Oh, and I realize that this is a bit of a hijack, but since this thread for the moment has turned into me and Stoid vs. wring, I’m going to throw out something here that may inspire a few others to join in.
I’ve never been with a prostitute, and probably never will. This has nothing to do with the legality of the situation in my area. I’m one of those rare men who simply has no interest in women unless there’s some kind of intellectual connection between us. That doesn’t mean that if I met the right hooker I couldn’t be inspired to pay for sex, but its probably not going to happen.
Still, if you wanna go out and spend your money on sex, by no means will I attempt to stand in your way.
Anyone else in the pro-legalization camp never bought any?
It is perfectly legal to get paid for having sex. So long as you’re a porn star.
I have a question for wring. Would you consider it prostitution if a woman who otherwise didn’t want to have sex with me did have sex with me after I bought her flowers? It occurs to me that this sort of thing probably happens often. Sure, it would be nice if every relationship was full of mutual respect and adoration, but we all know that in some cases a man is using a woman for sex who is using him for money (or vice versa). Is this prostitution? If not, why not?
BTW, The Onion had a humorous story titled “Housewife Charged in Sex-for-Security Scheme”. I think it highlights the above idea quite nicely.
Tuckerfan I’m with you and stoid all the way on this one. The thought of the government protecting me from my own decisions is so repulsive to me I do not know where to begin. The government does not know how to run my life better than I do! If they believe people often make a certain mistake, then fine, start a public campaign of warnings and information but prohibiting and mandating things which affect nobody else is inadmissable government intervention in my private life. wring believes the government can run my life better than myself but, of course, that is as long as the government agrees with her view. People who like the government running everything always imagine the government will run everything the way they like it. I prefer my own freedom thank you very much, for myself and for those who have a different view.
I’m suprised I’ve never gotten into the prostitution debates before. At least, I don’t remember if I have.
I, for one, have willingly sold myself for sex. $40, back when I was in tenth or eleventh grade. A rightous $40 it was, too. After all, I got to have sex, and get paid for it.
Admittedly, my standards for erection just barely fall short of dead people (and that’s only If I’m looking at their carcasses, of course, for I would love to have sex with who Marilyn Monroe used to be!), but I know I am not the only person out there who would do such a thing. And I highly doubt, even without stoid’s anecdotal evidence, that this is strictly a “guy” thing.
Case in point: Nevada. Volunteer sex workers. I recall watching a whole documentary on them, and have read quite a few testimonials about these very prostitutes. I have never had a prostitute and always wanted to, so I did a litle reasearch on them regarding cost, what they looked like, what the procedure was, etc. Interesting reading.
At any rate, the thought occurred to me on reading the second page of this debate that the arguments against are not quite thinking through things. Given, that is a brazen accusation to make against kabbes and wring, among others, but I thought: we already have such an affair. We call it “pornography.” People getting paid to have sex. The beauty of that work, of course, is that both parties are getting paid by a third party to have sex, which is a win/win/lose situation.
I remain unconvinced that legalization isn’t a good idea. I am willing to concede potential problems with drug legalization, but prostitution? Sorry, not yet.
I’m desperate to get back into this debate, but I’m in the middle of a work crisis. I am, however, reading to ensure I can catch up later.
And I resent completely the implication by Stoid there that wring has “given up” her side. To make that accusation against someone who has proven that she is willing to put in hours of research on the subject and post endlessly for weeks at a stretch on the matter is simply… abominable.
We can’t all be on demand to intelligently summarise our positions on the drop of a hat. We have other things we also must do.
Stoid - I insist you apologise to wring for that outrageous slur. I’m really very annoyed with you right now.
Prohibition is highly relevant - there is no “right” to consume alcohol, either. States may still outlaw the sale and consumption of alcohol in their jurisdictions.
It is relevant because it is an example, as with prostitution, where an attempt to outlaw a vice demonstrated that the social costs associated with the criminalization was much higher than the social costs associated with the activity itself.
In any event, there are a god-awful amount of activities that are not “rights”, but are not and should not be outlawed. Pro wrestling, for one - though people may argue about the social costs there.
Maybe this is just the NYC perspective, but the names of maybe .5% of accused criminals get their names in the paper. Further, there are no laws barring newspapers from publishing the names of arrested johns now. It is my understanding that the few jurisdictions that have published the names of johns purchased advertising space to do so - so they were treating the johns differently than other criminals.
But that is not our (or at least my) argument - I made those points in response to your arguments.
My point is that an activity should not be criminalized unless (a) the activity itself bears an unavoidable and serious cost on those refraining from the activity; and (b) the social costs of the activity are greater than the social costs of prohibiting the activity.
Prostitution does not meet this test. The large majority of costs associated with prostitution actually derive from prohibition, not the activity itself.
