Physical contact is indeed the only difference. Then again if mount a loaded rifle on a tripod, point it at me, I pull the trigger, that’s suicide. If you pull the trigger, that’s murder. A blood alcohol level of .01 is legally drunk. A level of .0999999999999 is not. Closer to the issue, if a man corners a woman and fondles her feet against her will he can be charged with simple assault (simple assault is the legal term. as opposed to agravated etc). If a he fondled her breast, buttocks or genitals he would be charged with sexual assault.
Fine destinctions are everything when dealing with the law. This is even moreso when dealing with sex. Clinton did not perjure himself when he denied "sexual intercourse" with Monica Lewinsky. Payment and sexual contact seperate prostitution from legal sex and stripping. If a woman has sex with me (I know this is an outlandish premise, but let it go for the sake of argument) because she feels affection for me, wants to forget an ex-boyfriend, finds me attractive (if she's blind or was raised by a bizzare cult, it could happen), etc nothing illegal has happened. If a woman has sex with me for money, it is a crime.
As Wring has said, sex is already given special consideration under the law. If it were simply an act like any other, rape would not be a seperate crime. A charge of aggravated assault would suffice. To argue that a handjob is no different than a back rub is to deny an underlying principle of our legal system. Whether or not sex is sacred, it is different from other activities.
Additionally, is you believe that sex is no different than a backrub- where do you draw the boundaries? I don't mean that as a rhetorical question. Does this mean you will sleep with anyone who's back you'd rub? If sex is simply another activity, is there any reason to follow incest taboos? If you truly believe that sex is just another thing that people do, how does that affect behavior?
This is the second time I’ve seen massage mentioned - earlier, CheapBastid even used the term “Massage Therapist”. Here’s the scoop:
A Massage Therapist or Massage Technician is an accredited, trained, board certified position. I just got my MT cert; it took 3 years of night and weekend classes. Many of the classes I took, by the way, were also populated by nurses who were fulfilling continued education requirements - the classes meet nursing license criteria as well.
Now that I’ve finished, my local licensing agency (in California, the city) would like me to submit AIDS test results and a set of fingerprints to the Vice Squad, because there are still dorks running around who think Massage Technicians are all prostitutes. Hell, if I wanted to be a hooker, I could have saved $6000 in tuition, $1000 for the table and equipment, and a whole lotta hours.
Yes, I support legalization of prostitution. I do NOT support the assumption that any woman who touches a client is a prostitute. Would you assume an OB/GYN is a gigalo?
We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.
DocCathode, mine were TWO (2) separate points, labeled as (1) the first and as (2) the second for better clarity. I guess you missed that.
My second point (independent of the first(1) point) was that those workers were able to bargain for better working conditions because what they are doing is legal. If prostitution was legal, prostitutes could get better conditions, that is my point.
You Clinton quote is (a)irrelevant and (b) inaccurate. Clinton said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”. Now, if in your book, “sexual relations” does not cover a blow job, can you explain to me why it would be illegal for me to pay to get one? After all, if it is not “sex” by your definition of “sex” why shouldn’t I be able to buy it?
For the life of me, I can’t figure out what your argument is. You have data. You have a conclusion. But I don’t see any argument to connect the two. Note that I am not saying I think your argument is flawed, but that I don’t see the argument at all. I am also not saying that the data does not imply the conclusion; however, I do not see how.
Now, I think it’s fair to say that your conclusion is that prostitution should remain illegal. If this isn’t quite accurate, please inform me.
Your data is plentiful. However, data is just data, and does not prove a thing by itself. By what logical process do you reach your conclusion from the data? (I’m not asking for a rigorous deduction or anything, just an informal argument that is relatively easy to follow.)
I think it would be good for everyone involved in this thread if some summarizing was done. Could you please state, as clearly and comprehensively as you can, an outline of what your argument is?
This is my attempt to summarize my own and some others’ thoughts:
It is common sense that things should not be restricted unless there is just cause for them to be restricted. This means that the “default” position is for some act to be legal. The burden of proof is on those who wish to make it illegal. In other words, if there are no good reasons for prostitution to be illegal, there do not have to be any good reasons for it to be legal. The fact that there are no good reasons to make something illegal is itself a good reason for it to be legal.
