# Why is prostitution illegal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 9, 2019, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482 "2019-01-09T19:05:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**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:** [January 11, 2019, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/41 "2019-01-11T22:56:45Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > Why is prostitution illegal? Another possible answer is, “Because\*\* no one cares enough to push it toward legality.” > \*\* > Take marijuana as a rough equivalent. People who enjoy pot have been pushing for decades to make it legal. For a long time there was no movement at all, but eventually, incremental state-by-state initiatives have tipped the scale. Within the next decade, we’ll probably see recreational weed legal in more states than not. > > Hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of Americans enjoy paying for sex, but they’re apparently quite happy to do it outside the law. I’m not aware of any movement **on the demand side** to legalize it. > > And it’s easy to see why. If I told Ms. Akaj I was going to a pro-pot rally, she’d say “Where is it? I’ll join you.” If I told her I was going to a pro-prostitution rally, she’d say “Stop by a divorce lawyer on your way home.” …you are entirely incorrect, yet you’ve inadvertently stumbled onto the real reason why sex work in most countries in the world isn’t legal. There are plenty of people care enough about pushing sex work to legality. There are unions and collectives and lobby groups and even the United Nations is in support of decriminalization. Who cares about about legalizing sex work? Sex workers. Sex work is an industry that is populated almost entirely by women that is subject to laws and regulations imposed on them by legislators who are almost exclusively men. Sex workers have been fighting hard and loudly for legalization for years. If you haven’t heard them its because you live in a society that marginalizes the voices of women, its because you haven’t been listening. Story time. Catherine Healy was a primary school teacher in the 80’s before she decided to enter the sex industry. She was frustrated less by “dodgy clients” and more by “the indignity of the law”. > [@](#): > > The Prostitutes Collective came about through a meeting of minds. > > The women she worked with were strident and stroppy and annoyed with the stigma and misconceptions of prostitution. Healy, 62, was in awe of them. > > "They were talking at the time about needing a union and I was really struck by that. > > “There were nine of us and we just started to meet and talk. We would sit in my flat in Mt Victoria, the house billowing with cigarette smoke, and just talk.” > > They talked about a community place where sex workers could come to. They talked about their desire to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. > > "We just wanted to be treated like normal people. We wanted to change attitudes, we wanted acceptance. Most of all we wanted to change the law. [https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/104330042/dame-catherine-healy-brought-in-from-the-cold-after-career-advocating-for-sex-workers](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/104330042/dame-catherine-healy-brought-in-from-the-cold-after-career-advocating-for-sex-workers) That was the genesis of the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, a lobby group that fought on behalf of sex workers in New Zealand. In 1997, the NZPC, along with the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women, the National Council of Women, the YWCA, as well as academics and members of parliament from both the left and right wing, came together at a forum to draft a bill. It was bought to parliament as a private members bill by Tim Barnett, and it surprisingly got narrowly passed into law with an impassioned speech by Georgina Byers (the first transgender member of parliament and a former sex worker) generally attributed as what pushed the bill over the line. What the bill does: > [@from wikipedia](#): > > The Act replaced the previous legislation, including repealing the Massage Parlours Act, largely removing voluntary adult (age 18 and over) prostitution from the criminal law and replacing it with civil law at both national and local level. > > A distinction was made between voluntary and involuntary prostitution. It remains a crime to coerce someone to provide sexual services. Sex work is also prohibited for those on temporary visas, and immigration for and investment in sex work is prohibited. > > Contracts between provider and client were recognised, and providers have the right to refuse services. Contested contracts can be referred to the Disputes Tribunal. > > Advertising is banned, with the exception of print media, which is restricted. > > The Summary Offences Act remains in force in relation to soliciting, which may be classed as offensive behaviour. > > The Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 also allows sex workers to apply for previous convictions to be removed from the record. Sex work is recognised (but not promoted) as legitimate work by Work and Income New Zealand, who may not advertise vacancies in brothels or suggest people start sex work as a means of getting off a benefit. > > Now, workplace safety and health rules, developed in consultation with the prostitutes’ collective, apply to sex work. Employment disputes can be referred to the Labour Inspectorate and Mediation Service. > > There is an obligation on employers and employees to practise and promote safe sexual practices. The Ministry of Health has the responsibility for enforcement. > > Registration of indoor sex workers with the police was replaced by certification at an administrative law level of brothel operators. Prior records have been destroyed. > > Refusal of a certificate is permitted for prior criminal offences (not necessarily related to prostitution). Police activities changed from the registration and prosecution of sex workers to protection. > > The Police Manual of Best Practice was amended to include prostitution. > **[Prostitution in New Zealand | Prostitution Reform Act 2003](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_New_Zealand#Prostitution_Reform_Act_2003)** > > In 1997, a number of groups came together to hold a Women's Forum in Wellington, out of which a working group developed to draft a bill, including the NZPC, academics, women's groups (New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women, National Council of Women of New Zealand, YWCA), and the AIDS Foundation. Other individuals included legal volunteers and MPs, in particular Maurice Williamson (National, Pakuranga 1987–2017), Associate Minister of Health (1990–1996), and Katherine O'Regan (... Other resources for those that are interested: [Health and Safety Information for Operators of Businesses of Prostitution,](https://www.healthed.govt.nz/resource/health-and-safety-information-operators-businesses-prostitution-%E2%80%93-english-version)and [A Guide to Occupational Health and Safety in the New Zealand Sex Industry.](http://espu-usa.com/espu-ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/nz-health-and-safety-handbook.pdf) The introduction of the reform act changed the landscape of sex work in this country. What you didn’t see (as alluded to by some in this thread) was a noticeable increase (or decrease) in pregnancy or STD’s. What it does mean is that sex workers can go to the police and not fear that they will be arrested or have their livelihood threatened. That they will be listened too and taken [seriously](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/109401349/police-and-sex-workers-collaborate-on-guide-for-assault-survivors). It means that sex workers can go after their employers for sexual harassment: and [win](http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9777879/Sex-worker-gets-25-000-over-harassment). The legislative framework we got in New Zealand is what happens when you listen. The [“Nordic Model”](https://medium.com/@aleknielsen/nordic-model-the-ongoing-criminalization-of-sex-workers-in-northern-europe-c1df02ba94ae) is what happens when you don’t. For her work in advocating and standing up for the rights of sex workers Healy was honored last year with a damehood (the female equivalent of a knighthood.) and deservedly so. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2019, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/42 "2019-01-12T00:19:38Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Well what do you mean when you say “make it legal”? > > Ok, lets say its legal and one can advertise on some local business “provider” board like Craigslist. Will a person be able to do prostitution out of there home? Would you want a prostitute operating next door with all these strange cars always parked outside? > > Would it be a business operating in a red light district like in Asia or Rotterdam with semi nude women dancing in the windows? > > Would it be a “chicken ranch” style business operating outside of city limits? > > I mean while I’m generally ok with making it legal I do not know specifics. You’re making a mountain out of a molehill here. There are pretty obvious answers to these questions. Cities already have zoning & licensing requirements for ‘in-home’ businesses. (A neighbor has been operating a child day care out of her home. I doubt that a prostitution business in her home would cause any more traffic & parking problems than the dropoff and pickup times do now. And prostitution customers wouldn’t be screeching in the backyard all day, either.) Red-light districts? Chicken ranches outside city limits? Local governments would pass ordinances for these, if they saw a need. Very rarely is legislation passed with all the specifics known. Demand for this is usually a sneaky way of putting roadblocks in the way. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2019, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/43 "2019-01-12T02:49:51Z")
> [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](#): > > …prostitution customers wouldn’t be screeching in the backyard all day, either. …not that there’s anything wrong with that. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2019, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/44 "2019-01-12T10:14:20Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …you are entirely incorrect, yet you’ve inadvertently stumbled onto the real reason why sex work in most countries in the world isn’t legal. > > There are plenty of people care enough about pushing sex work to legality. There are unions and collectives and lobby groups and even the United Nations is in support of decriminalization. > > Who cares about about legalizing sex work? Sex workers. > > Sex work is an industry that is populated almost entirely by women that is subject to laws and regulations imposed on them by legislators who are almost exclusively men. Sex workers have been fighting hard and loudly for legalization for years. If you haven’t heard them its because you live in a society that marginalizes the voices of women, its because you haven’t been listening. > > Story time. Catherine Healy was a primary school teacher in the 80’s before she decided to enter the sex industry. She was frustrated less by “dodgy clients” and more by “the indignity of the law”. > > [Stuff](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/104330042/dame-catherine-healy-brought-in-from-the-cold-after-career-advocating-for-sex-workers) > > That was the genesis of the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, a lobby group that fought on behalf of sex workers in New Zealand. In 1997, the NZPC, along with the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women, the National Council of Women, the YWCA, as well as academics and members of parliament from both the left and right wing, came together at a forum to draft a bill. It was bought to parliament as a private members bill by Tim Barnett, and it surprisingly got narrowly passed into law with an impassioned speech by Georgina Byers (the first transgender member of parliament and a former sex worker) generally attributed as what pushed the bill over the line. > > What the bill does: > > [Prostitution in New Zealand - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_New_Zealand#Prostitution_Reform_Act_2003) > > Other resources for those that are interested: [Health and Safety Information for Operators of Businesses of Prostitution,](https://www.healthed.govt.nz/resource/health-and-safety-information-operators-businesses-prostitution-%E2%80%93-english-version)and [A Guide to Occupational Health and Safety in the New Zealand Sex Industry.](http://espu-usa.com/espu-ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/nz-health-and-safety-handbook.pdf) > > The introduction of the reform act changed the landscape of sex work in this country. What you didn’t see (as alluded to by some in this thread) was a noticeable increase (or decrease) in pregnancy or STD’s. What it does mean is that sex workers can go to the police and not fear that they will be arrested or have their livelihood threatened. That they will be listened too and taken [seriously](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/109401349/police-and-sex-workers-collaborate-on-guide-for-assault-survivors). It means that sex workers can go after their employers