where this kind of thing happens. And, well, I don't think everything has fallen into ruin as a result of this.
  #72  
Old 01-14-2019, 03:22 AM
yellow sausage bandit's Avatar
yellow sausage bandit yellow sausage bandit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
My ideas have been law across all religions and across all society since the Code of Hammurabi.
If you really believe that, you are quite ignorant about all religions and all society since the Code of Hammurabi (which, btw, granted protections for prostitutes)
  #73  
Old 01-14-2019, 03:56 AM
Bibliothecarius Bibliothecarius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 199
Short answer: Because lawmakers in the majority of countries in the world love sticking their nose in other people's private business and have to justify the often insane amount of money they get paid. If people respected other people's life decisions and thought about things rationally, we could easily get rid of at least 60% of all laws, by my rough estimate.

Besides, we are all prostitutes. It's just that most of us sell our souls for money instead of our bodies.
  #74  
Old 01-14-2019, 08:17 AM
BenedictusXIV BenedictusXIV is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 50
So since the discussion has swayed from legality to morality, the libertarian in me feels inclined to throw in a few cents.
Governments regulate much more than they are historically entitled to and we are so used to it that we don't even notice anymore.
Let's categorize:
- Some religions forbid prostitution. That's fine, but that makes it a matter between the church and its members. Unless we are living in a theocracy the government should not have an involvement.
- Protection of citizens. Yes, the first and foremost governmental task. But who needs protection here and against what?
- Public health. Kind of questionable. Why treat vd different then any other disease that one could attract in say the waterpark? Also these diseases are not restricted to prostitutes.
- Humanitarian. The focus here is on female prostitutes, but you overlook a large number of gay male prostitutes. As long as nobody is forced to perform any act against their will, no harm is done.

So there really is no good argument in favor of criminalizing prostitution (or solliciting). It's one of those things, there will always be a demand and there will always be a supply. Criminalize it and you play right in the hands of the mafia who specializes in that kind of transaction. Legalize it and you keep things decent, under control and....taxable!

Do I want my daughter to become a prostitute? Of course not, but there are many things I don't want my daughter (or sons) to become. Prositute is not even ranked in the top 10.
As somebody also pointed out already, there is a very thin line between prostitution and sex in return for (financial) favors. Suppose I was a Slowenian supermodel and I would marry a New York real estate agent who is 24 years older, really ugly, has a bad character and has a history of sleeping around with other women but has a nice penthouse and bottomless credit. Would that make me a prostitute?
  #75  
Old 01-14-2019, 09:01 AM
Paul in Qatar Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 12,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenedictusXIV View Post
- Some religions forbid prostitution.

Can you elaborate? I am unaware of many things, but off the top of my head I am unaware of a sacred text prohibiting prostitution.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #76  
Old 01-14-2019, 09:12 AM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenedictusXIV View Post
Governments regulate much more than they are historically entitled to...
Without getting into the nuance of that particular statement, it's an interesting addition to the discussion: for a Libertarian or a small-c conservative, the very fact of reducing government involvement in individual lives goes into the "legalize it" column when considering the net benefit or detriment to society.

Governments, as societal constructs, always regulate societal norms to some degree or another, pretty much by definition. We consider chattel slavery to be broadly detrimental to our society, and therefore allow our government to outlaw it. We consider adults having sex with 12 year olds to be broadly detrimental to our society, so we outlaw that. We believe that having speed limits is broadly beneficial to society, so we enforce them. Lather, rinse, repeat.

What I believe UltraVires is arguing (and I trust he'll correct me if I mischaracterize), is that legal prostitution is, on balance, detrimental to our society and therefore ought to be discouraged through illegality and punishment.

I'm honestly still not 100% sure quite what his reasoning is, or the calculus he is using to determine that the negatives outweigh the benefits. These discussions tend toward the emotional on all sides. But that's what they boil down to: Is X a net benefit to society?
  #77  
Old 01-14-2019, 09:17 AM
BenedictusXIV BenedictusXIV is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 50
Why do I have to do all the googling?

Judaism
Islam
Not sure about christianity given the take that Jesus slept with a hooker. Probably one of those controversions between new and old testament.
I believe Hinduism has no explicit prohibition.

