# Prostitution is immoral and therefore should be outlawed **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 18, 2005, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149 "2005-12-18T09:53:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/141 "2005-12-18T23:58:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Bah. No one believes you. > > Or not the vast majority of the country. > > Or me, either. > > So, ergo, it’s not immoral. So when the “vast majority” believed women should be subjugated to men, or blacks to whites that was moral ? You have a rather sick definition of moral, apparently. ---
**Author:** ![Pietro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@Pietro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pietro)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/142 "2005-12-18T23:58:38Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > I may have missed the moment when someone points out that it doesn’t _matter_ what the majority feels on this issue, or _any_ issue. Constitutional protections are for the individual’s benefit, not society, and laws are (or should be) passed to restrict individual behaviour when the damage to society is proven or the restriction is minor. > > If no-one’s yet pointed this out, I claim firsties. Didn’t I do that [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6912139&postcount=61)? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2005, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/143 "2005-12-18T23:59:56Z")
> [@Richard Parker](#): > > **Bricker** , surely you know that there are ways to argue ethics other than “here’s what most people believe” and “it’s obvious to me.” Have you never taken a philosophy course? Sure I have. But as far as I’m concerned, if _I_ think something’s immoral, and a majority of people agree with me, that’s all that should matter. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/144 "2005-12-19T00:01:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Really? Which posts? **treis** said, “Your morals come straight from your religion.” I think your post #33 backs that up, to name only one. Perhaps you could tell something you consider a legitimate source or foundation of moral rules or judgments, which is independent of any church’s teachings. If it’s only a question of public opinion, then to what higher standard can you appeal, to determine whether New Zealand’s democratically-mandated tolerance of prostitution is more or less moral than America’s prohibition of it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/145 "2005-12-19T00:02:00Z")
> [@Pietro](#): > > [quote=Bryan Ekers > I may have missed the moment when someone points out that it doesn’t matter what the majority feels on this issue, or any issue. Constitutional protections are for the individual’s benefit, not society, and laws are (or should be) passed to restrict individual behaviour when the damage to society is proven or the restriction is minor. > > If no-one’s yet pointed this out, I claim firsties.[/quote] > Didn’t I do that [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6912139&postcount=61)? Completely irrelevant, unless you’re contending that prostitution is a constituionally protected activity. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/146 "2005-12-19T00:03:54Z")
> [@Pietro](#): > > Didn’t I do that [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6912139&postcount=61)? Sure, but I just didn’t feel like wading through three pages of people acting as through Bricker was interested in genuine debate and him egging them on. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/147 "2005-12-19T00:04:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But as far as I’m concerned, if _I_ think something’s immoral, and a majority of people agree with me, that’s all that should matter. Does the phrase “tyranny of the majority” mean anything to you ? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/148 "2005-12-19T00:04:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I rely on the report in the article I cited in the OP. If you believe the author had some sort of agenda that caused him or her to miscast the liberal feminist perspective, let’s hear it. But I find it very unlikely that my conservative, Catholic views somehow influence the Washington Post reporter. > > Do you think my conservative Catholic views influenced the author of that piece; changed what he or she wrote somehow? I’m as skeptical of the Washington Post report’s ability to speak for all liberal feminists as i am of yours. Just because you got the quote from an allegedly liberal newspaper doesn’t mean the author speak for all liberal feminists. And it’s not a matter of whether the author had an “agenda” or not. It could simply be a matter of ignorance, or insufficient research. But if s/he or you really believe that liberal feminists “abhor prostitution, and also seek to make it illegal,” then the burden of demonstrating this falls on the people making the assertion. And if s/he or you does not believe that _all_ liberal feminists hold this view, then it is also incumbent on the person making the claim to give some sense of what proportion of liberal feminists do believe this. My own reading of liberal feminist authors, and my own intereaction with people who describe themselves as liberal feminists, suggests that any attempt to say that liberal feminists abhor prostitution and seek to make it illegal is, at best, a dramatic oversimplification. While i don’t believe that Wikipedia is a final authority in any sense of the word, i’d be willing to bet that plenty of the people who have contributed to its [liberal feminism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Feminism) page are people who consider themselves liberal feminists. Here’s what it has to say: > [@](#): > > Because of this approach to self-ownership, liberal feminists also tend to support legalizing or decriminalizing prostitution, a position often challenged by radical feminists and by the religious right. Liberal feminists tend to view the criminalization of prostitution to be a legislative act rooted in patriarchal control over the personal and business affairs of women, and thus repressive. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/149 "2005-12-19T00:04:55Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > So when the “vast majority” believed women should be subjugated to men, or blacks to whites that was moral ? You have a rather sick definition of moral, apparently. Yup. The “majority rules” is fine, in his head, so long as you are shielded from [the consequence of such an opinion](http://www.americanliterature.com/SS/SS16.HTML). ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/150 "2005-12-19T00:05:21Z")