for sexual harassment: and [win](http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9777879/Sex-worker-gets-25-000-over-harassment). > > The legislative framework we got in New Zealand is what happens when you listen. The [“Nordic Model”](https://medium.com/@aleknielsen/nordic-model-the-ongoing-criminalization-of-sex-workers-in-northern-europe-c1df02ba94ae) is what happens when you don’t. For her work in advocating and standing up for the rights of sex workers Healy was honored last year with a damehood (the female equivalent of a knighthood.) and deservedly so. What all of this boils down to is that there are a group of people who engage in activity that society frowns upon and is illegal, and they would like for society to stop frowning upon it and make it legal. There is not a thing in the world wrong with such an attitude, but it is entirely unremarkable. The same could be said about any law that someone violates: they would like not to be punished for breaking it and would like society to accept them. And I still cannot wrap my head around the idea that this “empowers” women. I thought empowerment was making societal changes so that women could be equals to men and become doctors, lawyers, engineers, soldiers, etc. It is the height of degradation that because of the need for money, they use their bodies as semen receptacles for the next and the next guy with enough money. It reinforces and adds in a perverse way to the idea that woman are not equals, they are merely there for a man’s personal pleasure as an object, a mechanism for orgasm, not because she is love with me or even thinks I am attractive. It’s because I peeled off enough $20 bills. You have other problems as well with Civil Rights laws. Must a prostitute “serve” all comers (I didn’t mean it that way 🙂 ) without regard to protected categories? Must the prostitute have sex with someone not of her preferred gender? What if she does not want to have sex with black guys? Now what controls: the civil rights idea that people in protected categories should have equal access to all legal goods and services, or the idea that a woman can choose who she wants to have sex with? Maybe we are just talking past each other, but I see nothing positive about it at all. Not to be personal, but if prostitution was legalized and your daughter decided to become a prostitute, would that make you proud and would you feel that she was empowered? I think only a very extreme minority of people would think that. Further, legalization will not stop exploitation of women as by definition these women will have little to no bargaining power. It is the same reason that fast food workers and retail clerks in many instances put up with outright abusive and illegal practices: they could fight it, but they need this next paycheck so they will not take the chance. > [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](#): > > You’re making a mountain out of a molehill here. There are pretty obvious answers to these questions. > > Cities already have zoning & licensing requirements for ‘in-home’ businesses. (A neighbor has been operating a child day care out of her home. I doubt that a prostitution business in her home would cause any more traffic & parking problems than the dropoff and pickup times do now. And prostitution customers wouldn’t be screeching in the backyard all day, either.) > > Red-light districts? Chicken ranches outside city limits? Local governments would pass ordinances for these, if they saw a need. > > Very rarely is legislation passed with all the specifics known. Demand for this is usually a sneaky way of putting roadblocks in the way. You don’t see any meaningful difference between one neighbor running a day care out of her home and the person in the next house over running a brothel? That is astounding to me and respectfully it simply defies common sense. To your other points, yes, absolutely a regulatory scheme could address some of the issues, but they tend to create new and different problems. So, let’s say, we will legalize prostitution, but we don’t want red light districts or chicken ranches in town. So, we pass a law that says that brothels have to be so many miles outside of the city and away from other populated areas. Well, first, the prostitutes then claim that they are being marginalized and treated differently. They would argue that if I can operate a tire shop in town, why can’t they ply their trade there as well. Then you have increased drunken driving, for example, because the patrons are having to drive a long distance home. Further, enforcement becomes harder because the police are easier to spot when they come out to the boondocks. You’ll get drugs being sold out of the place and for a hundred extra you don’t have to use a condom. And even if we find the perfect solution for it, what is the problem we are trying to solve with legalization? ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2019, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/45 "2019-01-12T10:27:11Z")
In sex, the market fails. There are always more buyers than willing sellers. As a result, sexual slavery and abuse are the handmaidens of prostitution. We suppress prostitution and know we are harming the freedom of some happy hookers. But we suppress prostitution to attack greater ills. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2019, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/46 "2019-01-12T11:10:17Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > In sex, the market fails. There are always more buyers than willing sellers. As a result, sexual slavery and abuse are the handmaidens of prostitution. We suppress prostitution and know we are harming the freedom of some happy hookers. But we suppress prostitution to attack greater ills. I’m not following this. First, more buyers than sellers does not make a market failure. It would mean that the price of the goods or services sold would increase until the demand dropped so that the market was in equilibrium. If it were true that there were limited number of prostitutes and a vast amount of demand, prostitutes would be paid like CEOs, not exploited. Second, the correct question is not the absolute comparison between the number of buyers and sellers, but the ability of the sellers to meet the demand. If I can sell enough widgets to meet the demands of 100 buyers, then a 1 to 100 ratio satisfies the market. I think you are incorrect in the statement that demand outstrips supply. Prostitution services are not a commodity in all instances. You can pay thousands of dollars per hour for a Mayflower Madam-type beautiful bombshell who treats you like a king, or you can pay $30 for a blow job from a meth whore in a dark dingy alleyway and at almost