I don’t have a specific example of that as it is an entirely made-up example. But once prostitution is legal I suspect certain wealthy and powerful people will come to see all workers as potential whores. Maybe Zeriel is confident that rules can be put in place to prevent it from spilling over into other fields, but I think there could be all kinds of abuses. “You two both want a promotion? Well, besides the higher pay and better benefits you gotta blow the boss (me) as part of that position. Who wants it more?” That kind of thing. Maybe I just haven’t spent enough time thinking about prostitution.
Btw, anyone ever tell you you got a pretty mouth, Finn?
I would imagine a prostitute would be under the same regulations and expectations as, say, a masseuse. I haven’t as yet found a legal cite either way so I’m presuming she could not do that.
On the other hand, there’s nothing to say that a prostitute couldn’t legally decline service to anyone for any reason, so long as it can’t be proved she’s solely using racist reasons, same as any other business.
Yet again, any evidence at all for that position? Cites from Nevada would be fine for American culture, I’d wager. It’s been legal in Nevada long enough that you should have no trouble finding cites, should you actually have a case. You can spin as many hypotheticals as you like, got any data, at all, to back 'em up?
I suppose I should mention that the way legalized prostitution works in Nevada is a very good example of how NOT to set up a system that is fair and safe for the actual workers themselves.
All the testing and licensing and such are handled through the brothel, so if the girls’ very right to work is dependent on the brothel owner. They have a labor set up that’s similar to the way it works in a lot of strip joints-- the girls are ostensibly independent contractors, but in reality they have to work the hours the brothel says. This means that though they get paid reasonably well when they’re working, a great deal of the time they’re just sitting around doing nothing not getting paid. This is exacerbated by the remote desert locations all the brothels are in, so there’s a TON of downtime. Another problem is that the regulations that are in place say they can’t work or solicit anywhere but on the grounds of the brothel. They’re considered to be “working” 24/7, however, so they’re virtual prisoners during the roughly week-long hitches they work. There’s also a lot of criticism for how the testing regime protects customers reasonably well, but does nothing to protect the health of the girls themselves.
I don’t think any of the above problems are insurmountable nor inherent in sex work, but it’s just that the whole topic is so taboo that no legislator wants to actually tackle the problem of reforming the industry so it is safe, healthy, and fair for the workers. Some sex workers and advocates point at the Nevada system as an argument against full legalization, since the illegal (and therefore deregulated) industry is much fairer and arguably even safer for an independent sex worker.
FWIW New Zealand law states that “a person may, at any time, refuse to provide, or to continue to provide, a commercial sexual service to any other person”. As far as I know it has never been formally clarified whether there is a “racist reason” exception to this.
Agreed. OTOH, the main reason why prostitutes suffer abuse is because their work is illegal; so they need pimps to protect them and to make sure Johns pay, because they cannot collect debts by legal means, nor can they call on the law to protect them from rough Johns or other street-hazards – nor can they call on the law to protect them from their own pimps, who can treat them as slaves. Conversely, a John can’t very well call the law on a hooker who lifts his wallet or whatever. All that needs to change.
I’m still confused by the two sides of the argument about the rape question. I have understood that rape is punished FAR in excess of battery or aggravated battery because of the special place we have for the rights of a woman and her chastity.
Now, if a woman is on record as simply offering her body for money, any idea of a special protection for sex goes out the window, and posters in this thread readily admit that selling sex is not morally different from selling hamburgers.
But in the same scheme, why should we keep the heightened protections for rape when the transaction falls apart? If sex is not special and a woman has regularly consented to vaginal penetration for money by strangers, why when one particular stranger’s transaction falls apart should the prostitute be protected by a law designed to protect the Virgin Mary?
I don’t see how it can be both ways. Either prostitution should be illegal (or at least considered legal but with a stigma attached) and rape laws enforced or prostitution should be treated like selling anything else with a violation of the terms of that contract treated like everything else.
If I don’t pay my water bill, I don’t get 25 to life in prison…
That’s not the only reason we might have for punishing rape more strongly than assault or battery. Male rapes are punished more strongly than assault and battery even though the the rights of a woman and chastity do not come into play and there is no Virgin Mary involved.
Since prostitution is a service and not a tangible good, getting it against someone’s will involves controlling the other person against their will. In the same way, if someone forced me to provide legal services for them, it would involve controlling me and denying my autonomy to a greater degree than if they just stole my phone.