You have stated that trafficking would remain if prostitution was legalized, and as evidence for this you pointed to places where it is legalized and where trafficking still exists.
a) There is no evidence that trafficking goes up. There is no reason to believe that trafficking would go up.
b) There is reason to believe that trafficking would go down. (The appeal of legality, safety, and basic morality would mean that many customers would rather hire prostitutes that they have good reason to believe are in the job of their own free will.)
Since there is no evidence that trafficking goes up, the fact that trafficking remains cannot be used in support of your conclusion.
It also cannot be used to counter any arguments for legalization that I have seen used in this thread, because I don’t think anyone has claimed that trafficking would disappear.
Things very similar to prostitution are legal in many areas. For example, lap dances. No, I am not going to dig through the laws of every county in the country finding which ones allow it and which ones don’t. Will you at concede that many places do allow it?
a) Lap dances include physical contact for the purpose of sexual gratification. They are legal in many areas, although of course not all areas.
b) Pornographic videos are legal in many areas (they are probably illegal in some as well). These videos usually include people having sex for money. There is physical contact, actual penetration, and payment for those acts. The fact that payment is made by someone else (such as the director or producer) is irrelevant. If you believe otherwise, prove it. The fact is, someone is paying for someone else to have sex. Why should it matter that the payment is for them to have sex with someone other than the payer? If you think this matters, prove it.
c) It is legal for someone to have sex with another person for nearly any reason whatsoever, so long as they are both consenting adults. Prostitution involves two consenting adults (trafficking is something else entirely). Why should “because one of them is horny and the other is getting paid” be removed from the list of legal reasons for two consenting adults to have sex? Two (or more!) consenting adults can legally have sex for any of the following reasons: because one wants to add another notch to his/her bedpost; because one wants to make it an even 100; because one won the lottery and wants to celebrate; because one didn’t win the lottery and wants consolation; because it’s a monday and they always do on monday; because it’s rainy and there’s nothing else to do; one wants emotional payment in return; etc. Let’s face it. People can legally have sex together for many, many, many different reasons. If you believe that “because one of them’s horny and the other wants money” is a reason that should be illegal, explain why that particular reason is fundamentally different from the others. Not just different, since all the reasons are different. Show the difference, and state how that difference implies that it should be illegal.
Having prostitution be illegal punishes women who work as prostitutes. There does not seem to be any reason why they should be punished, because they don’t seem to have done anything wrong. If prostitution were legalized, prostitutes would have one less thing to worry about. So, unless one believes that prostitutes are themselves doing something wrong, this is one reason that is undoubtedly in favor of legalization, all else being equal.
Legalization would help many prostitutes, since the industry would be regulated for their safety and health. Also, since the practice would almost certainly be heavily taxed (a “sin” tax like on cigarettes), the tax money gathered could be put to uses such as stopping trafficking and forced prostitution. I, for one, would heartily support the use of tax money from regulated legal prostitution in that way, and I think that very many others would as well.
I’ve probably left some things out, but I think this is a fairly good summary of points in favor of legalizing prostitution.
I used that example as a job where one is hired to touch another person. Not only that, but the other person get physical pleasure from that touch. I listed strippers separately as another job with related aspects.
I did not (and do not) imply that Massage Therapists are prostitutes.
Sterra replied to me: *“The prostitution debate is not about regulating sex, but about regulating commerce.”
The situation is much more about morality than commerce.*
Well, it’s about morality applied to commerce. It’s about moral views as they apply to commercial sex, not to sex as a private individual choice (as opposed to, say, legal bans on fornication or adultery).
Its about using laws to make people agree with you. How could it be about regulating commerce when it is banned, and banned by people citing moral reasons?
