Let's Get Some Hookers!

Great Debates
181

Sorry, we’re just not going to see eye to eye on this. I simply don’t think the law needs to attach some special mysticism to the act of sexual intercourse in order to treat rape as a severe crime. More on that below.

For the purposes of legislation, I really don’t see the difference between having a rape charge and having an ‘grand assault’ charge, both of which refer to a violent sex act and come with long prison sentences. If removing the mysticism from sex means rape is now just a grand form of assault, I’m fine with that, as long as the perpetrator in question gets the same amount of prison time. It’d be a change in name only.

My point is that it doesn’t have to.

Bad example. Someone interested in buying a kidney is either in need of it themselves or knows someone who needs it. Notice that word: “needs.” Offering someone a lifeline for a price borders on extortion, which is why it’s rightly illegal.
The kidney purchaser, if they want to live, has no choice but to accept your terms. This is along the same line of reasoning as why one cannot charge exorbitantly high prices for life-saving drugs.
Selling your kidney isn’t illegal because you’re (ooh, ahh) selling a body part. It’s illegal because a potential buyer doesn’t have a real choice when it comes to the sale. If they want to live, they have to agree.
But strictly speaking, no one needs sex. A prostitute is offering her client a pleasure, something technically superfluous. A prospective client can always say no. No one’s being forced into anything. What makes kidney selling illegal doesn’t apply here.
Moreover, I feel it necessary to point out the difference between selling an object and selling a service. A kidney is an object. You don’t get it back. A prostitute is simply giving you her time, not her actual body. There’s nothing that goes on behind closed doors that she isn’t letting happen. When your time is up, it’s up. You don’t retain any ownership of her body because, of course, you never had it. She never sold you her body; she sold you a favor.
As a result, there is no “permanent sale.” Only a service rendered.

182

madcow once again you’re missing the point. Yes, the legislature could have written legistlation differently. They chose not to. It goes back to what kabbes has been trying to point out - that there are current mores in our society that value things in certain ways. if you wish to attempt to change the mores, you’re welcome to do so, but to ignore the fact they exist is not particularly helpful. People do see harm in rape over and above the physical damage. They attribute additional value to the act itself, repeatedly. To demand that only in the area of prostitution we should ignore this fact is less than productive.

ditto the ‘they shouldn’t’ remark re: commerce. That’s the debate of course, I’ve demonstrated that the state holds a compelling interest in commerce, employment etc. You wish to deny their interest in this one case.

Kidney transplant is not necessary for life (level of quality of life perhaps), but then again, one does not require sexual gratification at the hands of another to live, either. And you’ve failed to demonstrate why in the area of sexuality, one should always be able to obtain what you want. I want Mel Gibson. Really. Doesn’t mean he’s required to sell his services, rent his services etc. If he chooses (and I just know he would if he’d give me a chance), then fine. But, once again, I do not have the right to purchase some one else’s assistance in sexual gratification.

183

I honestly don’t know where you’re getting this “ignore the fact” bullshit; a quote you’ve obviously misinterpreted would help. I never said there was no special perception of sexual acts, only that there need not be.
As far as changing the mores of society, that is part of what debates are all about. The fact that this issue is even up for debate is a sign of progression. My point concerning legislation had to do with the fact that even though it is written one way, it is an ever-changing group of laws, and what is illegal today may be done with the state’s blessing tomorrow.

You tell me I’m missing the point, I tell you you’re missing the point, and round and round we go. I’m really missing the point of the boldface there, as everyone’s already made the point that rape is serious. You seem to think that rape is attributed additional value (something I’ve acknowledged for some time) because it is a sex act. I reason that it’s additional value comes from the damage incurred from the sex act. This is an important distinction, as there is no damage incurred in a consensual exchange.

You have a lovely way of speaking for me, don’t you?
Allowing the legalization of prostitution, I’d be in support of all sorts of government regulation in that regard. Nevertheless, it should be the right of a citizen to be able to solicit sexual acts in accordance with said regulation.

And this is different from what I said…how?

Ah, there’s that “speaking for me” ability I’ve been missing. I never said a john should be able to demand sexual favors from another person for money. I said an individual should be able to sell their services. And, allowing that, a client should be able to shop among those who are already willing to sell.