all levels in between. Perhaps at the Mayflower Madam level demand does outstrip supply and that explains the high prices. IIRC, those women were treated insanely well and had no complaints. The street prostitutes are the ones exploited because frankly there are no shortage of desperate drug addicts who will blow a guy for money—even other heterosexual guys who are desperate resort to prostitution. I think the issue of exploitation that could reasonably be addressed by legalization would be the middle of the road market–the market for women who are reasonably attractive, say, attractive enough to be an exotic dancer. In a legal market, that would be the majority of the women in red light districts or chicken ranches, and the market would be somewhat equal: 1) The price would not necessarily break the back of the average john, 2) The average john is not desperate enough for sex that he would do it with a crack whore, but would with an attractive young woman, and 3) the women in those circumstances have marketable “skills,” i.e. their own attractive body, such that although they are not irreplaceable, cannot be easily and immediately replaced. Even with legalization, we still have the street prostitution by unattractive women that will still be exploited because they are unemployable through legal channels. If this discussion of marketable looks and marketable sexual skills disgust you as it does me, then that is the reason for my disdain of legalized prostitution. People on this board say I marginalize women through some of my opinions. I can think of no greater marginalization than deciding on a woman’s worth or employment because of her appearance or her ability to give a good blow job. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2019, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/47 "2019-01-12T11:28:40Z")
> [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](#): > > But this is a circular argument: sex workers are exploited because it is illegal. Not only, but it’s one of the factors which makes it difficult for the workers to report the exploitation. Others include societal rejection, family rejection, fear of deportation… ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2019, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/48 "2019-01-12T11:32:16Z")
There is considerable inertia for anything related to social taboos. So, even if, say, 2/3 of people think prostitution should be legal, it still very risky for a politician to propose a legalization bill or campaign on that basis. Because it could disqualify them immediately in the eyes of the 1/3, regardless of their stance on other issues. Or tarnish their image “Why does X want to make prostitution legal – does he want to use that service?” It’s why things like homosexuality in the military, marijuana legalization etc have been so slow. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2019, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/49 "2019-01-12T12:08:26Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I’m not following this. Yes, we can agree on this point. In the sex trade, force is used to enslave workers. The market fails because it cannot meet demand with violence. Suppressing the sex trade certainly hurts those who are able to demand a high price for their services, but such a policy also helps those who might otherwise be enslaved. ---
**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:** [January 12, 2019, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/50 "2019-01-12T12:10:23Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > What all of this boils down to is that there are a group of people who engage in activity **that society frowns upon and is illegal** , and they would like for society to stop frowning upon it and make it legal. There is not a thing in the world wrong with such an attitude, but it is entirely unremarkable. …there is no reason for society to “frown upon” sex work. Why would you frown upon it? And why would you support jailing or fining people for something as innocuous as a frown? What is remarkable is that in the United State of America people are routinely thrown in jail for such a ridiculous thing. Sting operations. Stake-outs. It is disgusting, its disgraceful, and its inhumane. Its a big huge waste of money. All because you “frown” upon it? > [@](#): > > The same could be said about any law that someone violates: they would like not to be punished for breaking it and would like society to accept them. There is no good reason why they should have been punished. Its why we changed the law. > [@](#): > > And I still cannot wrap my head around the idea that this “empowers” women. I thought empowerment was making societal changes so that women could be equals to men and become doctors, lawyers, engineers, soldiers, etc. Empower: “Make (someone) stronger and more confident, especially in controlling their life and claiming their rights”. > **[Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data](https://languages.oup.com/)** > > Explore Oxford Languages, the home of world-renowned language data. You thought wrong. No need for the “air-quotes”. Empower is a perfectly cromulent word to be using here. Empowering is about making someone stronger and more confident, to take control or their lives and to claim their rights. And if you had read Healy’s story you will see thats exactly the process that happened here. “Being equals” isn’t the definition of empowerment, its one of the goals. > [@](#): > > It is the height of degradation that because of the need for money, they use their bodies as semen receptacles for the next and the next guy with enough money. Its the height of degradation to characterize sex-work as “because of the need for money, they use their bodies as semen receptacles for the next and the next guy with enough money.” The words that you choose to use says nothing about sex work or the people that choose to undertake sex work: it says everything we need to know about the person who said it. You’ve chosen to use deliberately dehumanising language here. And you have chosen to dehumanise the sex worker, not the client. Why did you choose to do that? > [@](#): > > **It reinforces and adds in a perverse way to the idea that woman are not equals** , they are merely there for a man’s personal pleasure as an object, a mechanism for orgasm, not because she is love with me or even thinks I am attractive. It’s because I peeled off enough $20 bills. It does not such thing. This is all in your head. If you think “women are not equals” then that’s all on you. It has nothing to do with the law. > [@](#): > > You have other problems as well with Civil Rights laws. Must a prostitute “serve” all comers (I didn’t mean it