?? What makes you think that “regulating commerce” can’t involve banning things for moral reasons? For example, we also regulate commerce by banning child labor, slave labor, and certain workplace hazards, all for moral reasons. You and several other pro-legalization posters seem to be trying to lump the right to buy and sell sex commercially together with the right to have sex at all, in order to be able to object that it is equally invasive to try to restrict either of them legally. While I am not strongly decided against the idea of a right to buy and sell sex commercially, I certainly don’t think this counts as a valid argument in favor of it. No way is banning prostitution anywhere near as invasive as banning or restricting sex as a personal choice.
Come to think of it, after all, our society in fact permits a great deal of license for buying and selling sex commercially. Not only may you have sex for mutual enjoyment with any consenting adult who’s willing to have sex with you, but you can make informal economic arrangements to trade financial support for sex with any willing partner. You can arrange anything from keeping a mistress or a gigolo (or supporting a wife or husband for that matter, if you have no objections to using matrimony as essentially a sex bargain) to tipping the maid or the milkman a couple of Jacksons for a quickie. There are plenty of such arrangements flourishing along with other kinds of under-the-table bargains in the informal economy, and there is really no practical legal restriction on them.
The only thing that a legal ban on prostitution really does is to deny you the use of the official economy to facilitate commercial sexual transactions with strangers. You can’t use your access to the public sidewalks, the newspapers, or places of public accomodation as a vehicle for commercial sex. That’s not at all the same thing as restricting sex per se as a private individual activity. And after all, the general public sustains and runs the official economy, so I don’t see why the general public’s morality shouldn’t set the ground rules for it; in fact, as I pointed out, when it comes to moral issues like child labor or workplace health hazards, we accept that it does.
** Well, at least it’s comforting that you can admit that data is available. I’ve posted what I believe is the connection between the two.
** I feel that we as a society are better served in general by having it remain an illegal act. This, of course is not the same as saying that my goal is to see all prostitutes sit in jail. I feel I have to point this out. My ‘goal’ would be that no person should be forced to commit prostitution. My goal would be that people in general not see the sex act as a commodity to be purchased or sold. My goal would be that people (in general) would have adequate avenues available to them for the necessities of life so that folks in Cambodia wouldn’t feel the need to save the rest of their family by selling their daughter to the local pimp. That’s what I would most desire.
**
** well, that’s more than stoid would admit.
** I’m not sure why you think I haven’t answered this. My position is that:
Our current system of ‘illegalization’ is really not much more than a dodge that allows for the purchase of sex for money for those with sufficient funds to either travel to where it’s legal or purchase from the Heidi set (Heidi and the Mayflower Madame are notable since they’re probably the only ones at that level of trade who got busted - the rest seem to have no difficulty staying out of jail) This allows for them to do periodic ‘sweeps’ of the lower level of trade and pretending that they’re against prositution, while having the nudge nudge wink wink of allowing it for the select few. I find that reprehensible. But, I also find that allowing for the actual trading of sex for money to have unavoidable horrific consequences.
There are places in the world where prostitution is legal. I presume that in those places anyone who wishes to freely choose to be a prostitute has done so. In addition, there may be people who freely choose to be prostitutes, living where it’s illegal could and would move there because it’s legal. And, the data exists to indicate that even then, there are people there who have been trafficked there. This leads me to assume that the ‘demand’ for the services is greater than the supply of those willing to provide the services. Which then creates the market for those who do not choose, to end up being forced.
I find that the element of forced prostitution is of such an evil that it should not only be condemned, but it shouldn’t even be acceptable as a side effect - a ‘well, we can’t do anything about it’. I include in this (and others may strongly disagree) those who only prostitute themselves in order to feed a drug habit. But even if you don’t include them, there are certainly others who have been forced in every sense of the word.
In addition. As we see with a number of things (cigarettes, generally any property, gambling, prescrption drugs etc.) criminal elements will seek to undercut the costs of the ‘legal’ stuff, which appeals to folks looking for a bargain. While we certainly don’t like this or accept it even tacitly in those other areas listed, the net effect/cost to society is no where near as damaging as the effect of serial rape on some one who was forced into prostitution. So, for example, while it’s not feasible to stop producing goods so they don’t get stolen, stolen property still is just property. While we may prefer that our people not smoke at all, we still allow for free choice etc, so have not outlawed cigarettes etc. However, one of the side effects of prostitution is the forced trade. And I find that particular side effect both troubling enough and abhorant enough to warrent the illegalization of the biz.