184

I can’t believe this has degenerated into a rape debate.

Kabbes, you didn’t really address the rest of my post regarding the fact that the very “Specialness” of sex means that sex is a highly individual, personal and private aspect of everybody’s life, the most individual, personal, and private aspect, and that as such, it is * no one else’s business * how eachof us choose to use, exalt, or abuse our sexuality. And this includes accepting cash money in exchange for it.

That is the part that cracks me up about all the arguments against prostitution. I think they all fall apart because it isn’t about how “special” sexuality is at all. It’s about exactly what ** even sven ** said: women taking control of their sexuality and setting the terms. I don’t see anyone wanting to step and stop women from giving their sexuality away, and lots of women do that in a far, far more degrading fashion than any woman who charges for it. So what is the difference? The cash. The terms. Women can be slutty and degraded so long as they do so for free. Or they can pretend they are doing it for free but only do it after a nice dinner, flowers, jewelry, or sweetie pays the gas bill. But to set an actual price and demand real greenbacks? No way! That we must legislate against!

And again, no arguments against prostitution itself by saying that other bad things may happen around it. We don’t outlaw drinking because some people may drive drunk. We outlaw the drunk driving.

stoid

185

This is pretty much the same bogus argument I asked you about two days ago that you said you’d address “later”. How in heaven’s name do you arrive at the idea that because it’s legal to sell, that means everyone has the right to buy from anyone they choose, even if that person isn’t selling?

It’s legal for me to sell my house, too. That doesn’t mean you can ** demand ** that I sell it to ** you **. How ridiculous.

stoid

186

“It goes back to what kabbes has been trying to point out - that there are current mores in our society that value things in certain ways. if you wish to attempt to change the mores, you’re welcome to do so, but to ignore the fact they exist is not particularly helpful.”

Wring–I think a society’s mores are perpetuated by its laws. The law outlawing prostitution in many areas was created at a time when women would not EVER be seen in a thong bikini, or even in shorts for that matter, and even the discussion of consensual sex was taboo. Or look at our society’s view of drugs, (I know its another debate all together, but it helps to illustrate my point), our society sees alcohol as an acceptable way to alter your mind, but other illicit drugs are looked down upon because they are illegal. Other cultures, i.e. rainforest cultures have shamans that are the leaders of their society who regularly take hallucinogenic plants. We see that as wrong because our laws, and hence our mores, don’t agree with drug use.
Imagine if prostitution were never made illegal…I think our society would have a much different outlook on sex in general. Point being, our society’s view of sex for money has been shaped by a law that was made when the discussion of even CONSENSUALL sex was a taboo. Maybe its time for a change.

187

** Apparently the legislature disagrees.

**, except that you wish to change the laws to reflect, not what is, but what you hope the mores will be in x number of years. kabbes and I suggest that is wrong.

And you can demonstrate this, how? You say it’s cause of the ‘damage’ incurred. Either psychological or physical, fine. Except that identical damage goes on for people victims of any and every assault. Identical damage. both nonconsensual behavior, And yet, we attribute more serious punishments and specialized crime services and laws when the attack is on our sexuality.

chart it out:

Criminal assault: non consensual. possability of physical harm. Possability of psychological harm.

Crminal sexual assault : all of the above with the single additional element of sexuality.

It is the single element of sexuality that gives it a difference, and that is why kabbes and I are insisting that our society attributes additional intrinsic value to sexuality.

** I have no idea what you are trying to say with this. Have I, in your estimation, been rude to you? Please elaborate. Thank you.

** Why? I am not allowed to solitcite buying or renting a child, I am not allowed to purchase certain drugs, I am not allowed to purchase stolen items, ivory from endangered species etc etc etc. The fact that some people want something in no way means that we as a society must permit it.

Ah, there’s that “speaking for me” ability I’ve been missing. I never said a john should be able to demand sexual favors from another person for money. I said an individual should be able to sell their services. And, allowing that, a client should be able to shop among those who are already willing to sell. **
[/QUOTE]
Odd, because you just did say “it should be the right of a citizen to be able to solicit sexual acts”. How is that different from what I said?

For those wishing society to change it’s mores, work at that, the laws would change when the mores do. I see more and more emphasis that sexuality is different - sex offender registrations for example - so I would suggest that rather than our society placing less emphasis on sexuality being a special case, we’re insisting on more.