that way 🙂 ) without regard to protected categories? I’ve summarised the law, linked to the wikipedia which has direct links to the laws in question. It isn’t complicated legislation: a lawyer like you should have no problem reading it for understanding. This is all covered in the legislation. No need to ask me: this isn’t theoretical. Go look it up. > [@](#): > > Must the prostitute have sex with someone not of her preferred gender? All covered by the act. > [@](#): > > What if she does not want to have sex with black guys? Do you really think they didn’t think this through? All covered by the act. > [@](#): > > Now what controls: the civil rights idea that people in protected categories should have equal access to all legal goods and services, or the idea that a woman can choose who she wants to have sex with? All covered by the act. > [@](#): > > Maybe we are just talking past each other, but I see nothing positive about it at all. “Positivity” is subjective. We aren’t talking past each other because this is our first conversation in this thread. It isn’t a fucking surprise you see nothing positive about it all. I’m proud to live in a country where people cared enough to make the reform act law. > [@](#): > > Not to be personal, but if prostitution was legalized and your daughter decided to become a prostitute, would that make you proud and would you feel that she was empowered? Is she happy? Is she doing what she wants to do? Then why would I have a problem with it? (Hint: I wouldn’t have a problem, and I’d be very be proud.) I’ve had very close friends in the industry. I didn’t think any less of them when I found out what they did for a living. Its just a job. They are still the same people. > [@](#): > > I think only a very extreme minority of people would think that. Does the legality of sex work change what a “very extreme minority of people would think?” If not, then how is this relevant? > [@](#): > > Further, legalization will not stop exploitation of women as by definition these women will have little to no bargaining power. “By definition?” I don’t think you’ve read the act. “By definition” the bargaining power of women was taken into account. From the NZPC guide: > [@NZPC](#): > > Decriminalisation means New Zealand’s sex industry is controlled by the same legislative framework that is common to all other industries. There are occupational, safety and health, and labour laws - and now guidelines designed specifically with sex workers, brothel operators, and clients in mind. > **[Video-Booklet-Decriminalisation\_of\_Sex\_Work\_in\_New\_Zealand.pdf](https://www.nzpc.org.nz/pdfs/Video-Booklet-Decriminalisation_of_Sex_Work_in_New_Zealand.pdf)** > > 275.80 KB This isn’t a “weakening” of the bargaining power. It puts them on the same footing as everybody else. I’ve already cited a case of sexual harassment that was taken to the courts by a sex worker and she won a significant amount of money. The law also allows “up to four sex workers can work together, as equals, without requiring an operators’ certificate – so long as no one is in control of anyone else or their work.” The entire purpose of this part of the legislation is to provide a framework for sex workers who choose not to work in a brothel to be able to work with each other, to provide a safe working environment, and not to have to bargain with their boss on how much they get paid or what their working conditions are. > **[NZPC \> The New Zealand Model](https://www.nzpc.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Model)** > > The New Zealand Model The Prostitution Reform Act wasn’t just thrown together. The stake-holders were heavily involved in its drafting as were people from both the “left” and the “right” wing. If you have concerns then those concerns are probably addressed somewhere or somehow in the act. > [@](#): > > It is the same reason that fast food workers and retail clerks in many instances put up with outright abusive and illegal practices: they could fight it, but they need this next paycheck so they will not take the chance. Fast food workers and retail clerks don’t have to hide what they do. They don’t sell hamburgers in secret, pretend to be offering salads when they are really offering fries and a coke. You don’t fix “outright abusive and illegal practices” by making it illegal for retail clerks to use a cash register. You can’t fix a problem if by merely reporting a problem you risk being arrested and thrown in jail. > [@](#): > > And even if we find the perfect solution for it, what is the problem we are trying to solve with legalization? Again: from the NZPC, the goals of legalization were too: > [@NZPC](#): > > A. Safeguards the human rights of sex workers and protects them from exploitation: > B. Promotes the welfare and occupational health and safety of sex workers: > C. Is conducive to public health: > D. Prohibits the use in prostitution of persons under 18 years of age: > E. Implements certain other related reforms. What is the problem you are trying to solve by having sex work illegal? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2019, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/51 "2019-01-12T13:38:06Z")
That is all just gobbly-gook. I note that you don’t use the term prostitution, but call it “sex work” in an attempt to use buzzwords to legitimize it. You object to the term “sperm receptacle” but only because it seems demeaning, yet it accurately describes the act. As far as the civil rights aspect, you know, you could just answer instead of telling me to read the entirety of the regulations, but in any event, there is a problem no matter which way the law rules. If sex is “special” then women certainly should not be required to engage in it if they do not want to, but then again, that is a reason why it should not be for sale. If it is not “special” then they should be required to have sex with a customer in a protected class just like a restaurant owner is required to serve all customers in a protected class. You can’t have it both ways. Empowerment? If that means that I can buy (or at least rent) a woman, as a piece of property or chattel, and perform sexually degrading acts upon her for a period of time, then count me out as supporting empowerment. This is just an ex post justification for engaging in acts which have been historically, across all cultures, religions, and societies, as being an indecent and immoral act. Try to feel good about yourself if you want, and I certainly will not personally insult anyone, but don’t expect the rest of us to play along with that fiction. Again, the real test, and I don’t mean to get personal, but if your wife, your daughter, your sister, or someone close to you engaged in prostitution, would you believe that was empowering for her or in any way positive? If so, I think that is terribly misguided. Those people are worth more than providing their bodies to the next guy with money. They are individuals with ideas, thoughts, personalities, and knowledge to share. They should not be reduced to the basest of outdated male prehistoric thoughts of just someone to ejaculate inside. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2019, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/52 "2019-01-12T14:44:58Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > That is all just gobbly-gook. I note that you don’t use the term prostitution, but call it “sex work” in an attempt to use buzzwords to legitimize it. > > You object to the term “sperm receptacle” but only because it seems demeaning, yet it accurately describes the act. > > As far as the civil rights aspect, you know, you could just answer instead of telling me to read the entirety of the regulations, but in any event, there is a problem no matter which way the law rules. If sex is “special” then women certainly should not be required to engage in it if they do not want to, but then again, that is a reason why it should not be for sale. If it is not “special” then they should be required to have sex with a customer in a protected class just like a restaurant owner is required to serve all customers in a protected class. You can’t have it both ways. > > Empowerment? If that means that I can buy (or at least rent) a woman, as a piece of property or chattel, and perform sexually degrading acts upon her for a period of time, then count me out as supporting empowerment. This is just an ex post justification for engaging in acts which have been historically, across all cultures, religions, and societies, as being an indecent and immoral act. Try to feel good about yourself if you want, and I certainly will not personally insult anyone, but don’t expect the rest of us to play along with that fiction. Ok let me see if I can sum up this post and your previous post. Presently, in the USA, and in many countries, prostitution is nominally illegal. Some level of force on behalf of the cops, and the extraordinary step of locking a person behind bars is sometimes done if they are caught offering sex for money. To be totally fair to your position, most prostitutes are not actually jailed for very long even when caught. Sting operations aren’t that common and de facto brothels stay in business for years. In addition, in recent years many prostitutes have become “sugar babies”, which is basically legal. (it’s probably not legal but it’s virtually impossible to prosecute) Nevertheless, some people think that society should reserve the extraordinary step of jailing people not for when other people engage in behavior that we personally and a 50%+1 majority of our peers _don’t like_, but instead it should be reserved for behavior we can show in a concrete manner are actively harming the rest of us. You have not actually shown an active harm to ordinary people in your arguments against prostitution. You talk about young women being emotionally degraded, or treated badly, but not something that threatens the well being of general society. Robbery, theft, murder, assault, fraud - these are active acts that definitely harm our well being, and it’s generally agreed everywhere that perpetrators should be jailed. But “emotional harm” because some women are hos? STDs spread to the prostitutes and the willing clients of those prostitutes? Now, yes, occasionally women have been kidnapped and made to serve as prostitutes. But it sure would be a lot easier for them to be rescued if every client that saw them could just call the police, openly state he’d been to ‘such and such brothel’ at this address, and they would go make a routine visit and check the ID of this worker to make sure she’s not missing and of legal age. It is _overwhelmingly agreed_ that the protection of the law is part of what makes civilized society and business possible. Taking that protection away is a bad thing. You also have not addressed the New Zealand example. Do you think the example is false, that by legalizing sex work with sensible policies there has _not_ been a reduction in harm? Because if you believe the example is true - that the reported low rate of negative consequences is factually correct - I don’t see how you can continue this debate in good faith. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2019, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/53 "2019-01-12T16:25:05Z")
SamuelA makes some excellent points and I will respond to those, but I have some business to attend to. However, a thought came into my mind. If sex is something which may be sold (and bear with me here on the principle) then why should rape then be punished as harshly as it is? If society assigns a monetary value to sex, then her damages should be limited to a contract principle, at least in some non forcible instances, no? If a woman sells her body for sex, and that is legal, then what happens if a man’s credit card is declined after the act? Is that a rape or a larceny? ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2019, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/54 "2019-01-12T16:55:41Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > SamuelA makes some excellent points and I will respond to those, but I have some business to attend to. > > However, a thought came into my mind. If sex is something which may be sold (and bear with me here on the principle) then why should rape then be punished as harshly as it is? If society assigns a monetary value to sex, then her damages should be limited to a contract principle, at least in some non forcible instances, no? > > If a woman sells her body for sex, and that is legal, then what happens if a man’s credit card is declined after the act? Is that a rape or a larceny? This isn’t very inconsistent. We have long since agreed that holding a gun to a convenience store clerk’s face and making him/her give you a pack of smokes is not remotely the same thing as putting some money down, he/she accepts the money, and gives you the cigarettes. The first case is a crime routinely punished with life imprisonment, the latter is a vice that you are taxed for. As for the credit card declining : same thing as the convenience store example. If later the transaction gets cancelled by the bank, this doesn’t make it a robbery retroactively. And this \*[has](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-11/man-who-tricked-prostitute-into-sex-challenges-charge/5016702)\*been tested by the courts. Where it actually gets really dicey is when you’re talking about _free_ transactions, and the other partner arguing that by not saying anything when you reached over the counter and got your own smokes, they were silently saying no, and yet you’ve visited another store that same week and that clerk meant yes, yes by the silence… ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2019, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/55 "2019-01-12T17:19:26Z")