Other side effects of prostitution are: the street trade which diminishes the quality of life for those living/working in the area, (and to a lesser extent) the spread of disease (not necessarily just HIV- certainly the more intimate of contact the greater liklihood of passing on any communicable disease one has from cold/flu on up. Yes, you can catch a cold from your waitress, but most would agree that intimate sexual contact is, well, more intimate than most other public transactions). Yes, indeedy do, those things can exist w/o prostitution, but certainly flourish with it. While some people may not find it bothersome to be seen as some one who would offer their sexuality for money, it’s also clear that others do. People who are not prostitutes but find themselves in a district known for them (or if it’s legal and located next to the local Sears, some one heading out of Sears) find it objectionable to be seen as potential sex workers. Admittedly, this isn’t as loathsome as being, say, raped forcibly so that your pimp can have a nice ride, but, still it’s an issue.
Added up in total, there’s a long list of negatives - some are direct and unavoidable results of having some people sell sex for money, others are indirect (and possibly but not assuradly avoidable) results.
On the positive side for prostitution - some people who would choose this profession would get the profession of their choice. Those people who would use the services would be able to, w/o the low level fear that exists now of being arrested. Certainly there would be the tax revenue (which I don’t find compelling, since it’s likely that folks who would work as prostitutes would find something else to do).
But, to me, I don’t find these positives to be anywhere near compensation enough to justify inclusion of the negatives.
Put another way, by legalizing the trade, I would think we could safely assume that anyone who wants to be a hooker would thereby become one in the legal trade, and only those who would be ineligible for the legal houses (ie HIV positive for example) or forced would be left in the illegal trade. And, I’d think that most of us would agree that having those ineligible for work in the legal houses, or forcing people to work as prostitutes are bad things. Yet, we do in fact see a booming illegal trade even where it’s legal.
So, the answer to your “# 1” Is that I find a compelling reason to outlaw the trade (the unavoidable illegal trade) By assuming that the illegal trade would always be there, you need to assume that some people would always find it ok to purchase sex. I don’t believe that is necessarily true. I believe that most men would prefer to not rape an unwilling person. However, it’s obvious (since trafficking goes on), that such is what is actually happening. I have seen some evidence that such is the case (ie, that if the johns had a realistic idea of who the sex worker is and how they found themselves there, it may change their behavior. I mentioned before that right after the local folks busted an underage ring, the trade went down substantially). The only people harmed by the illegalization are the sex workers and their customers. The customers still can achieve sexual release, they simply would have to do so in another way (without a partner, by finding a willing partner w/o the cash alternative). The sex workers would have to find another career. Working in one’s most favorite career is a wonderful thing, but not working in one’s most favorite career is neither a crime, nor a soul robbing experience. Therefore, I find that the level of harm done to those relative few who are harmed is much less compelling than the level of harm done to those who are harmed by allowing the trade.
Part of the answer to your #2 is above. That trafficking is an unavoidable consequence of the concept that some people will sell sex for money. Perhaps if we actually eliminate that concept, trafficking would go stop. Without the people expecting to be able to buy sex for money, there isn’t a reason to force some one to do it. I have seen no evidence to suggest that people will always believe that it’s ok. Even many of the people arguing for it here (not all) take what I consider to be the ‘abortion’ tactic - ‘I wouldn’t personally but I don’t want to compel others to do what I would do’. However, unless you believe that most of those purchasing sex have no problem with committing rape, then it would seem to follow that the ‘demand’ side can be diminished. It is the belief that it’s ok to buy it that allows for the johns to count on the person providing the service is there by choice. Otherwise, of course they’d be committing rape. And, objectionable tho’ it may be, since trafficking DOES happen, it would seem that many are committing rape (w/o their knowledge). In particular, I find this statement of yours odd
** you seem to believe that johns currently are aware that they may be ‘using’ trafficked people and aren’t bothered by it. I suspect that they are choosing to be unaware, and become bothered when it is demonstrated to them. (example, the drop in the trade when the local underage sex ring was busted - it’s much easier to believe there’s nothing wrong if you’re not forced to know that the person sucking you off is 13.)