188

“For those wishing society to change it’s mores, work at that, the laws would change when the mores do.”

wring–as I said in my last post…I think sometimes a society’s mores are dictated by its existing laws. BECAUSE prostitution is illegal sex will continue to be seen differently than it would have if prostitution were never made illegal to begin with. Here is a case of our views of prostitution being dictated by laws that were made when society’s view of CONSESUAL sex was much different than the view of sex today. That’s not to say that the laws have not stuck around for a reason, but it is a lot easier for mores to change if there are not laws in place that help determine the current societal views.

189

Fifty years ago homosexuality was seen as something much worse than prostitution. All the same arguments you use today to outlaw prostitution were used then to outlaw homosexuality.

The government should not be the instrument of the majority to impose their views on the minorites. It should be much more the instrument used to protect the individuals and the minorities against the tyranny of the majority so long as the practices of the individuals and minorities are not so fundamentally at odds with the common constitution to make life together impossible.

If I say my religion demands that I sacrifice virgins, the rest can say that is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of the country, religion or not. But if I say or do something which is unpopular but not fundamentally at odds with the common culture, then it is the duty of the government to protect that view, that practice, against the imposition of the majority. It is a fundamental duty of the government to protect the individual and minorities.

Or would it be OK to reinstitute segregation if a majority of whites voted for the idea?

190

wring, face it: your entire “argument” comes down to an argumentum ad populum and an argument from authority. Since social mores agree with you, you’re right. Since the legislature decided things the way you do, you’re right.

Whatever.

191

Sheesh wring, how are we supposed to change the mores without getting arrested? how can I non-violently sell my penis and demonstrate that I should be able to continue doing so after my funds are stripped away and I continually get jailed for repeat offense?

Other posters have made some interesting analogies in this thread. I think they have been more or less spot on to the topic. Sometimes a portion of society realized that, even though prevailing opinion dictates one set of behavior, another altogether is far better for all parties involved. The entire civil rights movement all the way back to the Emancipation Proclaimation set a stardard to follow in the face of large dissenting opinion. Since that was a matter of livelihood and social interaction of an entire segmetn of the population demonstration was worth the effort involved. In this instance it is well-understood (I hope) that not everyone would suddenly sell their wares once it was made legal. But, make no mistake. They are out there protesting by continuing to sell their stuff on the street.

This is especially telling that many of the girls doing so (not all of course) are destitute. They’ve got nothing to lose by breaking the law.

I honestly feel you have useful information for this debate, but I seriously wonder if you aren’t, also, a little jaded in your opinion due to this information. This comment is with all due respect, of course, not trying to get your goat here… :slight_smile:

ps– does anyone remember the George Carlin skit about “you can’t sell fucking” ?

192

The legislature can be changed.

Um, no. Getting raped is a hell of a lot worse than getting punched in the face. Rough sex can give you more bruises than getting raped or punched in the face, but the psychological damage incurred from getting your ass beat doesn’t come anywhere close to that which comes with rape.
The more serious punishments are in place for criminals who inflict a much more serious kind of psychological damage on their victims.

Granted, but once again, a prostitute is not selling her body; she sells her time. What she renders is a service, not ownership. The fact that the government regulates the buying and selling of certain objects does not give it the right to curtail a woman’s right to her own sexuality.

“To approach or accost (a person) with an offer of sexual services.” This being a definition of solicit, I say again, “it should be the right of a citizen to be able to solicit sexual acts.” Spelled out, that means you should be able to offer your services to interested clientele. Leaving the first move in the prostitute’s hands. Somehow, you took this to mean that one should be able to demand sexual rights from another individual.

193

BlackKnight, sailor et al. Do not confuse the side track about rape laws to be the main argument. THe side track is demonstrating that our society views sexuality as a specifically different part of ourselves, which belies the ‘it’s my body’ arguement. and, in fact, legislation in that area demonstrates that we’re more concerned than before about protecting it as such. As I mentioned, the sex offender registries etc. And, if one’s sexuality were merely a ‘renewable’ resource, then why would we have such a strong reaction when some one has sexual contact with a child? after all, it’s a renewable resource.

