I’m not talking about the victimhood of men. I’m talking about men doing their jobs.
Prostitution is a job. It can be quite a horrible job, or quite a good one, for some women - but it’s a job.
This is distinct from sex slavery, which is something else. But there are people here claiming that all prostitution is basically sex slavery, which I think is nuts.
No, legalizing prostitution would encourage unskilled women (and men) to those jobs as these would pay more than many other honest jobs for the unskilled for an ultimately unproductive job.
I’m reasonably sure that the social stigma associated with the profession will not go away and that it would still be a quite significant deterrent for any previously good Christian women you’re so worried will sully themselves after the passage of law.
I really don’t think your Christian kindergarten teacher is going to flip on a dime and say “it’s LEGAL now?! I’m IN!!!”
It’s pretty much impossible to discuss a legal issue while leaving aside the legalities. I explained why it’s legal for the government to prohibit prostitution. Morality is a whole different subject.
The same job providing sexual services to men.
I’m not convinced there’s the same kind of demand.
Probably not, but I didn’t get the impression that this was the point you were trying to make.
A very sexist thread everyone has got going here.
But it’s getting along fine as it is, legalisation wouldn’t suddenly make it accepted, it’s already accepted.
I’d say that legal prostitution has a market advantage. You get a less morally dubious experience, so you feel less guilt, if you’ve got the sort of regulation common in legalised prostitution you’ve got a greatly reduced chance of getting a sexually transmitted disease, or of getting stabbed and robbed by her pimp. As far as I’m concerned market mechanisms militate against choosing cheaper, but illegal, prostitutes in a situation where legal and safe prostitutes are available for a higher price. You just need to ensure a better product is provided, which is done by government regulation. I mean, I could brew my own moonshine and drink it and go blind, or I could buy booze from government regulated breweries and distilleries.
You’re worried poor old McDonalds might be outcompeted for burger flippers by a new industry paying higher wages? Well, might encourage them to pay higher wages. Or, alternatively, they could just hire people more willing to take low wages than to get fucked up the arse for money. I know which job I’d rather have. Each to their own.
There’s a reason that it’s the oldest profession: there have always been people willing to do it. Marx said that the rich would always devise beliefs and religions to protect their position, and there have been religions whose worship heavily involves prostitution, in Greece and Babylon. There have been prostitutes who have formed trade associations, there’s even a union in modern day Britain, ever since ancient Rome.
I think this is a solid argument, and would love someone refute this point.
Leaving FGM out of it, I think George Bernard Shaw was on to something when he said “Sexual morality is the trade unionism of married women.” I am reminded that brothels tended to disappear from Western towns as soon as married women started showing up in large numbers. It wasn’t the men who complained about them.
Yes, he did a CYA for a rationally inconsistent decision. It’s not like the Supreme Court’s decisions are a model of rationality nowadays.
((Bolding mine – ec)). Economic desperation is not an argument against prostitution, it’s an argument against not having strong social safety nets so women won’t be forced to sell the use of their bodies to survive. Countries with no social safety nets, like most Third World countries and much of Eastern Europe, and countries with weak and tattered social safety nets, like the US, have no basis for outlawing prostitution, as they have created the conditions for it to thrive.
Unproductive? How is it unproductive?
Careful examination of the thread topic will show that it asks if illegal prostitution is unfair, not if it’s illegal. The thread topic is morality (in the sense of fairness) not legality.
Everything I have ever read on the topic indicates that male prostitutes are a tiny, tiny percentage of female prostitutes, and that female customers of prostitutes are a tiny, tiny percentage of male customers. It’s not sexism at play here, just a recognition of the facts on the sheets. Unless you have some data that contradict these points?
Now that US corporations have pretty much defeated unions in the US and can have things all their own way WRT workers, I think the ultimate effect of legalizing prostitution would be to greatly cheapen the wages of prostitutes. I could see the big strip clubs setting up big whorehouses, very nice carpeting you can be sure, as for the working conditions and wages of the employees, think “Would you like a blowjob with your hamburger?”
This is just flat out wrong. There’s nothing in Lawrence that requires the legalization of prostitution. Not only as has been pointed out did Kennedy specifically exempt prostitution, his rationale for the protection of sodomy was its role as part of sexual expression. Prostitution, on the other hand, is a business transaction (one that should IMHO be legalized). Supreme Court cases often treat commercial matters differently to private ones - look at First Amendment jurisprudence for a moment.
It’s the same ridiculous argument that we saw repeatedly about Lawrence and the gay marriage debate - if we find sodomy protected, or allows SSM, then we will have to allow incest and bestiality et al. It doesn’t hold water.
IIRC, the argument for extension is that Lawrence held that legislation that is based purely upon moral disapproval will not survive rational-basis scrutiny, the lowest level of review. Then the inquiry as to prostitution becomes whether the laws forbidding it are based upon other, legitimate societal interests or just impermissible moral opprobrium.