Oh, and where there wasn’t force involved? We already have this happen routinely. “Skeezy” men or “players” routinely fraudulently misstate their income, their willingness to marry, and so on. Similarly, “gold diggers” and “frigid bitches” routinely make men go on many expensive dates before casting them aside before any intimacy occurs. There is presently no recourse for this fraud. Prostitution style relationships are arguably more efficient and honest in some respects. But for cases where a client promises a large future payment for work performed in advance and fails to pay the contractor…well, it’s the same situation as when Trump fails to pay for pianos. Similar recourse (or not) available through the courts. It doesn’t become armed robbery. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2019, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/56 "2019-01-12T17:44:19Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Nevertheless, some people think that society should reserve the extraordinary step of jailing people not for when other people engage in behavior that we personally and a 50%+1 majority of our peers _don’t like_, but instead it should be reserved for behavior we can show in a concrete manner are actively harming the rest of us. > > You have not actually shown an active harm to ordinary people in your arguments against prostitution. You talk about young women being emotionally degraded, or treated badly, but not something that threatens the well being of general society. > > Robbery, theft, murder, assault, fraud - these are active acts that definitely harm our well being, and it’s generally agreed everywhere that perpetrators should be jailed. > > But “emotional harm” because some women are hos? > [@UltraVires](#): > > If sex is something which may be sold (and bear with me here on the principle) then why should rape then be punished as harshly as it is? If society assigns a monetary value to sex, then her damages should be limited to a contract principle, at least in some non forcible instances, no? I was going to question why you, **SamuelA** , seem so dismissive of “emotional harm” vs. “active harm.” It seems to me that the reason we have such stringent laws and social taboos against sexual offenses like rape, sexual assault, molestation, and sexual harassment, is because of the psychological or emotional harm these things cause. It’s hard for me to justify why some of these things should be regarded so negatively if I’m not allowed to consider “emotional harm.” I’m not sure how much relevance this has to whether prostitution should be illegal. But at least, it makes me question anyone who bluntly says “Sexual transactions should be treated just like any other transactions”: does that mean that sexual offenses and unwanted actions should be treated no different than any other offenses and unwanted actions? and if not, what is it that makes the difference? > [@](#): > > If a woman sells her body for sex, and that is legal, then what happens if a man’s credit card is declined after the act? Is that a rape or a larceny? We’ve actually had threads on this kind of issue before—for example, [Are prostitutes raped if they don’t get paid?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=849432) ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2019, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/57 "2019-01-12T18:47:18Z")
Based on supply and demand, prostitution would probably be very difficult to eradicate, were that a worthy goal. > [@UltraVires](#): > > That sounds good as a general theory, but if consistently applied, it would tend to make all laws banning any product or service unconstitutional. Are laws against heroin unconstitutional because it deprives me of my trade…which is selling heroin? What if I am a machine gun manufacturer? A bald eagle hunter? The post to which you responded did not mention constitutionality. I suggest thinking in terms of tradeoffs and relative harm rather than absolutes. > [@UltraVires](#): > > … But multiply that by a million. Now we have whorehouses with advertisements, increased STDs and unwanted children and yes, the moral argument that it cheapens and demeans sex. I mean, how special is the marital bond during sex between my wife and I when I can purchase sex at the Mustang Ranch a mile and half away? … Cigarettes are legal, but advertising is restricted. And STD and unwanted children are generally _less_ of a problem with (sufficiently upscale) prostitutes than with “free” girls. Trafficking of female slaves is a HUGE problem, and that should be the focus of law enforcement — not voluntary prostitution. And all too often, the enslaved women are treated by police as criminals rather than victims. _Does legalization help or hinder the power of pimps? I’m not sure — but **that is the key question**._ ---
**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:** [January 12, 2019, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/58 "2019-01-12T20:08:06Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > That is all just gobbly-gook. …ROFL! > [@](#): > > I note that you don’t use the term prostitution, but call it “sex work” in an attempt to use buzzwords to legitimize it. Most sex workers prefer the term “sex work”. It isn’t a buzzword. Its accepted terminology used by our government, the United Nations, and people all over the world. It is merely being respectful. > [@](#): > > You object to the term “sperm receptacle” but only because it seems demeaning, yet it accurately describes the act. It doesn’t “seem demeaning.” It is demeaning. Its the height of degradation to use a demeaning term when you have the choice to use a completely different term. Its the height of hypocrisy that you have chosen to use a demeaning term to describe sex workers but you don’t use a demeaning term to describe the client. You reveal yourself here. I can see right through you. > [@](#): > > As far as the civil rights aspect, you know, you could just answer instead of telling me to read the entirety of the regulations, but in any event, there is a problem no matter which way the law rules. There is no problem. Its all in your head. The regulation: > [@Law Reform Act](#): > > 16 Inducing or compelling persons to provide commercial sexual services or earnings from prostitution > (1) > No person may do anything described in subsection (2) with the intent of