There is nothing inherently evil in paying for sex. Indeed, it is only a matter of degree between Anna Nicole Smith and the Happy Hooker.
There are two evils associated with prostitution in America - the motivations that drive women into the business, and the conduct of those who exploit women in the business and/or force women into the business.
The first of those, the motivation of the prostitutes (regardless of how many are drug addicts, nympomaniacs, good businesswomen, etc.), has no bearing on the activity itself. If the drug addict stopped being a prostitute, she would still be a drug addict. It is not causation, it is correlation.
The second has a causal relationship with criminalization.
How much can be argued, but at least some of the abuse of prostitutes can be dissipated by legalization and regulation.
BTW, legalizing and regulating prostitution does not make the government (and you) a “pimp” any more than legalizing and regulating alcohol makes the government (and you) a “bartender”.
Finally, Stoid - wring didn’t respond for twelve hours? Chill. I didn’t respond here for 2 1/2 days. Other things occur in life.
Gee. I have to appologize for not having the time and energy to respond to people who don’t respond to my requests for back up to their arguments? Feh. Thanks kabbes, but I doubt that I’ll get an acknowledgement let alone an apology.
First of all, has anyone been able to come up with anything to suggest that there’s a long list of folks just waiting for prostitution to be legalized, so they can join up? Didn’t think so.
There’s a certain amount of folks who think that they should be able to purchase sexual release through another person. There’s a certain number of people who are working as prostitutes. However, as has been evidenced, the number of people currently working as prostitutes includes a number of those who are not doing it as a matter of choice.
I submit that as long as we have people who believe that they have a right to demand sex for money, there will be the need for people to be coerced, tricked and forced into providing that service, since there doesn’t appear to be a sufficient quantity of those who would freely choose the occupation. and that problem is not going away and will not be addressed by legalizing the service. Since no one has challenged the concept that trafficing does occur, even where prostitution is legal, and no one has demonstrated that there exists a pool of folks ready to provide the service, perhaps they’ll finally come up with something to demonstrate that the problems associated with the prostitution trade will diminish with legalization.
Other problems associated w/prostitution - the coercion of people to perform the service, drug abuse among prostitutes, problems for businesses and residents near areas of prostitution (all detailed in the other threads).
“legalization gives women the power” ?? really. From what I’ve seen of the facts where it’s legalized, the brothel owners (who aren’t providing the direct services), the trafficers, and the governments seem to be raking it in, and, as in the illegal trade, the sex worker themselves continue to struggle. It may be a gilded cage, but it’s still a cage.
Since you were so busy tapping your foot in impatience about my silence, one would have thought you’d have had time to bring out evidence. Seems to still be lacking. But of course, you consider evidence “I’ve talked to people IRL who…” And, of course, you know that I have as well, talked to people in real life. Unlike you, I don’t attempt to pass it off as evidence when asked for some.
You are fierce in your championing of this cause. I would find your passion more believable if you sought to help those who are forced into the trade instead of focusing on the fact that those who desire to be prostitutes end up with a criminal record. I personally would find multiple rape to be a far more troubling condition to focus my attention on.
I’d like to thank wring for showing me that I can agree with Ex-Tank and sailor and even Milo! (Look what you’ve done to me wring!)
Think again. The UN, who happens to agree with you and kabbes on the evil of prostitution is waiting for it’s legalization. Or more precisely, the decriminalization of it’s victims.
Even though I do not agree that my worth is tied into what other women do with their bodies and even though I do agree that traffiking women and children against their will should always be illegal, what does this have to do with what anyone, man or woman, does with his or her own body of their own free will?
We are not discussing those who are forced into prostitution. Forced labor of any kind is illegal.
And I submit that you are mixing up who has which right to do what. No one here has said that anyone has a right to demand sex for money. Where in the world did you get this idea?
The problem is not going away. Just as you have demanded the pro-legalization proponents show how legalization can stop the problem of illegal traffiking, I now demand that you show how keeping prostitution does anything but further victimize the victims.
Sua I disagree that the ‘only problem’ associated with prostitution is enforcement.
There’s been documented evidence that at least a certain number of those involved in the trade are there through coercion and trickery, which means that serial rape. In addition, there’s the problems of people in the neighborhood, the **Cecil statement ** of it’s a nuisance.
IOW, if there were any other way of earning a living, the choice wouldn’t be made to be a prostitute. This also includes a comment that many of those at a convention of sex workers most stated they enjoyed their work etc. Of course, the sample there was 500 who could afford to attend a convention, but in the interest of examing all info, is pointed out here.
So you see, Sua why I say there’s more of a problem in prostitution than simply the enforcment.
Again, I call on those who are in favor of it: where is your evidence that sufficient people are just waiting for legalization to begin their life long desire of prostitution, since the ‘demand’ is there.
