Actually, medieval Christendom generally tolerated prostitution (some medieval cities actually had state-owned brothels). Aquinas and others argued that just because something was immoral, didn’t mean it should be illegal, and used prostitution as an example. I think the outlawing of prostitution was more of an early-modern innovation.
That’s one of the way they displayed bad faith. They used a lot a lot reports made by “abolitionists” (wanting to eliminate prostitution) involved in aiding or rehabilitating prostitutes, for instance, but ignored completely other involved NGOs with opposing views, or as I said prostitute associations. They hand picked results, figures and reports, keeping only the “right” ones, or more subtly used them in a deceptive way (as usual, it’s easy to present a raw figure in a way that supports your position). They argued they were respectful of them, while the actual content of the text proposed was telling another story, for instance some protections afforded to prostitutes who denounced a pimp were dependant on them abandoning prostitution and following an accredited rehabilitation program, something that was never mentioned but a major sticking point for abolitionist/rehabiliters.
They stated that they didn’t intend to forbid prostitution but wanted to ban (safer) sollicitation/adds on internet, etc… when public sollicitation like streetwalking is already forbidden in France. They insisted on their concern regarding the safety of prostitutes while all of them were explaining how the new law would make their situation more dangerous and precarious (mostly because customers would require more discretion/anonymity). They were advancing some ludicrous arguments like “prostitute never do that by choice but because they need the money” (like everybody was thinking they are motivated by vocation or altruism).
Frankly I don’t remember all the issues. Some were blatant when reading the report/proposed law or listening to the proponents (“I completely respect the prostitutes, but really they’re so broken we need to tell them what’s good for them”…not an actual quote, of course, but the subtext, although it was sometimes close), but most of it I understood by reading prostitute blogs or prostitute associations’ websites. Most enlightening. Note by the way that some of them also shreded some of their male, non prostitute “supporters”.
I also learned by the way that the positive reports about the Norwegian experience were disputed as biased and even censored, in particular regarding the alleged fall of the prostitution rate after the criminalization of the customers.
Not always. Louis IX of France tried to ban prostitution, for instance. But generally yes, from what I read, it was pretty much accepted and even deemed necessary during the middle-ages (how else preventing unmarried young men from becoming rapists? :dubious: ). And strictly regulated. I remember reading about the trial of some guy accused of having requested from a prostitute to have sex in a position other than missionary.
But the Renaissance became more repressive. Famously, bath houses were closed because they doubled as brothels resulting in a massive drop of public hygiene.
It’s like the difference between making it illegal for minors to buy alcohol, and making it illegal to sell alcohol to minors. The former punishes the people you’re allegedly protecting, and discourages them from seeking help if they break the rules and something goes wrong.
Believe it or not, women actually do have sex drives. It may go against the teachings of the feminist orthodoxy but as long as a person actually enjoys what they’re doing, getting paid for it is just a bonus.
The biggest issue with legalising prostitution is balancing the absolute right to revoke consent for sex and the fact that prostitution is all about creating a contract where your side of the bargain is having sex with someone.
There’s some evidence legalizing prostitution might cut down on rape- some people have argued that when Rhode Island accidentally legalized prostitution between 2003-2009 (due to a loophole in the law) the rate of rape and gonorrhea went down. Of course, I’d want to see what an actual statistician makes of that.
I used this line myself a lot of the time (not with regard to prostitution, but with regard to other issues). I think you can make a very good case for paternalism, in theory. It’s just that we disagree about what sort of choices are indicative of being ‘broken’, and what sort of issues we should be paternalistic about.
I think the voter support is there, but not really the motive yet. It is something millennials, liberals and libertarians could all get behind. If you sell it as a way to ensure women aren’t being victimized that also makes it a moral issue.
It’d be nice. Women under 18 would be banned, women would be tested for diseases, they’d have legal protection from abuse and you could use some of the tax revenue to fund drug or mental health treatment for those who want it.
A decade ago pot Legalization seemed impossible, yet here we are.
If it does happen, then it’d probably start in new England.
However prices seem insane. I think in Germany or the US black market prices start at $60. Don’t the prices in Nevada start closer to $300? I’ve heard of Germany referred to as the Aldi of prostitution. Decent quality, low price. But I guess because they are the only truly legal place in Europe, I think, that would increase supply and drive down prices.