In addition, consider this. The johns currently know it’s illegal. Legalize it, you say, and tax the hell out of it. This of course, would raise the cost. Especially if all of the other stuff about legalization you presume does happen (better working conditions for the prostitutes, better access to health care etc. all the regulation you’d suggest etc.) It would have to. Tell me why those who are currently paying for an act they know is illegal, once it became legal, would agree to pay more for that same act from a legal provider vs. continuing to purchase it at cut rate costs from the illegal one? They certainly aren’t especially afraid of the power of ‘illegality’ or disease etc now. (there were some things that suggested also that legalization increased the danger of contracting disease for the sex worker - that they could convince a john to wear a condom if the john were concerned about getting a disease, but once they knew the sex worker was tested, they argued more to go w/o - I don’t have hard data on that, but it certainly tosses a wrinkle into the ‘better for prostitutes and lessens the disease’ points)
Your arguement #3 doesn’t hold water to me, either. Similar is not the same. Much behavior is on a continuum where one end is perfectly fine, and another is perfectly not fine. We draw lines all the time. And automatically we draw lines regarding employment, so all the stuff about ‘gee it’s ok to choose to have sex with somebody, why should the addition of payment make the difference’ doesn’t acknowledge that fact. But that’s been pointed out many times as well.
Your arguement about porn has some merit. However, the unavoidable consequences of prostitution are not there with the porn industry. (there is not a wholesale problem world wide that I’m aware of where folks are kidnapped and forced to have sex on camera -if there is, prove it.) The ancillary problems (with the issues of street walkers, property values, other people being mistaken for sex workers etc.) do not exist at all with porn, either.
in essence your argument boils down to “why shouldn’t it be legal” and when the horrific stuff is pointed out you rely on “so, that’s always going to be there”. And I answer, it shouldn’t be legal because of the unavoidable horrific stuff, and that we shouldn’t be so quick to accept the horrific as unavoidable. We’ve not really attempted to stop prostitution. we’ve attempted to curb the stuff we find annoying, while ignoring the stuff we should find horrifying until we’re forced to see it. And I’ll also trot out that old one of 'just ‘cause it’s always been there doesn’t mean we should accept it as ok - as in murder and other crimes.’
you’ll then say ‘but no one is being harmed when person A buys sex from person B who chooses to sell it’ and my response is the person definately harmed is person C who had no choice in the matter and is being forced by person D, and is being bought by person E who believes that it’s ok to buy sex, and has convinced themself that person C has chosen this profession. And you’ll want to try and say ok, then just arrest person D, & rescue person C. And I’d go on to point out that person D only forced person C because persons A and E exist. Get rid (metaphorically) of the idea that buying sex is ok, and person D has no reason to kidnap person C.
{on a different plane, if one believes that one’s sexuality is part of one’s inner self, then the person selling sex is selling part of their soul, too, but obviously that only appeals to folks who suscribe to that. I understand that there are people who believe that they can disassociate themselves from their sexuality sufficiently to sell their bodies and not incur any harm to their soul/themselves etc.}
So. You apparently think that I don’t adequately understand the points for legalization. I’ve probably spent more actual real life time not only researching the topic, but working with the realities themselves than most folks (note not claiming all) in this thread. My SO disagrees with me on this (and a couple of other topics as well). And he’s articulate as hell, and a quality debater, too. He’s presented all of the arguments I’ve seen here (and done an exceptional job) I understand the rationalizations presented. I find them to be, well rationalizations, insufficient to warrent the continued acquiescence to the real harms done to real people. The real irony here comes when I’m accused of being heartless to the plight of the prostitute.