However, with most religions it doesn't really matter what the scripture says, but how it is interpreted.
  #78  
Old 01-14-2019, 09:48 AM
BenedictusXIV BenedictusXIV is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
What I believe UltraVires is arguing (and I trust he'll correct me if I mischaracterize), is that legal prostitution is, on balance, detrimental to our society and therefore ought to be discouraged through illegality and punishment.
I wasn't responding to any particualar post, but if I read UltraVires last post then the reasoning is
Quote:
I can keep tossing out examples, but at some point, I think you would say, "Well, okay, that one is a bit too far and I would support that regulation." All that shows is that contrary to having a political philosophy that stands on its own, it just means that we draw the line at different places.
If I pull that in extreme, then the reasoning is that because I believe murder is a crime, somebody else should be allowed to think walking barefoot is a crime.

My point is that you can be morally opposed to prostitution (or whatever), but that is no basis for prohibition. Society as a whole is perfectly capable of handling moral issues without government involvement.

Where do I draw the line? Quite simple, when people get harmed (physically or otherwise). That is when the government/the law should be there to protect you.

Last edited by BenedictusXIV; 01-14-2019 at 09:49 AM. Reason: fixed quote
  #79  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:02 AM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenedictusXIV View Post
My point is that you can be morally opposed to prostitution (or whatever), but that is no basis for prohibition.
I agree.

Quote:
Society as a whole is perfectly capable of handling moral issues without government involvement.
I disagree. Government is one of the ways we handle those issues; it is a part of "society as a whole." Without government and the rule of law it allows, we are left without an effective structure to establish and maintain many of the fundamental principles we hold valuable as a group.
  #80  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:12 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I note that you don't use the term prostitution, but call it "sex work" in an attempt to use buzzwords to legitimize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
Additionally, it's worth noting that not all sex workers are women, nor do all sex workers do anything involving semen.
Indeed, the term "sex work" covers a wider range of activities than straightforward prostitution. A hired dominatrix may be doing sex work without ever taking off her clothes or the customer achieving climax. There are people who get paid to clean other people's houses in the nude - no touching involved, only looking (and before your mind goes all "sexy French maid" I'll point out that the person I first heard about this from was David Sedaris, who wrote a book about his experiences doing this for a living). Strippers could likewise be classified as sex workers although I understand that some object to this categorization. Phone sex and webcam sex operators don't even have to be in the same hemisphere as their customer. It's a broad and complex industry involving a lot of transactions of varying legality that don't remotely fall into the "sperm receptacle" category.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
First, the theft of cigarettes is not comparable to sex without consent, unless we take the extraordinary step of saying that a woman's body is a chattel to be bought and sold (or rented).
While it's a fair point that sex is a service, not a good, I wonder if you'd characterize paying someone to wash your car or mow your lawn or debug your computer or do your taxes as treating their "body as chattel". If you'd prefer to narrow it down to services involving physical contact, that still includes professionals such as personal trainers, physiotherapists and other medical practitioners, masseurs/masseuses, and so on. I'm pretty sure the carer that helps an elderly person out of the bathtub isn't treating their body as chattel.
  #81  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:25 AM
DesertDog DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 4,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
What I believe UltraVires is arguing (and I trust he'll correct me if I mischaracterize), is that legal prostitution is, on balance, detrimental to our society and therefore ought to be discouraged through illegality and punishment.

I'm honestly still not 100% sure quite what his reasoning is, or the calculus he is using to determine that the negatives outweigh the benefits. These discussions tend toward the emotional on all sides. But that's what they boil down to: Is X a net benefit to society?
It's your typical wowser calculus of, "I don't like it so it should be illegal for you to do it."

Nevada has had legal prostitution far longer than New Zealand's example of 2003 and somehow, despite Ultra Vires' fears, society there has survived. The current law was carefully tailored to specifically make brothels illegal in Clark county (Las Vegas*) but leave it as a local option for the other counties. Of those, the three counties with an appreciable population -- Washoe (Reno, Sparks), Douglas (no incorporated cities at all) and Carson City have opted out, as have a couple other counties with your typical Nevada population of under 10,000. I have not been in Eastern Nevada much so I can't address them, but the counties adjacent to the three named above all have legal brothels just across the border from where people are living in those three counties.

And putting UV's fears about women being coerced into the profession, the help-wanted ads for the Las Vegas Sun and Reno Gazette Journal have a section for 'Ladies' with the understood implication they would be using their lady-bits in their employment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA
Which come to think of it, there are public parks in France where this kind of thing happens. And, well, I don't think everything has fallen into ruin as a result of this.
I had a girlfriend who spent her senior year at the Sorbonne circa 1972. She said that apartment rents were so high in Paris almost all undergrads were living at their parents' home or had two roommates if not three or four. As a consequence most of them would get it on in as secluded a public place they could find, but would do some of the preliminaries in a brasserie or restaurant where at least it was warm. Once she was in a restaurant with her boyfriend and another couple there was carrying on a bit much even by Parisian standards. There was an American tourist couple there and their son, about twelve, who was watching what amounted to public foreplay "with eyes the size of saucers." They sent him out to wait in the car.

