I disagree with this because almost any activity, taken in the aggregate, will tend to expose the sour side of that activity and lead to a social cost. The bedrock of individual freedom is that if my SPECIFIC activity is not harming someone, then it should be permitted.
If I don’t wish to wear my seatbelt, then truly nobody is being harmed except me. Same way with smoking, drinking, eating junk food, or using the services of a prostitute. Now if you multiply the affects of all of these behaviors, they do hurt society, but by taking that step, there’s really not a single personal freedom that will survive your scrutiny.
I agree with the post upthread. If the Supreme Court is going to hold that sodomy is a fundamental right, it should be intellectually honest and hold that prostitution is the same. What could possibly distinguish the two?
Fair point. Std checks I can get behind - the mental health screening not so much. If someone wants to work on an oil rig or a similarly dangerous job are they required to take a mental health check? (Semi serious question, I honestly don’t know if they are)
[QUOTE=jtgain]
If I don’t wish to wear my seatbelt, then truly nobody is being harmed except me. Same way with smoking, drinking, eating junk food, or using the services of a prostitute. Now if you multiply the affects of all of these behaviors, they do hurt society, but by taking that step, there’s really not a single personal freedom that will survive your scrutiny.
[/QUOTE]
I agree, the main principle should be if it doesn’t harm someone else, well then go for it.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
If the Supreme Court is going to hold that sodomy is a fundamental right, it should be intellectually honest and hold that prostitution is the same. What could possibly distinguish the two?
[/QUOTE]
There’s one to join the military (at least there was when I looked into signing up), to be a commercial pilot, to be a policeman or fireman etc. I don’t see how this is different.
My main concern with this requirement is to avoid the exploitation we’ve been talking about. I really don’t wan to see daddy selling his severely retarded daughter who doesn’t have the capability to make the decision.
That’s fine, but you’re disagreeing with something I did not say. The OP wanted to know why it is accepted that the government should make such things illegal. I answered with a response which I think is completely true and beyond any rational rebuttal.
Whether or not a given behaviour SHOULD be illegal is another issue. My point was merely why it is commonly accepted that the government should have the power to make it illegal. Little Nemo has provided a relevant link to the doctrine of police power.
I do not personally think drugs should be illegal, nor do I think smoking or eating junk food and such should be illegal. Don’t misunderstand me; I am simply trying to explain why the government has the power to make it so, not arguing for any one position.
That is simply untrue. There are many personal freedoms that quite obviously HAVE survive “my” scrutiny, inasmuch as I personally do not oppose all freedoms. Nor, for that matter, is it the case that society at large has done so; while it is presently illegal to possess cocaine, it is not presently illegal to possess tobacco or alcohol, or to eat Double Whoppers, or to drive a snowmobile, or to do any number of silly and dangerous things. Clearly, some sort of decision is being made on a case by case basis.
Sometimes, of course, the decision’s stupid. Marijuana is beyond any rational doubt a far less dangerous drug than alcohol, yet weed is illegal and alcohol is not (for the most part.) Again, I’m not supporting a given position.
If I may play devil’s advocate, is is absolutely and unquestionably the case that prostitution is a service that promotes and encourages the exploitation, abuse and in many cases outright enslavement of women. It is commonly stated that that’s only because it’s illegal, but the liberalization of prostitution laws in some places present some very alarming evidence that legalized prostitution actually INCREASES exploitation and enslavement. The Netherlands, with liberal attitudes towards prostitution, has become an epicenter of sex slavery.
I admit as a person who leans towards a libertarian viewpoint that these facts about prostitution bother me and cause some cognitive dissonance; I’d like to believe that, like drugs, prostitution is something where government puritanism is itself the problem. But there is growing evidence that maybe it’s not. I’m not saying it’s yet a proven case one way or the other, but there IS evidence that prostitution brings with it slavery.
What ass-humping has to do with it I don’t understand. I don’t for an instant see the equivalence.
Kennedy specifically said that the Lawrence decision didn’t apply to prostitution. He appeared to be make a distinction between sexual acts in a relationship, which he felt were covered by a right to privacy, and sexual acts like prostitution, which he felt were not private.
But aside from the legalities - if making abortion is wrong because it removes a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body, then how can prostitution be wrong?
To answer the question we need only look at the Netherlands, where prostitution is legal. In that country, the sex trade is controlled by criminal syndicates, which are involved in international human trafficking. They bring in women from Eastern Europe and Asia illegally who are completely dependent on the syndicates and force those women to work as prostitutes.