(and before you say, well, see, the demand is there, therefore we have to provide for it, allow me to point out that not everyone believes that one aught to be able to purchase sexual contact. And while we’re allowing for sufficient job training for people who desire it, drug treatment for those who need it, prosecution for those who would kidnap and coerce folks into prostitution, we should also attempt to remind folks there are some things that money cannot and should not buy)
Since it was your inference, not my implication, perhaps you should do the apologizing.
I noticed that wring had posted something later yesterday, so I was just asking when later was gonna be. If my intention was to question whether wring was abandoning the debate, I would have said “Hey wring, did you decide it wasn’t worth fighting over?” or something similar. I’m many things, but subtle really isn’t one of them. Impatient is.
stoid
who also has a life, especially on Mondays when the board is agonizingly slow and I have work to do, so don’t expect anything more from me for awhile. However, should you grow impatient and question when I return, or even accuse me of abandoning the debate, I assure you I won’t consider you “abominable” :rolleyes:
**BigGIrl[b/]Consider this:
there are (let’s just grab a number) 100 paid sex acts happening today.
We can quibble about the relative percentage of voluntary vs. involuntary but even if it’s only 25% involuntary - (and I’d strongly disagree w/that), what do you think is going to happen to those folks who would have purchased sex? They’ll just go home with ‘oh well’? It is the fact that people will buy sex for money that causes the market for the coerced traffic. Legal/illegal, there’s still a market for coerced folks, because apparently even where it’s legal, there’s insufficient people willing to become prostitutes to supply the demand.
So, as long as A(concept of purchasing sex for money) will exist, then B (coercion into prostitution) will exist, since there’s insufficient #s willing to become prostitutes. So why not attempt to illiminate A? (given that we agree that the coerced traffic is morally repugnant and should be ceased).
Sua is doing a much better job than I could so I’ll just add my vote to his.
>> Again, I call on those who are in favor of it: where is your evidence that sufficient people are just waiting for legalization to begin their life long desire of prostitution, since the ‘demand’ is there.
They are not waiting “outside” to get in. They are already doing it and are made criminals for it by the law.
>> (and before you say, well, see, the demand is there, therefore we have to provide for it, allow me to point out that not everyone believes that one aught to be able to purchase sexual contact.
And not everyone believes that one ought to be able to express oneself freely, or practice a religion, or many other things. The difference between Afghanistan and the USA is that in the USA the government is not supposed to infringe on the rights and freedoms of the individual unless there is a very compelling social interest which is not the case when it comes to prostitution.
The harm that comes from tobacco is far greater and, while the government regulates it and does public awareness campaigns, it still allows the individual the final choice of poisoning himself.
>> And while we’re allowing for sufficient job training for people who desire it, drug treatment for those who need it, prosecution for those who would kidnap and coerce folks into prostitution, we should also attempt to remind folks there are some things that money cannot and should not buy)
Yes, and those things shall be decided for you by wring and people like her, who know what is best for you much better than yourself. Look, you cannot have it both ways. Either women are mature and responsible enough to make their own decisions in life without a paternalistic government telling them what they can and cannot do, or we go back to when women were considered weak beings who had to be protected from others and from themselves. Which one is it?
So? The fact that I chose to post in other threads later means less than zero about my interest and intent in this or any other thread, and I resent the implication, however ‘slight’ you now claim, that it did. The fact was that I saw fit to pay tribute to a woman I respected highly instead of responding to you.
So long as sex and money exist, coercion will exist.
Let’s say that out of 100 sex acts paid for, all 100 are coerced. It doesn’t matter whether prostitution is illegal or not-- coercion is against the law and no one is advocating legalizing coercion.
Now, are we speaking of the morality of selling sex or the legality of selling sex? Are we speaking about a person willingly taking 40 dollars in exchange for a blowjob or an illegal alien sold into sexual slavery?
You know something? I bet both the willing and unwilling person would agree that they should not be criminals.
I also think the demand for sex for sale is relatively constant. Are you saying that costumers would prefer to buy sexual favors illegally? I say not.
And please, show us all how making sexual slaves criminals helps them in any way.
Now wait a minute: when did I ever say that? Indeed, I explicitly acknowledged that prostitution causes social ills.
But I submitted (and I re-submit) that (a) social ills in and of themselves are not a cause for prohibiting an activity - note tobacco, alcohol, cheeseburgers, SUVs, etc. - and (b) that criminalization, rather than curing the social ills associated with prostitution, create new ones.
No need - there are plenty of currently illegal prostitutes who can benefit from the legalization of their trade.
Circular argument. “Prostitution should be illegal because some people believe it should be illegal.”
