Since the OP has been answered factually and the thread has moved on towards debate territory, let’s move this to GD. I think the rest of this thread will do much better once it is no longer bumping up against the restrictions of GQ.
Heh, I clicked on the wikipedia link, and it said “not to be confused with tarot cards.” No kidding.
We’re in GD. This is one of those situations where I actually favor the legislative solution. Simply have the various legislatures repeal the various laws in question, and the problem is solved.
Too late to edit. Of course, there should be sensible regulations as to things like testing, identity verification to make sure the brothel management isn’t hiring people that have been trafficked, etc. But fundamentally, these laws are still in place because some people are trying to enforce their morality. I honestly doubt they serve the public good overall.
Probably the best solution, but the GOP wont even let us legalize Pot. And they fought tooth and nail against gay marriage.
Chris Rock: No matter what they tell you, there is no sex in the Asian Room.
Wage theft is estimated to be $2 billion (with a b) annually in California alone. The average worker effected loses $3300 per year. That should be grand theft. If someone was extorting $300 a month from a few dozen people, what would you call them?
In post number 49, you provided an argument that I interpret generally as follows:
Is this a fair general form to the example you made in post 49?
I responded by replacing X with human organs to show that if it were true, organ selling should be okay. You said that I can’t do that. Why not? I did not change the form of the argument.
I could also replace X with other things. In many (most?) societies, X can’t legally/morally be:
-
Sexual acts
-
Human organs or body parts
-
Infants/children
-
Unrestricted child labor
Therefore, the general argument is not persuasive. It is fine to believe 1 should not be illegal, but your argument doesn’t demonstrate that. Otherwise, it would also demonstrate that 2, 3 and 4 should also be legal. The following sentences illustrate it:
“It’s legal to give [human organs or body parts to a] stranger. It’s legal to give money to a stranger. The only thing that’s illegal is to say out loud that the two are related.”
“It’s legal to [give a child to a] stranger [for adoption]. It’s legal to give money to a stranger. The only thing that’s illegal is to say out loud that the two are related.”
“It’s legal [for a child to volunteer for a] stranger. It’s legal to give money to [that child]. The only thing that’s illegal is to say out loud that the two are related.”
You still make no distinction between the literal and the metaphorical. I have a friend who is a novelist. He teaches at an art school. Often, a painter or sculptor will give him a work they have made as a gift. He says that this makes him uncomfortable, because all he has to give them in return is a copy of one of his books. In this exchange, the artist no longer has the artwork. But my friend still has his book, and he can continue to give it away over and over again. They are not the same.
Unrestricted child labor is pretty much the same as compared to sex work in that they both can be given again and again. So why is unrestricted child labor not okay but sex work is if post number 49 is all that is required to demonstrate the difference between the two (because, post 49 does not, in fact, demonstrate any difference)?
An ex of mine was a legitimate, licensed massage therapist. It was, IIRC, the only type of professional license in Chicago at the time that required a negative syphillis test.
(Of course more than once he had clients assume he was the other kind. He took a side gig at a local extremely mainstream 5-star hotel once; during the gym hours, that’s where massages happened, but outside of gym hours, the side gig involved going to the client’s hotel room. He had a few guys assume he was the other kind of masseur, and finally asked one of them what made him think he was up for erotic massage. The answer: “well, that’s what the last guy did!” Apparently the last guy had been fired by management when they found out about it.)
Ah, but the legislators are aware that kind of people who are highly motivated to vote in primaries are also the ones highly motivated by making their code of behavior morals be put into the law.
How is that distinction relevant to the legal claim in question? Where does the constitution address the difference between selling a limited quantity good, and an infinitely renewable service?
That’s not the distinction.
Then what is?
(I edited a couple typos right after I posted that, which you might not have seen when you made your response - not sure if that changes anything.)
The actual distinction is pretty obvious. I’ve already addressed it. You want to give it another think? Or risk embarrassment? 
This slapfight is boring. Just openly state what you think the difference is, please.
To get back to the original question, there is a substantial difference between knowing that some massage parlors operate as fronts for prostitution and having evidence of this that will stand up in a court of law.
My ego’s pretty resilient. Why don’t you just lay it on me?
Would you care to rephrase that?