She also remarked, "You can do the deed in the front seat of a Citroen 2CV."

*Yet the city abounds with streetwalkers; imagine that.
  #82  
Old 01-14-2019, 12:57 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
... For example, why can't the brothels advertise? If I pay a billboard company to advertise my brothel, and he willing accepts my money, who does it harm to tell someone an absolute truth that I have UltraVires' Mustang Chicken Ranch off of State Route 50, if you arrive prior to 8pm and purchase a blow job, the second one costs only a penny?

You seem to invoke the Libertarian ideal that the prostitution contract is semi-sacred and should not be touched by the government, but the regulations which also infringe on free choices and contracts are a-okay.
Nope. It is the one who insists "If X is tolerated then advertising X must be legal" who has drunk the Libertarian Kool-Aid.
  #83  
Old 01-14-2019, 01:23 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy Lumpy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,213
At least in the United States and some other countries prostitution is seen as a vice: something pleasurable or addictive but not healthy either for the individuals participating in it or the society at large that tolerates it. Comparable to drugs, alcohol, gambling, and smoking, all of which have been subject to varying levels of opprobrium at different times and places.

It's noteworthy that even when prostitution has been tolerated it has seldom been respectable (as some libertarian feminists say it should be). Prostitutes were often considered outcasts, beyond the pale of decent society. As were various "sin towns" or "dens of iniquity"; which provided they were across the tracks or outside some city or county line could be looked down on but considered someone else's problem- while quietly attracting patrons from "respectable" society.

This is a long standing alternative to something being either expressly legal or illegal and seriously enforced: consider it an externality. Hypocritical perhaps but often the least problematic muddle that can be managed.
  #84  
Old 01-14-2019, 08:01 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
This is a long standing alternative to something being either expressly legal or illegal and seriously enforced: consider it an externality. Hypocritical perhaps but often the least problematic muddle that can be managed.
...I disagree. The least problematic way sex work can be managed is (in my most humblest opinions, which is backed up with objective data), what we've done down under. You wouldn't believe how un-problematic its been since we stopped listening to the hypocrites and started listening to the people that are routinely ignored.
  #85  
Old 01-15-2019, 10:09 AM
Paul in Qatar Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 12,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenedictusXIV View Post
Why do I have to do all the googling?

Judaism
Islam
Not sure about christianity given the take that Jesus slept with a hooker. Probably one of those controversions between new and old testament.
I believe Hinduism has no explicit prohibition.

However, with most religions it doesn't really matter what the scripture says, but how it is interpreted.
You really do not have to do all the Googling. I would prefer you not make stuff up. You have not provided a cite of a religion forbidding prostitution.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #86  
Old 01-15-2019, 11:15 AM
BenedictusXIV BenedictusXIV is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar View Post
I would prefer you not make stuff up.
That hurt my feelings.

The URL on Judaism leads to an article titled "Issues in Jewish Ethics: Prostitution"
If you bother to read the article, you will come across
Quote:
The halakhah imposed a general prohibition on the professional prostitute, and the term came to include any woman who abandoned herself to any man even if not for pay, and states that "Whoever hands his unmarried daughter [to a man] not for the purposes of matrimony," as well as the woman who delivers herself not for the purposes of matrimony, could lead to the whole world being filled with mamzerim since "from his consorting with many women and not knowing with whom, or if she has had intercourse with many men and does not know with whom Ė he could marry his own daughter, or marry her to his son" (see Mamzer; Sifra, Kedoshim 7, 1Ė5).
The book referenced in the second URL is a little less obvious, but
Quote:
In Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Lybia...the penalties for zina are the primary legal vehicle used to control prostitution
SInce the book was so much on topic of the discussion, I thought you would appreciate it, but oh well....
Zina is essentialy any form of sex crime (from adultery to necrophilia). If you look it up in say...Wikipedia, you will find
Quote:
Zināʾ (زِنَاء) or zina (زِنًى or زِنًا) is an Islamic legal term referring to unlawful sexual intercourse.[1] According to traditional jurisprudence, zina can include adultery (of married parties), fornication (of unmarried parties), prostitution, bestiality, and rape.[1] Classification of homosexual intercourse as zina differs according to legal school.[2] The Quran disapproved of the promiscuity prevailing in Arabia at the time, and several verses refer to unlawful sexual intercourse, including one that prescribes the punishment of 100 lashes for fornicators.[2] Four witnesses are required to prove the offense.[2] Zina thus belongs to the class of hadd (pl. hudud) crimes which have Quranically specified punishments.[2]
There! I think I fulfilled my service to society.
You seem rather determined to make a point that prostitution is not condemned in religion. I can't imagine why this would be of any relevance (unless you live in the Middle-East and contemplate a career as sex worker), but I hope we can agree that at least two of the major religions say it's a no-no.
  #87  
Old 01-15-2019, 05:51 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...you are entirely incorrect, yet you've inadvertently stumbled onto the real reason why sex work in most countries in the world isn't legal.