You speak of “offering her body for money”. Sometimes, inaccurate expressions are not a problem but in this case, it is a problem. A prostitute offers sexual services, she does not offer her body. You cannot help yourself to her liver. Speaking of offering one’s body in this context encourages poetic and hysterical hyperbole.
Also, one can think that someone should be free to sell sexual services, non-sexual services and widgets while still being able to recognize that having sex against your will creates more damages than having your widgets or some non-sexual services taken against your will.
Different acts will have different degrees of damages if done against someone’s will. Some non-sexual acts create more damages than other non-sexual acts, some sexual acts create more damages than non-sexual acts, some non-sexual acts create more damages than sexual acts and some sexual acts create more damages than some other sexual acts.
Why? Why not apply battery laws according to the severity of the case?
Some people essentially get beaten up for money (the service they provide). Yet when someone commits battery against another individual, it’s not the deprivation of the capacity to charge for the service that’s the crime, it’s the lack of volition on the part of the victim. Rape indicates the victim is being held against their will, yet so can other serious forms of battery.
That’s what I’d like. Use assault provisions for anything from a shove to a rape and use the thin skull rule to determine damages and the concomitant penalty.
If you’re asking why that isn’t the case right now. Laws are not issued from a single, coherent entity but from many entities across time who have quite different ideas. There is no single coherent moral philosophy underlying all applicable laws in a diverse society that has had a legal system for centuries.
To take your example and run with it, if a boxer is in the habit of charging for participating in boxing matches for money yet does not agree to fight with someone and the person starts punching him anyway, no one would say “well, it’s just theft of his services”. If someone participates in studies where they are held within a facility in exchange for money, holding them against their will is not merely a breach of contract and theft but false imprisonment. The fact that a service is sold which requires the use of the service provider’s body does not mean that taking it against someone’s will is merely a property matter. We have no difficult recognizing that when it comes to boxing or being held under observation in a study.
Or let’s take sperm. Let’s say I am in the habit of selling my sperm and I don’t want to sell it to someone and the person extracts it anyway. No one, not even Jtgain, would wonder why that’s not the same as shop lifting.
I never used the “theft of services” argument. I agree that is wrong. If someone, at gunpoint, forces you to draft a will or a real estate deed for them, that’s not simply a theft of services, it is an aggravated assault, false imprisonment, or what have you.
The reason why there is even a law called “rape” instead of just covering it under existing battery statutes is because of the inherent high value we place on chastity, morality, and the right of a woman to control her own body (implicitly through voluntary, non-commercial sexual encounters). When you make sex a commodity, the rationale behind the separation no longer exists and should be treated like a battery. (Male rape, notwithstanding. I’m sure a guy with missing fingers can count on his hand the number of prosecutions we’ve had for that, but it’s still based on the same rationale).
But, then, since we are treating sex like any other service, we would have to reduce damages from the current law that treats sex as if it is special. If I punch a boxer in the face, his damages will be less than if I punched a 92 year old granny in the face. Similarly, if a john went ahead and had sex with a prostitute when she declined, her damages are less than that of a typical woman who reserves sex only for her significant other.
That’s my sole argument: You can’t change the fundamental idea of sex and then apply a law that was meant for the old idea of sex.
Well let’s just assume we still would feel a woman has the right to control her own body, then it doesn’t matter who she has consensual sex with (or for what reasons) for any sex that is done against her will to be still considered rape.
Your last point would indicate that rape is treated as a lesser crime when the victim is a ‘slut’ than when she married her high school sweet hart. Is this the case in the US? Are damages/prison terms determined by the sexual past of the victim?
I’d rather have to give a handjob than participate in an MMA match against my will or be press ganged. The reason being the suffering it would cause me.
On the central point of damages being lesser for a prostitute (of either sex) who has sex with nearly anyone than for someone who reserves sex only for its significant other, I agree. Mind you, this is not because the damages to the prostitute are low, they would likely still be quite high and deserve severe punishment, but because the latter would indeed result in greater harm. Any punishment that is derived from legislative valuing of chastity or Christian morality doesn’t belong in the law.We should not specifically say that women should have a right to control of their people, we should say that persons should (while still recognizing that women are more likely to be victimized in that way).
Really? I don’t get this. Except for the same bits being used, I would think rape is nothing like consensual sex. Does having have had sex with people you wanted to, really make rape and ‘easier’ thing to endure? I don’t think the amount of consensual partners you have had, has much relation to how a person deals with being rendered helpless and forced to submit to the sexual fancies of a (probably violent) stranger.