> [@Bricker in "Great Debates"](#): > > I don’t think there can be any discussion. Why post in “Great **Debates** ” then? ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/151 "2005-12-19T00:20:44Z")
> [@](#): > > If I could get some definitive guidance from the mods on what I can and cannot do, I’d be happy to address the point you’ve raised. [Moderator Hat ON] Argue what you actually believe. If you wish to argue a point you do not actually believe for that sake of Devil’s Advocate or of a desire to point out hypocrisy, it must be crystal clear what you acually _are_ arguing. Posters in GD should be able to have a basic assumption that other posters are arguing in good faith. It is extrordinarily annoying to be arguing slavery in the Congo and suddenly find the debate is _actually_ about public housing in Detroit. Or find out a quote a poster used was actually done by a different person at a different time about a different subject. Then the whole debate becomes about the analogy used, how accurate it was, and how PO’d you are about the poster who was yanking you around. If your argument of hypocrisy is valid, it will be valid even if people know what you’re _really_ trying to argue. Look at what has happened here: Some people don’t agree your analogy is valid, some’re angry at you for trying to trick them, some’re comparing your previous statements and are confused by your apparent flipflop, some are trying to argue what your original argument appeared to be, some are trying to argue what they think your argument is. It’s a mess. Posters may argue Devil’s advocate positions, or compare two different debates by analogy, but they should make it immediately clear that’s what they’re doing. It’s the same reason why we demand links for parody posts, because it confuses and annoys people otherwise. If you had posted in your OP that you were using this as an analogy to the Pit thread argument, it would have been fine. I suggest you either reframe the debate as a direct analogy; argue your actual, honest position on what you really meant to argue about; or ask me to shut this thread down. The next thread you post that appears to be arguing things you don’t believe and does not have a link to what you’re really arguing about or explain that you’re arguing devil’s advocate is going to get locked. [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/152 "2005-12-19T00:21:09Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Why post in “Great **Debates** ” then? I take it you haven’t read the rest of the thread. If you did, you would discover that I have at least twice explained that the phrase was not intended to actually forestall debate, but simply indicate that the proposition is extraordinarily well founded. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/153 "2005-12-19T00:29:46Z")
> [@Gaudere](#): > > [Moderator Hat ON] > > Argue what you actually believe. If you wish to argue a point you do not actually believe for that sake of Devil’s Advocate or of a desire to point out hypocrisy, it must be crystal clear what you acually _are_ arguing. No problems there. I do believe, and have always believed, that prostitution is immoral and should be illegal. > [@](#): > > Posters in GD should be able to have a basic assumption that other posters are arguing in good faith. It is extrordinarily annoying to be arguing slavery in the Congo and suddenly find the debate is _actually_ about public housing in Detroit. Or find out a quote a poster used was actually done by a different person at a different time about a different subject. Then the whole debate becomes about the analogy used, how accurate it was, and how PO’d you are about the poster who was yanking you around. No chance of that happening here. I stand by my position, unless, of course, someone convinces me that my stance is in error. I’m puzzled: I’ve been on this board five years. I’ve always said I was a conservative Catholic. Why would anyone even for a moment suspect that I was in favor oif legalized prostitution? > [@](#): > > If your argument of hypocrisy is valid, it will be valid even if people know what you’re _really_ trying to argue. Look at what has happened here: Some people don’t agree your analogy is valid, some’re angry at you for trying to trick them, some’re comparing your previous statements and are confused by your apparent flipflop, some are trying to argue what your original argument appeared to be, some are trying to argue what they think your argument is. It’s a mess. The wicked flee where no man pursueth. > [@](#): > > Posters may argue Devil’s advocate positions, or compare two different debates by analogy, but they should make it immediately clear that’s what they’re doing. It’s the same reason why we demand links for parody posts, because it confuses and annoys people otherwise. If you had posted in your OP that you were using this as an analogy to the Pit thread argument, it would have been fine. But it’s not. The article in the Popst came out on Thursday. It struck me because it showed that their was broad support from both the left and the right for keeping prostitution illegal. This thread is not an analogy to anything. > [@](#): > > I suggest you either reframe the debate as a direct analogy; argue your actual, honest position on what you really meant to argue about; or ask me to shut this thread down. The next thread you post that appears to be arguing things you don’t believe and does not have a link to what you’re really arguing about or explain that you’re arguing devil’s advocate is going to get locked. I object to this characterization of this thread. It’s your playground; of course you may do as you please. But if the merits of the situation are any defense, then I’d like you to explain to me how a post arguing that prostitution should be illegal, from me, can possibly be believed to be “arguing things \* don’t believe.” I _do_ believe it. ---