Houses are just a couple miles outside the State capital.
I don’t think prostitution is a liberal or conservative issue. Look at a map of where it’s legal sometime, and you won’t see any clear pattern.
Dup. How did that happen?
They aren’t the only ones at all. Prostitution is legal in most of Europe, even though there might be some limitations (like public sollicitation being forbidden in France). They are one of the few countries where there are brothels, which is completely different (plus : more safety for everybody involved, con : a third party benefits from prostitution). And in fact there are also brothels in Belgium and in Catalogne (northern Spain) at least and probably in other places (I think in some Latvian countries).
It’s not an enforceable contract. If a prostitute changes her mind, and you don’t change yours, you can definitely be prosecuted for rape. I’m not aware of any juridiction where it isn’t the case.
The issue, frankly, isn’t legal, it’s practical : the prostitute is likely to be in a situation where she feels that changing her mind is unsafe. And if she’s raped (more likely to be because the customer doesn’t want to pay than because the prostitute changed her mind), it’s going to be an uphill battle to prove it.
Note that brothels provide safety wrt this. If the prostitute has any issue with you, a big tall man is likely to show up and show you the door.
The issue of consent to sex is overblown, and obsessing about it IMO distract from real issues. The danger is much more being assaulted, beaten, robbed, etc… than her suddenly changing her mind in the middle of the action.
Prostitution is already legal in the United States at the federal level. So, mission accomplished!
So all we need to do now is to repeal prostitution laws in the 49 out of 50 states that have state laws against it, and in the innumerable localities that have laws against it. So there are no state laws against prostitution in Nevada, but there are local laws, which is why prostitution is illegal in Las Vegas, if you want to visit a legal brothel you have to drive out into the desert.
If you mean a federal law that forbids local and state laws against prostitution, that is never going to happen. We repealed federal laws against alcohol, but states and localities are still free to enact local laws against alcohol, repealing Prohibition nationally didn’t require forbidding local laws.
So start working on the state legislatures.
Same applied for gay marriage 30 years ago.
There’s a simple solution–if the sex worker changes their mind, they should be required to give back the money. If you walk into McDonalds and slap $20 on the counter and ask for a Big Mac, and the counter person says, “Coming right up!”, and then they find they’re out of special sauce until tomorrow, you aren’t allowed to rape the counter person. Instead they give you back your money.
Generally exchanges like this cannot require what’s known as specific performance except in extraordinary cases. If you agree to do X in exchange for Y, and you don’t do X, and you get sued, the judge isn’t going to order you to do X but rather that you have to give back Y. So if you have a contract for a million dollars to play football, and then you decide you don’t want to play football, you have to give back the million dollars plus perhaps some penalties if the contract specifies them. But you can’t be ordered out onto the field.
Or not. Even if you let the sex worker pocket the money, if they made a habit of fleecing clients, then sooner or later their client stream would dry up.
I know a guy who argues (semi-seriously) that the best way to deal with the security issue would be to have the state own the brothels, and have them full of policemen to deal with abusive clients.
Of course, state-run brothels is even less likely, at least in America, then legalizing prostitution to begin with, although it might have some thing to recommend it.
This has basically been the case for years in Canada, too, although there were tangential laws like prohibitions on soliciting and “living off the avails” until the Supreme Court struck them down last year. They’re now being replaced by new laws compliant with the court ruling.
As already said, the logic is that women in the so-called “sex trade” were at high risk and easily victimized, yet would not be able to come forward without fear of prosecution themselves – which made them even more vulnerable. That was precisely the basis of last year’s Supreme Court of Canada decision.
There are plenty of people whose humanist, progressive, etc… beliefs will lead to support gay marriage but at the same time to oppose prostitution.
Besides, you’re more likely to convince people emotionally by showing pictures of your loving gay family than by showing them pictures of your last paid intercourse with a prostitute.
The USA is heavy on both groups who oppose prostitution : conservative Christians and hardline feminists. And neither group that has an interest in legalizing prostitution (prostitutes and their customers) is highly respected. Good luck.
I guess a good tangential question then is: what changed in other similar countries that legalized prostitution? And what was the cause of the change?
I believe Australia and New Zealand both have legalized prostitution, and both are part of the 5 eyes so you know they’re similar in many respects to the US culture-wise.