There are plenty of people care enough about pushing sex work to legality. There are unions and collectives and lobby groups and even the United Nations is in support of decriminalization.

Who cares about about legalizing sex work? Sex workers.

Sex work is an industry that is populated almost entirely by women that is subject to laws and regulations imposed on them by legislators who are almost exclusively men. Sex workers have been fighting hard and loudly for legalization for years. If you haven't heard them its because you live in a society that marginalizes the voices of women, its because you haven't been listening.

Story time. Catherine Healy was a primary school teacher in the 80's before she decided to enter the sex industry. She was frustrated less by "dodgy clients" and more by "the indignity of the law".



https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/104...or-sex-workers

That was the genesis of the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, a lobby group that fought on behalf of sex workers in New Zealand. In 1997, the NZPC, along with the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women, the National Council of Women, the YWCA, as well as academics and members of parliament from both the left and right wing, came together at a forum to draft a bill. It was bought to parliament as a private members bill by Tim Barnett, and it surprisingly got narrowly passed into law with an impassioned speech by Georgina Byers (the first transgender member of parliament and a former sex worker) generally attributed as what pushed the bill over the line.

What the bill does:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosti...eform_Act_2003

Other resources for those that are interested: Health and Safety Information for Operators of Businesses of Prostitution, and A Guide to Occupational Health and Safety in the New Zealand Sex Industry.

The introduction of the reform act changed the landscape of sex work in this country. What you didn't see (as alluded to by some in this thread) was a noticeable increase (or decrease) in pregnancy or STD's. What it does mean is that sex workers can go to the police and not fear that they will be arrested or have their livelihood threatened. That they will be listened too and taken seriously. It means that sex workers can go after their employers for sexual harassment: and win.

The legislative framework we got in New Zealand is what happens when you listen. The "Nordic Model" is what happens when you don't. For her work in advocating and standing up for the rights of sex workers Healy was honored last year with a damehood (the female equivalent of a knighthood.) and deservedly so.
Sorry for the belated response, and thank you for correcting me. While I was really talking about a lack of demand-side push for legal sex work, you're right that I was sadly unaware of this kind of remarkable supply-side reform.

You've also demonstrated yet another way New Zealand is more advanced than the U.S. Please work with Canada to take us over.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #88  
Old 01-15-2019, 08:44 PM
Paul in Qatar Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 12,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenedictusXIV View Post
You seem rather determined to make a point that prostitution is not condemned in religion. I can't imagine why this would be of any relevance (unless you live in the Middle-East and contemplate a career as sex worker), but I hope we can agree that at least two of the major religions say it's a no-no.
I think we can imagine that personal attacks are the sign of a weak argument. Certainly we agree that you cannot cite a holy scripture of any name-brand religion condemning prostitution?

Some authors have used religion as an excuse to condemn prostitution, just as some have probably condemned vegetarians.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #89  
Old 01-16-2019, 05:13 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 40,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenedictusXIV View Post
Not sure about christianity given the take that Jesus slept with a hooker.
Take from whom? There's also people who claim he was gay, people who claim he was an alien (as in "from outer space")...
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #90  
Old 01-16-2019, 05:19 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Take from whom? There's also people who claim he was gay, people who claim he was an alien (as in "from outer space")...
Presumably this is a reference to Mary Magdalene and/or other women with which she has been conflated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
During the Middle Ages, Mary Magdalene was conflated in western tradition with Mary of Bethany and the unnamed "sinful woman" who anoints Jesus's feet in Luke 7:36Ė50, resulting in a widespread but inaccurate belief that she was a repentant prostitute or promiscuous woman. Elaborate medieval legends from western Europe tell exaggerated tales of Mary Magdalene's wealth and beauty, as well as her alleged journey to southern France. The identification of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany and the unnamed "sinful woman" was a major controversy in the years leading up to the Reformation and some Protestant leaders rejected it. During the Counter-Reformation, the Catholic Church used Mary Magdalene as a symbol of penance.