Thousands of years of human history assure us that women do not want to be prostitutes, and there have always been virtually no women willing to do it unless they are financially desperate or otherwise under the control of someone else. Legalizing prostitution only legitimizes the exploitation of women (and a very small number of men).
Does the legality of prostitution have a material affect on the numbers of prostitutes? Because otherwise all you’re doing is criminalising financially desperate women.
(Is criminalising a word? Or is it like disgruntled, in that one can never be gruntled?)
Yes; I see no evidence that keeping it illegal helps anything. If legalizing it is causing problems with organized crime, it seems more likely to me that the problem is that they are doing it wrong. Perhaps the government needs to be more heavily involved.
This is a place I was afraid to go. I was on the verge of saying IF prostitution is legalized a set % of the revenue must be set aside for educational/training proposes kind of like social security. Because to be blunt you can only spend so many years on your back and then what the hell do you do? The reason I was afraid to say it is that somewhere inside me it seems this is starting to subvert the whole point of allowing a woman to make her own choices. It seems like a real slippery slope.
The same could be said for strippers though, and no one suggests that they should be retrained.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it’s an ideal career choice or anything, but making it illegal surely only serves to make it more difficult for someone to get help if they’re being exploited (as it seems they almost certainly are).
I’d like to hear a few more opinions on the abortion/prostitution, a woman has a right to control what happens to her own body dichotomy?
Woot! Does that mean I can start using gruntled too? (And I’m gonna claim my spelling is correct - the “z” in "s/z"ions is mainly an American thing no?)
Here’s an article talking about a lot of “windows” in the red light district in the Netherlands being closed down in an effort to combat organised crime. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/265520
However, if it wasn’t legal, wouldn’t it be harder for the police to close down these things? Or at least, to know when violations are happening. (I’m open to arguments on this btw)
…or you could look to New Zealand, where prostitution is also legal. In this country the 'sex trade" is not controlled by criminal syndicates who are involved in international human trafficking. And if criminals in the Netherlands are bringing in women illegally then everything should be done to stop it because they are criminals and it is illegal.
Thousands of years of human history have shown that some women do want to be prostitutes, and that many women are willing to do it even if they are financially well-off and not under the control of someone else. When legalizing prostitution is done properly it provides choice and provides protection. My post is my cite, as is yours.
If you are going to make assertions in this thread you should really cite provide your cite in this thread. For example: I read that thread to find out where you got your information about the Netherlands. You linked to a New Yorker article which only contains the abstract that doesn’t seem to support your thesis at all.
How about some real analysis on what the Netherlands example, if anything, means? If the criminal element is removed from prostitution, like the Netherlands government has been trying to do since 2008, would you still have a problem with it? Or is the criminal element just a strawman, and you would oppose legalized prostitution regardless of circumstance?
Come on now. How could you possibly know this? Have you interviewed every prostitute for the past few thousand years?
Even if what you’re saying is true - you’re really stretching the word “want” when you say women do not “want” to be prostitutes. I’m sure that the women in New York, for instance, who wind up escorting would rather be getting paid hundreds of dollars an hour to design clothes or whatever, but that’s not going to happen. How else can they make that kind of money?
Escorts in London are charging several hundred pounds for just one hour. Could you tell me a job that a man could get, with no other skill besides being good-looking, that would pay him that kind of money? Go ahead, tell me.
Do all the guys who you see on hot summer days doing backbreaking work like hauling rocks, digging post holes, jackhammering concrete, etc want to be doing that? No, they would probably rather be fishing. But they have to pay their bills.
I kind of have to agree AT.
Besides it’s not like any pig-shit-shoveler wants that position. Not a fair comparison I know but the argument just somehow feels flawed.
You do what you gotta do to make money. Some jobs are “beneath” some people; others don’t mind it if it pays the bills. And maybe, just maybe, some enjoy it. But it’s just a job.
I don’t deny that there’s exploitation involved in some prostitution. I’m just not willing to accept that the act is inherently exploitative as some seem to be claiming.
Historically it’s been men, not women, who have always had the shittiest jobs. It’s been men who, for thousands of years, have been charging headlong into masses of iron weapons, horseflesh and pain for no other reason that they were ordered to, and then spending their last remaining minutes or hours writhing on the ground bleeding to death or dying from infections. It’s men who’ve put in double shifts in black-lung coal mines; men who’ve burned to death in fires; men who shoveled nuclear waste.
Got to feed the family, you know.
I’m not buying this whole victimhood jive with regards to prostitution.
(And I’m gonna claim my spelling is correct - the “z” in "s/z"ions is mainly an American thing no?)