No one has attempted to demonstrate how legalization would put any kind of a damper on the trafficing problem. It would certainly increase the demand for services (since certainly those who currently use them would continue, there are most likely more people who would if it were legal). And Current levels include those who are coerced. How in the world will increasing demand for services in general not increase the level of coerced sex workers?

I’ve noted that in places where it is legal, they still have the problem with traffickers, that in Australia, illegal brothels are as plentiful as the legal ones. So all of the problems associated with the illegal trade are there.

So, rather than sit back and poke verbal holes, how about some of you attempting to find some evidence that it betters the conditions for sex workers in general (more than merely eliminating the criminal record) while eliminating some of the problems associated with the trade? In other threads there were threads where women were advised to avoid the Amsterdam red light district as a matter of personal safety.

It is you who are demanding a huge change in our society. It is up to you to demonstrate that change is desireable, and will achieve positive outcomes (or at least not an increase of negatives) on a general level, not just specific to certain select individuals.

Have yet to see anything of the sort.

194

That might be the best expression of the most fundamental concept of what is supposed to be the foundation of American law I have ever read. Unfortunately, too many people forget that this is what we are supposed to be about.

All this talk of “social mores” creeps me out. Speak for yourselves. I am part of society and my “mores” are very different than yours. That’s the beauty of America, my friends. Get over it.

stoid

195

I don’t live in America.

We’re discussing the rights and wrongs of prostitution here - not what makes America the land of the brave and home of the free.

I do, however, totally take sailor’s point about tyranny of the majority. You have to understand though that at the same time the legislature have to pass laws that reflect on what is and is not acceptable to the majority of society. There is a balancing act between personal freedom and this acceptability.

Total freedom would be an anarchy. There are few who would want this. We accept a censoring of certain freedoms as the consequence of living in the society that (hopefully) most reflects our personal code.

I have to remind you that prostitution is seen as totally unacceptable by what would appear to be the majority of people. Much as theft, murder, fraud or extortion is. Or indeed as sex with a minor is. I agree that it is a very tricky issue to decide what is and is not acceptable - today’s acceptables become tomorrow’s inconceivables (eg slavery) and vice versa (homosexuality). However despite horhay’s optimistic claim otherwise, the changing of the law has only come after widespread change in attitudes.

You have certain rights enshrined as constitutional. These are the freedoms that your initial legislature saw as being the fundamental ones that on no account should be broken. Sexuality is not in there. Prostitution, in particular, is not in there. As such it is up for grabs.

madcow -

Believe it or not, this is the whole point. Psychological damage. We are asking why there is psychological damage associated with rape. It couldn’t be because… oh… sex is seen as special could it?

Stoid:

I didn’t address it because it is a total non sequiteur! The fact that sex is accorded special status in society doesn’t imply that it is nobody else’s business what you do with your body at all. It can, of course, be argued that it is nobody else’s business what you do with your body. But that is a separate discussion and nothing to do with society’s view of sex itself.

Good god, 23:46. Must get to bed. And I still haven’t got to my reasons why I think prostitution is harmful (points B, C and D remember?). Will you people please stop distracting me? :wink: :smiley:

pan

196

I didn’t address it because it is a total non sequiteur! The fact that sex is accorded special status in society doesn’t imply that it is nobody else’s business what you do with your body at all. It can, of course, be argued that it is nobody else’s business what you do with your body. But that is a separate discussion and nothing to do with society’s view of sex itself.
**
[/QUOTE]

Argh! You are missing (or sidestepping) the point, so I’ll say it a different way. ** There is NO “society’s” view of sex! ** THAT IS THE POINT. There is the * pretense * that society has some kind of consistent agreement about what is ok and what isn’t, but it is a lie…if it weren’t, this discussion wouldn’t be happening.

When it comes to sex, what people say vs. who they really are, are more often than not on opposite sides of the room. And that is my point. “Society” wants to make rules for people that “society” (being made of actual people, after all) doesn’t live by itself! How many politicians and evangelists do we have to catch with hookers before we get that one through our heads? How many priests molesting children? How many secret housewife dominatrixes? Sex is ** special ** because sex is the one area in which people are ** often** completely strange and odd and weird in ways we would never dream of, while being absolutely conventional in others. (And the reverse is also true…weird people with vanilla sex lives).

