# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/161 "2005-12-19T00:56:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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 think that using the the Southern Baptist Convention as showing “broad support from both the left and the right for keeping prostitution illegal” is at best **reaching** , and at worst, a bold-faced mis representation of the truth. Aside from the activity of the Southern Baptist Convention, what other sources lead you to your conclusion? And to repeat a question asked by **mhendo** , > [@](#): > > So, is morality then a nationally-based commodity. Is it possible, in your mind, for something to be moral in New Zealand and immoral in the United States? > > Surely, if you are condemning prostitution because you believe it to be immoral, the question of how the legalization of prostitution has affected New Zealand society should be irrelevant? Immorality is immorality, is it not? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/162 "2005-12-19T00:59:10Z")
**Bricker** ’s acted immorally in this thread. The majority of the posters in here agree with that. Therefore, **Bricker** should be outlawed. I await **Bricker** ’s reply in which he challenges me to prove he acted immorally - I’m afraid I don’t have to do that, just as you have not proved prostitution is immoral. It is my opinion that he acted immorally. That is also the opinion (it would seem) of many posters in this thread. By your logic, that is enough for a call to be made for illegalisation. I call for immediate looks at the legislation to ensure law-abiding people will be safe from **Bricker**. ---
**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, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/163 "2005-12-19T00:59:13Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > In [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=177581) thread, you wrote, in reply to this: > > So, has what you believe in changed? I hope my contribution in that thread makes it clear that I believe prostitution to be wrong. But you raise a good point. I said in that thread that a religiously-based moral objection was not a proper basis for criminal law in the United States.I still believe that. But I’ve thought of an additional, non-religiously-based objection in the two years since that thread ran its course, and I believe that if something is immoral, it CAN be the proper basis for criminal law. ---
**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, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/164 "2005-12-19T01:02:26Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > In terms of criminal law, something being immoral is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for an action to be illegal. It’s not a necessary condition. There are plenty of things that are criminally prohibited but not necessarily immoral; these are known by the fancy-pants latin phrase _malum prohibitum_ (as distinct from _malum in se_.) Example: fishing without a license. Interestingly enough, Wikipedia lists prostitution among the “crimes commonly considered malum prohibitum.” ---
**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, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/165 "2005-12-19T01:02:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Well, it should have said “some liberal feminists” then, not just “liberal feminists.” Also, your own argument relies on questions of majorities, and holds liberal feminists up as part of this. You specifically said “Liberal feminists believe…” a statement which, absent any qualifier, tends to lead people to assume that it encompasses the vast majority of the group in question. In my experience with reading liberal feminist literature and hanging out with liberal feminists, this isn’t true. > [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Some? Big fucking deal. I don’t doubt it. I’m sure you can find _some_ liberal feminists saying a whole bunch of different things. But the way you framed this issue, you made it appear as if it were the default or majority or consensus position, which is something that’s far from demonstrated. Just out of interest, if i made the claim that “Conservatives oppose George Bush’s position in Iraq,” is it sufficient that i can find some conservatives who do in fact oppose Bush’s position in Iraq? Or should a general statement like this, which appears on its face to apply to all or most Conservatives, be qualified in cases where the exact percentage is up for debate, and the authority of the person making the claim to speak for all conservatives is dubious at best? > [@Bricker](#): > > And I credit the Washington Post over Wikipedia. In general, i do too. But the very fact that the definition on Wikipedia is allowed to stand, and the article is not even listed as being in dispute, suggests that those liberal feminists who have seen it and contributed to it feel that it representes a sufficient proportion of their number. I’ve never made the claim that no liberal feminists oppose prostitution. In fact, NOW, a prominent liberal feminist organization, sometimes makes pronouncements against it. I simply opposed the blanket nature of the _Post_ article’s assertion, and your uncritical acceptance of it. > [@Bricker](#): > > 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. I agree about the paper’s general reputation for reporting. I still think that the way this particular sentence was phrased is misleading at best. ---
**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, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/166 "2005-12-19T01:03:20Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > **Bricker** ’s acted immorally in this thread. The majority of the posters in here agree with that. Do they? > [@](#): > > I await **Bricker** ’s reply in which he