**Author:** ![Pietro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@Pietro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pietro)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/154 "2005-12-19T00:32:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Completely irrelevant, unless you’re contending that prostitution is a constituionally protected activity. Oh, but I am. I believe the prohibition of prostitution violates the Due Process clause – it fails the rational basis test because it doesn’t serve any “legitimate government purpose,” emphasis on legitimate. That I would lose if I made this argument in any court in the country does not convince me that I’m wrong, any more than my position that prostitution is not immoral should convince you that you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/155 "2005-12-19T00:36:50Z")
> [@Pietro](#): > > Oh, but I am. I believe the prohibition of prostitution violates the Due Process clause – it fails the rational basis test because it doesn’t serve any “legitimate government purpose,” emphasis on legitimate. That I would lose if I made this argument in any court in the country does not convince me that I’m wrong, any more than my position that prostitution is not immoral should convince you that you’re wrong. Well, I don’t need to convince you you’re wrong. As long as we both understand that this view of the Due Process Clause would not be upheld by the courts, and thus has no practical significance, I’m good – believe what you please. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/156 "2005-12-19T00:42:50Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > I’m as skeptical of the Washington Post report’s ability to speak for all liberal feminists as i am of yours. Just because you got the quote from an allegedly liberal newspaper doesn’t mean the author speak for all liberal feminists. I don’t think the article claimed to speak for ALL liberal feminists. Indeed, who could make such a claim? Liberal feminists don’t have a College of Cardinals to elect a Liberal Feminist Pontiff who then has universal authority over the movement. But I do credit the article’s assertion that SOME liberal feminists are on board with the plan, and that they represent a not-insubstantial portion of people who self-identify as liberal feminists. And I credit the Washington Post over Wikipedia. In an earlier thread, I acknowledged that the Post’s reputation for solid reporting meant I should concede a position I was holding. No one suggested in that thread I was wrong to do so. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/157 "2005-12-19T00:47:06Z")
Folks: You’re not going to get anywhere by arguing that prostitution isn’t immoral. I sincere believe that **Bricker** , like most Americans, does believe it is immoral. That’s a side issue. The key is: what is \*\*necessary \*\*for something to become law. In terms of criminal law, something being immoral is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for an action to be illegal. \*\*Bricker \*\*has framed the debate that it is sufficient. IWO, Something need \*\*only \*\*be immoral in order to warrent that thing to be illegal. That is the flaw in his argument, as presented in the OP. I don’t think that prositution is immoral. But, it should be illegal in our society because making it illegal is not unconstitutional for states to ciminilize it, and most people want it to be illegal. And where people do want it to be legal, it is (a few counties in NV). ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/158 "2005-12-19T00:48:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’d like you to explain to me how a post arguing that prostitution should be illegal, from me, can possibly be believed to be “arguing things \* don’t believe.” I _do_ believe it. In [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=177581) thread, you wrote, in reply to this: > [@SuaSponte](#): > > Legalization will cause new social ills, no doubt. Damage to families and marriages will increase, for example. But on balance, legalization will be overwhelmingly a social good. > [@Bricker](#): > > Oddly enough - I agree. > > My remaining discomfort is founded upon a **religiously-based moral objection… and I acknowledge, regretfully, that this is not a proper basis for criminal law in the United States.** So, has what you believe in changed? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/159 "2005-12-19T00:50:29Z")
Bricker, I’m still waiting for an answer to the argument I put forth, lo these many pages ago, on the topic of victimless crimes and their morality. How is prostitution any different from gambling? ---
**Author:** ![Pietro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@Pietro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pietro)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/160 "2005-12-19T00:55:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, I don’t need to convince you you’re wrong. As long as we both understand that this view of the Due Process Clause would not be upheld by the courts, and thus has no practical significance, I’m good – believe what you please. Yeah, but you started this thread by arguing that it \*\*should \*\*be criminalized everywhere. So isn’t my belief that it shouldn’t because that’s not a legit thing for the state to do relevant? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149.md?page=9)