All that I would like to see (and lots of other people besides) is less dishonesty! Let’s get our ppolicy in line with our reality. Let’s stop trying to legislate people’s private behavior, ok? Because people are kinky, crazy and all over the map. And it’s just bullshit to pretend otherwise.

stoid

197

As was mentioned earlier, many in favor of legalized prostitution are in favor of it being heavily regulated. But no one seems to have addressed the following issue (and if they have, sorry for stealing your thunder):

Heavy regulation implies high cost (to pay for inspectors, tests, red tape, etc).

In order to pay for these high costs, brothels would probably be heavily taxed.

To compensate for the high taxes, the services brothels charge would be rather expensive.

I can think of two results. First, this now makes streetwalkers competetive with brothels, becuase they can charge less (though the risk would be presumambly higher). Second, now it becomes that much more expensive when Daddy thinks Mommy is too fat and drops the rent/food money/Junior’s savings on a hooker.

I realize that last one was a bit drastic, and I also realize this happens today when parents go to Vegas or when Daddy or Mommy is an addict–whether alcohol or other drugs. It just shows that that tendency exists already, and is not likely to go away should prostitution become legal.

198

Wring, continuing to use sexual crimes against another (this time it was child molesting) as a bolster to your arguments merely reveals the emptiness of them. It has been conceded that “sex is special”. Meaning (third time, pay attention) that sex is a * unique * area of human experience.

For some people, sex is like touching God.
For others, it’s like taking a leak.
And for still others, it’s something in between.

If I want to experience my sexuality with Joe Smith on the condition that he give me some money, it’s none of your business.

If he rapes me or rapes my child, it’s still none of your business, but it is the State’s business because it is the State’s job to protect me from harm committed against me or my child.

There is no harm in me accepting cash in exchange for sex.

This is an amazingly simple idea, I find it remarkable that you still don’t get it.

Probably because no one except you has demanded that it should. That’s ** your ** agenda. Amazingly enough, those who work for prostitution to be legal are not concerning themselves with what ** you ** want it to accomplish in order for it to be a good idea.

How about we flip that logic on its head, ok? I think that keeping prostitution illegal should cure sexual dissatisfaction for everyone on earth. Oh, it doesn’t? Well, then, I guess its time to make it legal.

Good argument for why keeping it illegal is a waste of time.

Again, more demands of what ** you ** want. Because of course, being in prison, having a criminal record, that’s nothing. Since it’s such small potatoes, wring, how about you give it a whirl?

In all four pages of this thread, you have not once, despite being asked to repeatedly by different people, explained how having prostitution remain illegal * helps * the women who are being coerced?

Incidentally, coercion and trickery are not the same as kidnapping and slavery. Someone coerces me into doing something stupid, shame on them. If I continue to do it, shame on me. You are still arguing that we make laws to try and save people from themselves, and I haven’t read anybody cheering for that idea.

It’s always a positive out come for a society when it becomes more compassionate, tolerant and healthy.

199

Odd. I must indeed be a powerful person, if it’s only my agenda but it’s the law in the greater part of the United States. Tell ya what. Run for office on a platform of legalization of prostitution, and see how much support you get for it. We’ll talk then.

I get that it’s your opinion. That doesn’t make it fact. Opinions, not even yours, are not facts.

I have repeatedly explained in all of these threads how legality will not help those who are victimized. I have repeatedly pointed out that legalization would have to increase the trade, and since the current level of use already provides incentive to traffick women, increasing the trade would increase the incentive for the traffickers. How is this not explaining that keeping the practice illegal in some small way at least doesn’t increase the trafficking problem?
Not one person has answered this. Not one.

200

I’ll bite.

Legalization will come with regulation. Instead of lumping all prostitution as “illegal” we will be able to understand (and regulate) the differences between legal and illegal prostitution. Perhaps the police forces that now work against prostitution will be freed up to crack down on illegal trafficing as opposed to consentual acts.

Beyond that, most men will balk at the idea of having relations with a trafficed woman. Despite their horniness, men still have a shred of ethics. Presumably regulations regarding legal brothels will be able to screen out trafficed women. Men will be far more likely to go to these legal brothels where there is not such a high risk of violence, STDs, arrest, and of course trafficed women. Legallity may bring more demand for brothel prostitutes, but it will lessen the demand for street prostitutes.