So. I’ve failed to convince most of you (one person says they’ve changed their mind, tho. Only how many to go? ) Certainly you’ve failed to convince me.
DocCathodeCertainly there are horror stories about mental instutions, but would declaring insanity illegal and throwing the people onto the streets to be pereodically thrown in jail help? IMHO it wouldn’t. And neither does the fact that insanity is legal let people ignore the problem.
Could you give a reason why it is not just another thing that people do? If someone thinks that sex is just another act then they would give it the same consideration that they give backrubs. They would weigh the costs vs the benifits. Certainly no one thinks that sex is no different than a backrub, but that doesen’t make sex mystical. Sex is just another thing that people do. If you give it undue consideration it hurts you as you focus on unimportant things.
This is where your logic escapes me (and others it appears).
A and B do not equal C and E. Causality is also not there. A and B, if permitted to interact legally, do nothing for C, D or E. Person C is in peril now, and will be in peril later from person D and legalization of Prostitution does nothing specifically for that situation. There are active Es that seek out the rape situation set up for them by persons D. That situation has (again) nothing to do with legalization.
How do you propose to ‘get rid (metaphorically) of the idea’? Making Prostitution illegal does not accomplish this, as Cs are forced by Ds to service Es even though that activity is illegal. I propose that one should instead directly address the trafficking issue, unrelated to the legality of Prostitution.
CB, I think your response to wring’s argument, while in theory logically reasonable, is in practical terms awfully naive. There is a very good case to be made, and wring has done a pretty good job of making it, that legalization of prostitution increases the opportunities for illegal abuses of prostitution such as trafficking and assault and rape of prostitutes. It’s fine to debate the details of how solid that case actually is and the merits of the evidence supporting and opposing it, etc.
But it is not very useful just to stand there wide-eyed and repeat “but legalized prostitution and illegal abuses of prostitution have nothing to do with one another! I don’t understand the connection you are making between them, honest! A and B are not the same people as C, D, and E, and therefore their activities can have no effect on each other!” Uh-huh. This sort of abstract logic-chopping is not terribly convincing, especially when compared to conclusions drawn by someone like wring from real-life experience with the ways in which commercialized sex actually operates.
Frankly, I would kind of like to have a society where prostitution and other forms of sex work were not despised and degraded occupations and could be pursued legally. I’d also kind of like to have a society that didn’t criminalize and penalize drug use. But in both cases, I don’t believe that legalization is a good starting point for getting to that place in our society. I think that for both prostitution and drugs, decriminalizing them now would just be a way of expanding recreational opportunities for those of us who are relatively affluent and stable, while putting the most vulnerable members of society further at risk. I don’t consider that a decent trade-off.
It’s not my book or my definition. It is a legal definition. It is relevant as it demonstrates that not only is sex given special consideration under existing laws, but different sex acts between consenting adults performed wihout charge are given special consideration. In some states oral sex is still illegal, even between spouses.
It is accurate as well. When asked whether he had had "sexual relations" with Lewinsky, Clinton consulted with his lawyer as to the meaning of "sexual relations". His answer may have been dishonest from a moral standpoint, but it was accurate from a legal one.
I mentioned a massage because several other posters have. I meant no offense to actual masseurs or physical therapists. Local papers have a seperate massage/therapy section in the classifieds for trained, legal therapists.
In retrospect, I should have cut my last post into sections.
1 Various anectdotes from my experience. Has no logical value, but is intended for emotional impact
2 Black Knight and some others had asked what the difference was between prostitution and lap dances etc. Here it is.
3 Fine distinctions are of crucial importance in legal matters. Various examples of such .
4 The law does treat sex as special. Examples. To argue that prostitution is simply another service and that sex does not make it different from other services is to deny numerous existing laws.
5 Semi rant mixed with actual question. Many posters have stated that sex is not special, or different. If they truly believe this, How does it affect their lives? Extreme examples I ask again- if sex is simply another pleasurable physical activity, why not have sex with relatives?
Actually, if you are really wondering, the last debate I noticed on the matter led to the general opinion that there was nothing wrong with incest between consenting adults, provided proper birth control measures were used.