And why is sex one of those things? Why sex and not coal-burning stoves? Why is the old “in and out” to be considered unique?
wring, you arguments are putting the cart before the horse. You consistently state that prostitution should be illegal because there are scads of horrors associated with the sex trade. But let’s start with first principles:
What is wrong with the concept of trading sex for money between willing participants in the transaction?
If there is something wrong with the concept of trading sex for money, what is it about the concept that would make it appropriate for the government to step in and prohibit it, as opposed to innumerable other items available on the open market that impose social costs?
Are the social costs associated with prostitution lessened, enhanced, or unaffected by criminalization?
BTW, you are absolutely correct that there is no “right” (at least constitutional) to be a prostitute or to pay for sex. However, that has no bearing on this debate - people do not have a “right” to engage in most legal activities.
Did I ask for any kind of apology? Nope. See previous.
Which proves…?
I reject your conclusion. You are saying that because A exists, and B exists, A must be causing B. Therefore, we must keep the activity of A illegal. I think your logic is deeply flawed, and as far as I can see, while you have spoken out repeatedly against prostitution itself, you haven’t shown in any way that keeping it illegal accomplishes what you want. Even remotely.
Not a fair request. There is no “THE” problem, it’s the problem ** you ** see. It’s ** your agenda ** , not ours, and especially not the agenda of prostitutes. You want us to prove to you that legalization will accomplish what you want legalization to accomplish, which is to wipe out the problems ** you** see with prostitution. Everyone has conceded that not only will legalization not cure all the ills associated with prostitution (any more than the end of prohibition cured alcoholism) ** * nothing will * **. But that doesn’t mean that keeping prostitution illegal is a good idea, because that in itself creates other problems, and has not done anything to cure “the problem” either.
These issues will certainly be EASIER to deal with in an atmosphere where prostitutes are not themselves criminals for plying their trade.
So now it’s a matter of who gets the richest? I wouldn’t legalize the way it’s legalized in Nevada. But the women who work there obviously prefer working where it’s legal than where it’s not. And these women chose to be there. I have repeatedly rejected what you accept as a good idea: that we try to prevent people from making what some of us consider poor choices. How dare you set yourself up as the arbiter of what someone else should do with their life? How dare you, really? What on earth makes you think that you know better for everyone else? As i said earlier in the thread, there are millions of women in the world making all kinds of stupid choices that don’t involve sex for money, but which are just as or more life-destroying…what are you doing about them? Why do you keep insisting that making criminals of these women is some act of social conscience??
I know for a fact that at least one of the “studies” you use is lies. I don’t respect your sources in this case because I know more about your sources than you do. (Tell me, wring, if you were interviewed as part of a study on women who use message boards, and you told the interviewer you loved it but it could make you crazy sometimes, and the interviewer went on to report that you “seemed to hate it”, and then you came to me and told me that the interviewer was lying and distorting what you had said, should I believe you or the “study”? After all, “the study” has been * published *! That must make it true, and what you have to say, I’ll just dismiss. Well, that’s basically what you’re asking me to do.)
But then, I’m not trying to control other people’s lives and choices, you are. I’ve told you before, I’ll tell you again: ** Because ** prostitution is an ** illegal activity ** you aren’t going to get accurate statistics about anything associated with it. What you are going to get is what you can scrape together by approaching the ** visible ** population, which is the ** lowest rung ** on the ladder. It’s like painting a picture of all alcoholics by using the ones in the gutter as representative of the whole, which is ridiculous.
Huh? What exactly are you saying here, wring? That my feelings about this issue are bogus in some way because I’m not working at a rape crisis center?
I would find ** your ** “passion” more believable if you weren’t so fixated on turning all women who choose to charge for sex into criminals for doing so, in the guise of wanting to “save” them.
stoid
PS: turns out I couldn’t wait to respond after all! LIke I said, I’m impatient.
Wow, no wonder this debate is going on so long… here is the evidence that you really don’t read what others have written. I never said it was a “slight” implication, wring, I very clearly and specifically indicated that there was ** no implication whatsoever of any kind even a little nada zip zero. ** I asked a question and it should be taken at face value.
No, I do not sell my body for sex. I do, however, sell my smile. I sell a soft and compliant voice. I sell a pleasing “anything for you” attitude. Everyday men look me over, acessing me with their eyes. Everyday I get hit on by slime, and I must smile and take it. I don’t have any choice, it is the only employment availible to me. I, like millions of others, work in the service industry. The only difference between me and a whore? I only get seven dollars and hour for my humiliation.
Speaking of the same argument, I’ve seen you use this one over and over again and not seen anyone poke the big hole in it that it needs.
Have you heard of something called a Health Spa? In it there are objectified women who are forced to touch unattractive men who view them as object of pleasure.
to pay for sex, but its probably not going to happen.