inducing or compelling another person (person A) to— > (a) > provide, or to continue to provide, commercial sexual services to any person; or > (b) > provide, or to continue to provide, to any person any payment or other reward derived from commercial sexual services provided by person A. > (2) > The acts referred to in subsection (1) are any explicit or implied threat or promise that any person (person B) will— > (a) > improperly use, to the detriment of any person, any power or authority arising out of— > (i) > any occupational or vocational position held by person B; or > (ii) > any relationship existing between person B and person A: > (b) > commit an offence that is punishable by imprisonment: > (c) > make an accusation or disclosure (whether true or false)— > (i) > of any offence committed by any person; or > (ii) > of any other misconduct that is likely to damage seriously the reputation of any person; or > (iii) > that any person is unlawfully in New Zealand: > (d) > supply, or withhold supply of, any controlled drug within the meaning of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. > (3) > Every person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years. > Section 16(3): amended, on 1 July 2013, by section 413 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (2011 No 81). > > 17 Refusal to provide commercial sexual services > (1) > Despite anything in a contract for the provision of commercial sexual services, a person may, at any time, refuse to provide, or to continue to provide, a commercial sexual service to any other person. > (2) > The fact that a person has entered into a contract to provide commercial sexual services does not of itself constitute consent for the purposes of the criminal law if he or she does not consent, or withdraws his or her consent, to providing a commercial sexual service. > (3) > However, nothing in this section affects a right (if any) to rescind or cancel, or to recover damages for, a contract for the provision of commercial sexual services that is not performed. Nobody can be compelled to to have sex for any reason. Consent must always be present and can be withdrawn at any time. > [@](#): > > If sex is “special” then women certainly should not be required to engage in it if they do not want to, but then again, that is a reason why it should not be for sale. If it is not “special” then they should be required to have sex with a customer in a protected class just like a restaurant owner is required to serve all customers in a protected class. You can’t have it both ways. Well you can “have it both ways.” We do have it “both ways.” You are objectively wrong. That might upset you: but I don’t really care? > [@](#): > > Empowerment? If that means that I can buy (or at least rent) a woman, as a piece of property or chattel, and perform sexually degrading acts upon her for a period of time, then count me out as supporting empowerment. BYE! > [@](#): > > This is just an ex post justification for engaging in acts which have been historically, across all cultures, religions, and societies, as being an indecent and immoral act. What is fundamentally indecent or immoral about fucking? > [@](#): > > Try to feel good about yourself if you want, and I certainly will not personally insult anyone, but don’t expect the rest of us to play along with that fiction. It isn’t a fiction. We undertook law reform in 2003. The world didn’t end. It isn’t about “feeling good.” It doesn’t affect me at all. > [@](#): > > Again, the real test, and I don’t mean to get personal, but if your wife, your daughter, your sister, or someone close to you engaged in prostitution, would you believe that was empowering for her or in any way positive? What part of my original response to your question did you fail to understand? The real test is “are sex workers in support of the change, does it make them safer, does it give them the same basic protections as everyone else?” Because it isn’t about me. Or my feelings. If I had a wife or a daughter (and I have a sister) they are not my property. They have agency and get to make their own decisions. It shouldn’t be the job of the state to police those decisions because of “how you or I feel about those decisions.” > [@](#): > > If so, I think that is terribly misguided. Well there’s a fucking surprise. > [@](#): > > Those people are worth more than providing their bodies to the next guy with money. They are individuals with ideas, thoughts, personalities, and knowledge to share. They should not be reduced to the basest of outdated male prehistoric thoughts of just someone to ejaculate inside. What you think of them is none of their fucking business. Its pretty fucking obvious you treat them with contempt. You are arguing they are “worth more” while simultaneously calling them “sperm receptacle’s.” We know who you are. We can see right through you. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2019, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/59 "2019-01-12T21:18:16Z")
Additionally, it’s worth noting that not all sex workers are women, nor do all sex workers do anything involving semen. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2019, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/60 "2019-01-12T22:28:22Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > This argument only stands up if you think that all a man gets out of marriage is sex. Which, both historically and in the present day, is nonsense. It’s very true that men (and women) get much, much more out of marriage than just sex. But many men never become aware of all the non-sexual ways that marriage benefits them, and consider leaving the marriage when they think they’d be more satisfied elsewhere. And for many, the need for sex is the first motivator that gets them up off the sofa and into the dating scene. This may be less true than in earlier times in history, but most prostitution law dates back to times when stereotypical gender roles were the norm. So I do tend to think some of the intent behind prostitution laws is to keep women from having to compete with prostitutes for male attention. People will suggest that maybe society’s interests are better served if sex-seeking men just go straight for prostitutes and bypass the dating pool altogether. But I think life is more complicated than that, and many people are interested enough in a relationship that they’re willing to invest a little effort in domesticating an unrefined horndog. Women already complain about the lack of available men, and I don’t think that situation would improve if prostitution allowed the mainly-sex-motivated men to opt out of the dating pool entirely. But, I could be wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482.md?page=4)