In 1969, the identification of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany and the "sinful woman" was removed from the General Roman Calendar, but the view of her as a former prostitute has persisted in popular culture. Mary Magdalene is considered to be a saint by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran churchesówith a feast day of July 22. Other Protestant churches honor her as a heroine of the faith. The Eastern Orthodox churches also commemorate her on the Sunday of the Myrrhbearers, the Orthodox equivalent of one of the Western Three Marys traditions. Speculations that Mary Magdalene was Jesus's wife or that she had a sexual relationship with him are regarded by most historians as highly dubious.
  #91  
Old 01-16-2019, 10:19 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenedictusXIV View Post
My point is that you can be morally opposed to prostitution (or whatever), but that is no basis for prohibition. Society as a whole is perfectly capable of handling moral issues without government involvement.

Where do I draw the line? Quite simple, when people get harmed (physically or otherwise). That is when the government/the law should be there to protect you.
So, you would agree that New Zealand is wrong for prohibiting advertising of brothels or for requiring condom use?
  #92  
Old 01-16-2019, 10:25 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
It also accurately describes the act between you and your wife. Still, I doubt that you're using these word when you talk to her. There's nothing that makes the sex between a prostitute and her patron, the sex during a one night stand between two partners who just want a good fuck, the sex between two fuck buddies, the sex between occasional lovers, and the sex between you and your wife more or less vile or more or less noble.

I think you can't grasp the concept that not everybody perceives sex as being inherently degrading unless done in some very special circumstances, as you do.
I find it astounding that you believe that sex within a marriage is no more "noble" than sex with a prostitute. If we did a poll asking the public that question and it had the option of sex within marriage as being "more noble," "less noble," or "equal" which choice do you think would win?

And does that majority not have the option to enact their beliefs into law? Unless you are arguing that prostitution is a fundamental liberty interest, which no serious legal scholar suggests, then your bald declaration does not make it the correct thing.

Indeed, my position does not hamper a majority from legalizing prostitution, but it tests your ridiculous idea that sex with a prostitute is not different than sex with your spouse.
  #93  
Old 01-16-2019, 11:36 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So, you would agree that New Zealand is wrong for prohibiting advertising of brothels or for requiring condom use?
I would think "requiring condom use" falls very solidly under "preventing harm".
  #94  
Old 01-16-2019, 12:06 PM
Mtgman Mtgman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Searching for Tanelorn
Posts: 6,210
The distinction between using your hands to pick crops in the fields for hours for pay and using your hands to stimulate someone's genitals for pay seems very arbitrary. Why is one legal and one not? Most of the good reasons our ancestors had, supporting children of prostitutes, STDs, etc. for banning the practice are handled better with other methods in the modern era. So my remaining objections were some form of "EWWW!" But I realize that my "EWWW!" is someone else's "RAWR!" and that person is as much a part of society as I am. The "EWWW!" of the majority has long been a force for injustice, from the stigmatization and criminalization of homosexuality to the marginalization of racial minorities. Still, I wouldn't want to be a prostitute, and most of the stories I've heard of people who lived that life are pretty negative, so I wouldn't want my kids going into that line of work. I was still about 60-40 on the legalize/prohibit spectrum.

I've become more convinced that we need to legalize sexwork recently(~10 years ago) by legal decisions banning smoking in bars. I was of the opinion that a bar could choose to be a smoking area and the patrons, knowing that in advance, could choose to visit it or not. But what that does is force the employees of the bar, who are often nonsmokers, or may smoke less than the patrons, to become second-hand smokers as a condition of their employment. This is an undue burden to me and I agreed with the decisions to ban smoking entirely to protect the workplace from foreseeable hazards. Being exposed to carcinogens as a condition of employment is not ok with asbestos or tobacco. Similarly, the sexworkers of the world could have a safer, better work environment with legal protections for their work than they have now. The pimps and madams of the world, not to mention the traffickers and abusers, are there to fulfill a role that society has abdicated, and that's not ok. I'd rather have cops be called when a client is abusing a sexworker than a pimp be called. I'd rather swallow my "EWWW!" than have them continue on like this.