challenges me to prove he acted immorally - I’m afraid I don’t have to do that, just as you have not proved prostitution is immoral. It is my opinion that he acted immorally. That is also the opinion (it would seem) of many posters in this thread. By your logic, that is enough for a call to be made for illegalisation. I call for immediate looks at the legislation to ensure law-abiding people will be safe from **Bricker**. Even if you’re right about the majority of people in this thread, that’s not how laws are made. Laws are made at the behest of the majority of people in the relevant jurisdiction. If you believe a majority of Virginians, or a majority of the people here in the US, believe I’ve acted immorally… they don’t. It’s that simple. They don’t. ---
**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, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/167 "2005-12-19T01:07:08Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > 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? There are so many of you, and only one of me. Prostitution is different from gambling because gambling is legal and most people like it that way. Gambling is a matter of choice; prostitution a matter of desperation, generally. Anyone can see that the two are different. All of us in the reality-based community understand the difference between prostitution and gambling. ---
**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, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/168 "2005-12-19T01:08:34Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Well, it should have said “some liberal feminists” then, not just “liberal feminists.” Fine. I amend my position. SOME liberal feminists. Etc. ---
**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, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/169 "2005-12-19T01:10:02Z")
> [@Pietro](#): > > 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? Nope. ---
**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, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/170 "2005-12-19T01:12:43Z")
> [@Pietro](#): > > It’s not a necessary condition. There are plenty of things that are criminally prohibited but not necessarily immoral; these are known by the fancy-pants latin phrase _malum prohibitum_ (as distinct from _malum in se_.) Example: fishing without a license. Interestingly enough, Wikipedia lists prostitution among the “crimes commonly considered malum prohibitum.” Yeah, I was not completly comfortable with that statement, especially since IANAL. 🙂 But, it’s still true that that the assumption of the OP is that an action being immoral is sufficient cause for it to be illegal. That is incorrect. ---
**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, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/171 "2005-12-19T01:13:24Z")
> [@Pietro](#): > > It’s not a necessary condition. There are plenty of things that are criminally prohibited but not necessarily immoral; these are known by the fancy-pants latin phrase _malum prohibitum_ (as distinct from _malum in se_.) Example: fishing without a license. Interestingly enough, Wikipedia lists prostitution among the “crimes commonly considered malum prohibitum.” Fallacy – Denying the Antecedent. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/172 "2005-12-19T01:15:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I’ve thought of an additional, non-religiously-based objection in the two years since that thread ran its course, and I believe that if something is immoral, it CAN be the proper basis for criminal law. OK, so what’s that objection? And does regulated prostitution (as exists in Nevada) sufficiently address that objection? ---
**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, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/173 "2005-12-19T01:15:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Prostitution is different from gambling because gambling is legal and most people like it that way. In this country, full-scale gambling is only legal in a few places, and plenty of people think it oughtn’t to be. > [@Bricker](#): > > Gambling is a matter of choice; prostitution a matter of desperation, generally. Why can’t you accept that some people might freely choose to engage in prostitution? > [@Bricker](#): > > Anyone can see that the two are different. All of us in the reality-based community understand the difference between prostitution and gambling. Well, I can see that they’re different in that one involves paying money for the privilege of inserting one’s penis into another’s vagina/mouth/rectum, while the other involves paying money for the privilege of having a chance of getting even more money back. But I don’t see an ethico-legal distinction. ---
**Author:** ![lonesome\_loser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c68b51/32.png) [@lonesome\_loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lonesome_loser)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/174 "2005-12-19T01:15:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do they? > > Even if you’re right about the majority of people in this thread, that’s not how laws are made. **Laws are made at the behest of the majority of people in the relevant jurisdiction**. > > If you believe a majority of Virginians, or a majority of the people here in the US, believe I’ve acted immorally… they don’t. It’s that simple. They don’t. Actually the people have very little if any input in the making of laws. Most are made at the behest of special interests. Especially federal laws. ---
**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, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/175 "2005-12-19T01:22:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fallacy – Denying the Antecedent. Please explain what you meant. Somebody said that an action’s being immoral was a necessary