Sailor the fact that the police did not arrest the peep show workers does not mean their activities are legal. It means only that the police did not arrest them. As I’ve said in past threads, the same ads for prostitutes have appeared in the Philadelphia Yellow Pages for the past three years. They clearly offer illegal services, however the police have not arrested them or even taken action sufficient for the escorts and parlors to get new phone numbers.
**
I have several relevant reesons for bringing up inpatient-facilities
1 The number of patients I have met there who's mental illness' has led to their being jobless and homeless-and selling their bodies to survive.
2 These people are often forcibly committed. While kept at the facility "for their own good" many are raped, often repeatedly and by the same men. This rape occurs despite numerous restrictions on patients movements and constant monitoring by staff.
3 Drug abuse and drug smuggling also occur. One group was meeting their supplier at shopping trips to a local mall. After reserving some for their personal use, they would sell LSD and other illegal drugs to other patients. No one in that group was older than 18. They were average boys of average capabilities and inteligence. Yet their operation lasted months before it was uncovered.
4 If rape and drug dealing can occur in an environment as controlled and regulated as a psychiatric treatment facility, how can the government stop these crimes in a brothel open to the public?
5 Lastly, many of the women who had sold sex came to that point after years of molestation. Through years of daddy or some one else raping her, she protects herself with "It's just sex. It's just my body. It doesn't mean anything." . Once this belief is firmly established, what any one does to her body is of no consequence. They would take johns' money and retreat to a dark place in their heads, while their bodies became corpses with heartbeats. These women embodied all the abuses that accompany prostitution.
[hijack]
Anyone who is interested enough in this topic enough to read the whole thread should definitely go to their local independent bookseller and look for Brothel: Mustang Ranch and its Women by Alexa Albert. It’s a very new book; Dr. Albert was able to live at Mustang Ranch, a legal brother in Storey County, Nevada for a year, to do health research. What she ended up writing is more of a social commentary. Very interesting!
[/hijack]
OK, if prostitution were made legal, the number of johns and prostitutes would go up, though by how much is unquantifiable, for the following reasons:
Access to prostitutes would be easier. Further, with regulation, it would be safer, particularly as concerns HIV/STD’s.
The social stigma of being a prostitute or frequenting prostitutes would diminish. More people would be involed if they did not fear inprisonment or scandal.
More hypothetically, commercialization may increase the business. Imagine how casinos (or, even more bizarrely, Disney) could market prostitution, and how much business they could drum up.
OK, so why should prostitution be legalized anyway?
One, on principle. To quote The Economist, on a related issue:
Two, for practical reasons.
A. The harms caused by criminalization.
At present, the harms fall disproportionately on people in poor countries and on poor people in rich countries,
a. Many are trafficked or otherwise coerced into the business, and have no access to help from the government, as they are engaged in an illegal activity.
b. Those not coerced into the business will likely come out of it with a criminal record, severely limiting their ability to move into legitimate industries.
The harm also falls on police agencies, who, knowing that the business isn’t going to go away, are more likely to be induced to turning a blind eye in exchange for bribes.
B. Criminalization prevents regulation.
Precisely because prostitution is illegal, it cannot be regulated. Laws cannot discriminate between availability to children and adults. Governments cannot insist on health and safety standards, and cannot regulate the relationship between the prostitutes and their employers.
Two further points.
The allegation that legalization and regulation of prostitution in other countries has not worked, even if correct, does not mean that legalization and regulation cannot work. We’ve managed to do it with other previously illegal industries, such as alcohol and gambling. If the methods used in Holland and Australia have not worked, then the U.S. can always try other methods.
Somebody asserted that the costs of regulating prostitution, if pushed back to the prostitutes, would drive up the cost of legal prostitution and create incentives for a black market in illegal prostitution. This need not be the case. The government will bring in additional funds from the legalization of prostitution, because prostitutes and their employers will now be part of the legal economy and therefore subject to normal taxation, as opposed to the current situation, where I strongly doubt that income and profits from prostitution are reported to the IRS. I have no idea if the increase in tax income to the government would pay for the additional costs of regulation, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
I do not see how making prostution legal would matter for this except maybe that they would be unable to sell their bodies because of their mental illness. If they are able to continue in the same manner then having a legal job would probably help them as opposed to having a illegal one.