Enjoy,
Steven

Last edited by Mtgman; 01-16-2019 at 12:07 PM.
  #95  
Old 01-16-2019, 04:03 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I find it astounding that you believe that sex within a marriage is no more "noble" than sex with a prostitute. If we did a poll asking the public that question and it had the option of sex within marriage as being "more noble," "less noble," or "equal" which choice do you think would win?
Noble? That's the problem right there. Sex in marriage is pleasurable, and it helps build closeness. So does having dinner together, taking road trips together, going shopping together, and going to shows together.
I assume you think that marriage is good. I do. Some married couples are sexually incompatible. Should a marriage break up only for that? If not, should one or both partners be frustrated by the other partner? If not, what is better - a mistress or male equivalent which risks an emotional involvement which could a marriage or risk or prostitution which does not. I'm assuming openness here, since keeping secrets is bad for a marriage.
If prostitution can be pro-marriage, let's make it safe.
  #96  
Old 01-17-2019, 02:28 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I find it astounding that you believe that sex within a marriage is no more "noble" than sex with a prostitute.
Then be astounded. Sex is just sex. It can be great or not that great. It can be greater with a loving partner. But it's not noble, and more importantly it's not vile. It's not something dirty that needs to be washed in marriage vows. Enjoy your marital sex and let others enjoy their sex, whatever it is.

Quote:
If we did a poll asking the public that question and it had the option of sex within marriage as being "more noble," "less noble," or "equal" which choice do you think would win?
Ho! I do not doubt that your side would win by a very large margin. But I also have no doubt that a very large part of the population has completely fucked up views about sex. Our culture is very clearly sex-negative, and sex is considered a bad, dirty, dangerous thing by default, that can only become acceptable if very specific conditions (conditions vary depending on who you ask) are met at which point it magically becomes the greatest thing since (and before) the invention of sliced bread.


Quote:
And does that majority not have the option to enact their beliefs into law?
No, definitely not. And since I understand that you're a lawyer, I'm in turn astounded that you would make such a statement.

Quote:
Unless you are arguing that prostitution is a fundamental liberty interest, which no serious legal scholar suggests, then your bald declaration does not make it the correct thing.
Neither does yours. And yes, I believe that being able to have sex with whom I want, when I want, how I want, and for any reason I want is one of the most important freedom there is. And the whom, why, how and when is *absolutely* none of anybody business besides my partners.

People have always wanted to regulate other people's sexuality, in ways they wouldn't dare to try regulate any other activity. Generations after generations and still to this day, they want to prevent others from having any kind of sex that is different from their own. They feel entitled to control other people's bedrooms. They spew their hatred and their despise on everybody who doesn't fuck in a way they approve of with the people they approve of. As you did in this very thread. "Don't you see how vile and repugnant your sperm pumping is? Don't you want to partake instead in our noble, ethereal and pure act of divine adoration? And anyway if you don't want to, we're going to force you to, you perv!"

When you have sex with your wife, you're using the same organs we all do and release the same bodily fluids we all do. Stop pretending that what happens when you move your loins with sweat dripping from your forehead or when you lick the area your partner use to pee is any nobler because you have a fancy piece of paper in your cupboard.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 01-17-2019 at 02:31 AM.
  #97  
Old 01-17-2019, 02:54 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 40,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Presumably this is a reference to Mary Magdalene and/or other women with which she has been conflated.
I know, but as your own quote says, "speculation that he had sex with [any of the aforementioned women] [are late inventions and nothing pointing to that is found in the actual Bible]".



And if you asked Spaniards about the nobility of sex and allowed write-in answers, a lot of what you'd get would be along the lines of "can I make my cunt a duchess?"
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 01-17-2019 at 02:59 AM.
  #98  
Old 01-17-2019, 03:36 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
And if you asked Spaniards about the nobility of sex and allowed write-in answers, a lot of what you'd get would be along the lines of "can I make my cunt a duchess?"
I sure hope so, since I can say as an American that our President is a dick.
  #99  
Old 01-18-2019, 05:25 PM
Melbourne Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post

What is the problem you are trying to solve by having sex work illegal?
As I recall the historical examples, either (1) to stop exploitation, or (2) as the result of international pressure.
  #100  
Old 01-20-2019, 11:39 AM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
The weird thing is that making a porn movie is legal, protected under the First Amendment. So payment for sex is okay provided you film it. (That doesn't mean it's legal to hire a hooker provided you just film it on your phone, it's regulated with licensing requirements.)
Nope, payment for the right to film sex and distribute tge film is legal.
Payment for the sex is not.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017