condition for its being illegal. I explained that this is false. What are you saying here? > [@Bricker](#): > > Nope. So, your “should” opinion is relevant while my “shouldn’t” opinion is not, eh? Absurd. If I choose to comment any further, it shall be in the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/176 "2005-12-19T01:35:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Gambling is a matter of choice; prostitution a matter of desperation, generally. …cite? You’ve repeated this mantra several times, yet don’t seem to support it. Why isn’t entering the field of prostitution a “choice?” I know many women (and men) who chose the field of prostitution because it allowed them to maintain their lifestyle. Why do you not think this is a valid life style choice? ---
**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, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/177 "2005-12-19T01:41:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Prostitution is different from gambling because gambling is legal and most people like it that way. Gambling is a matter of choice; prostitution a matter of desperation, generally. We make it as unpleasant as possible and treat them badly; of course few want to be prostitutes. It’s less a matter of prostitution being immoral, than it is a matter of the _nonprostitutes_ being immoral. > [@Bricker](#): > > Anyone can see that the two are different. All of us in the reality-based community understand the difference between prostitution and gambling. Certainly. In gambling, there is always a winner and a loser; it’s a zero sum game. In prostitution, it’s at least _possible_ for both parties to walk away with what they want. I personally respect prostitutes and their customers more than I do gamblers and casinos. ---
**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, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/178 "2005-12-19T01:49:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Why would anyone even for a moment suspect that I was in favor oif legalized prostitution? I don’t think you’re in favor of it–however, the “it’s immoral, so there” is not a characteristic argument for you. And you were just in a debate where you seemed dubious of such basis for an argument. “But for crissakes, stop with the posture that asserts, as though it were gospel truth, that your view is the only possible correct one,” you say, and then start a thread arguing _for_ the same, but with unaccustomed scarcity of logic and reasoning, even pointing to the thread where you argued _against_ the same point to now _support_ your “argument”. “It’s just immoral. Everyone - or, more accurately, most people - feel that way. What else is needed?” you say now. I believe you are against prostiution and think it should be illegal–however, I think the “lots of us think it’s immoral, so it should be illegal” is a strawman you want shot down to bolster your argument in the other thread. You asked for a moderator ruling on what you can say, and I gave it. Say what you believe, do not be disingenous, and if you want to argue by anaology or devil’s advocate make that crystal clear. Further discussion of your motives for this thread should be in the Pit or via email, since I do not wish to continue a hijack. If nothing else, this point out another drawback to “gotcha” threads–after your Virginia-I-mean-Hawaii thread every thread you post in the near future is going to be scrutinized to figure out what it “really” is. ---
**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, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/179 "2005-12-19T02:03:03Z")
> [@Gaudere](#): > > If nothing else, this point out another drawback to “gotcha” threads–after your Virginia-I-mean-Hawaii thread every thread you post in the near future is going to be scrutinized to figure out what it “really” is. THAT is a point well-taken. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149/180 "2005-12-19T02:12:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Oh, you get to make unsupported assertions. And no one calls you on it. > > Only I am expected to maintain the standards of GD, eh? 😕 > [@Revtim](#): > > You said you were a practicing Catholic, aren’t you supposed to get your morals from the church, and not public opinion polls? > [@Bricker](#): > > Well, from the teaching authority of the Church and a fully-informed conscience. > > But I recognize this is not a persuasive source for much of the country, and far be it from me to suggest that religion should guide public policy. No, no - it’s simply morals that should guide public policy. > [@treis](#): > > Your morals come straight from your religion. There is no difference for you between religion and morality. Its dishonest for you to say that morals should guide public policy not religion becuase for you they are one and the same. Unless I missed something in this exchange **Revtim** asked you where you got your morals from and you responded with the Church and a fully-informed conscience. You then said that religion should not guide public policy but morals should. I then pointed out that for you morals and religion are the same becuase you derive your morals from your religion. I don’t know what unsupported assertion I made or how I strayed from the standards of GD. I took “fully formed conscience” to mean that you merely had free will and choose to follow the Church’s teachings. If that is incorrect can you quantify how much of your morals come from your religion and how much from your fully formed conscience. Furthermore, can you please explain why prostitution is immoral by using an argument deriving from your fully formed conscience becuase, as we have established, religion should not guide public policy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prostitution-is-immoral-and-therefore-should-be-outlawed/336149.md?page=10)