Does it matter? Because the only other choice is greatly increasing the drug dealing and raping by making it illegal. Making it illegal removes every safeguard that the goverment can make. Even then a brothel open to the public deals with people who probably have alot more to lose than at the psychiatric treatment facility. Mental instutions are mostly closed to the public. The people inside often have little to lose if they go to jail and any prostitutes could leave a brothel. As far as drug dealing goes the best option would be to legalize it.
Your right, and brothels would probably be regulated enough to have to administer a psychological test to ferret these types of people out and help them. They certainly don’t get much help while prostitution is illegal.
I would argue that a strawman is equally as convincing as ancedotal evidence. Legalized prostution would greatly reduce the illegal abuses of prostution as it would greatly reduce illegal prostution. People who don’t like to risk breaking the law for a little extra profit would make up most of the legalized buisnesses. Cops could also keep a closer eye on the abuses of brothels as they are legal and regulated.
Many employers, despite their applications having statements to the contrary, will simply reject anyone with a criminal record regardless of the specific crime.
DocCathode:
News flash: The government’s ability to actively prevent crimes from happening anywhere is at best severely limited. For the most part, all it can do is try to punish people after the fact. In order to do even that, the authorities must know that a crime was commited. Now let me explain something to you: If a legal prostitute is raped in the course of business, there’s nothing to stop her from calling the cops. OTOH, an illegal prostitute who is similarly raped must either risk being prosecuted herself or let her attacker get away scot-free.
Basically, what you’re saying is that we should protect prostitutes from rape by making it so that most of them will be effectively forced to keep silent.
And here you are demanding that their only means of survival be a crime.
Robodude, I can not tell you what I’m feeling right now since this not a pit thread. I have posted my feelings on reformation of the mental healthcare system in other threads. I fervently want a system that works-one where these women can ACTUALLLy get help instead of spreading for strangers in alleys. Survival is the opearative word. They merely survive, getting just enough money for basic needs. It is not living. With each john, their pain grows and their menatl illness worsens. Eventually, they kill themselves. Yes, I want to keep it illegal for these women to kill themselves slowly. Have you ever been a patient in a mental health facility Robodude? Have you ever talked to these women? Have you ever hugged one while she wept, only to have her involuntary flinch from any physical contact with a man?
On second thought Robodude, you're right. I bow to your wisdom. Pam, who was raped by her father, her uncles and cousins until she ran away at 14, should be out letting johns fuck her for a twenty. Susan, who has not yet developed a multiple personality that surfaces during rape or molestation and so becomes blank and immobile, should be blowing johns for a few bucks. It's not as though these activities worsen their mental illnesses or tend to push already fragile minds into suicidal depression. You're absolutely correct Robodude. The next time I see Erica, who was molested by an Uncle who loved her enough to rent her out for kiddie porn, (These are real people and not hypotheticals BTW) as a caring friend I should, no I MUST, hand her a ten and tell her to blow me! Thank you Robodude for opening my eyes! (To those unfamiliar with or unable to grasp such concepts, the above is sarcasm. The pasts of Erica, Pam, and Sue are sadly very real. I cry when I think of what they've been through and will do so until the day I die)
As far as mental health tests being used to screen legal prostitutes, forget it. Any Psych patient with experience can fake a test. After years in the system, it's simple to tell the shrinks what they want to hear mixed with enough negative answers to be believable. Again, unless you've had ample personal experience, don't tell me that it can't be done.
Again DocCathode does it matter wether or not it can be done? It is impossible to force someone who doesen’t want to to get help. You see the ones that have been through psychatric care. What about all the ones who never even get that far? Brothels would still be much better at getting people help than the alternative. You can destroy people even if you have the best intentions for them if they don’t agree with you.
) Certainly you’ve failed to convince me.