# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2019, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/61 "2019-01-13T01:36:52Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > 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.” Ok you missed the plot there. UltraVires was talking about emotional harm _to women who aren’t prostitutes_ if _other_ women were allowed to voluntarily become prostitutes without fear of arrest. And I’m saying it’s sort of a tyranny of the majority to have laws like that, it’s a weak justification. Very much similar to laws against sodomy. The general public was against it because adults who do not engage in sodomy, nor were they made to witness it, would “emotionally harmed” by just knowing _other_ consenting adults might be engaging in sodomy behind closed doors, without fearing that the state might break in and haul them to jail. Very much similar to the arguments against prostitution, really. You don’t have to ever visit a prostitute, witness an act of prostitution, or prostitute yourself if it were made legal under a sensible regulatory scheme. (you might notice that the New Zealand one doesn’t allow advertising except as text print ads, no lurid billboards outside brothels). Yet clearly adults like UltraVires would dislike just \*knowing \*that other men and women are doing this and would ask the local lawmakers (and ultimately, the local sheriff) to put a stop to it. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2019, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/62 "2019-01-13T06:55:32Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > 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. First, I am not suggesting that prostitutes should be jailed for long periods of time. The pimps and panderers absolutely should. Second, you seem to be repeating the Libertarian ideal that so long as my individual act, or a multi-person individual act, considered in isolation does not impart some measurable form of harm on another person, then that act is not a proper purpose of regulation by the government. You repeat this firmly as if it is self evident. Well, I and most people agree with it in principle but disagree with it in practice, and if we explore it further as I did above, I think nobody agrees with it in practice. Again, that would abolish most of the regulations that the NZ bill has enacted. For example, why can’t the brothels advertise? If I pay a billboard company to advertise my brothel, and he willing accepts my money, who does it harm to tell someone an absolute truth that I have UltraVires’ Mustang Chicken Ranch off of State Route 50, if you arrive prior to 8pm and purchase a blow job, the second one costs only a penny? You seem to invoke the Libertarian ideal that the prostitution contract is semi-sacred and should not be touched by the government, but the regulations which also infringe on free choices and contracts are a-okay. Further, this Libertarian principle, even if it could be practically applied, is simply not one that has been adopted in any society that I know of. Even in a free country like the United States, the government has general police powers to protect the health, safety, and yes, the morals of the people. Laws against fornication, adultery, cohabitation, sodomy, polygamy, prostitution, incest, working on Sundays, etc. have always been held to be within the legitimate power of government for nothing more than the fact that a majority believes that they are harmful to the good order and morality of society. Now I personally don’t agree that several of those laws should continue to exist in 2019, but my objection is to the substance of the law, that we are more free sexually than we were before and society should reflect that. I don’t have any objection to the power of government to pass those laws simply because there is no tangible physical or economic harm to another. Again, your argument ignores the aggregation principle. It is not me just sitting at a bar with one other woman and negotiating a prostitution contract. Legalization would mean that millions of these contracts are negotiated, it will be visible to the public including children and young women who might not otherwise have considered a career in prostitution, and that the state will have a widespread presence in its regulation. You make an excellent point which I believe can be summarized as follows: Outlaw prostitution all you want, but it will still go on. And recognizing that illegal prostitution is widespread, there is tangible harm to these women who can be and are actively exploited, in a condition not much different from slavery, but because of its illegal status, they are unable to go to the police and the courts for relief because they will be arrested and/or told that they should quit committing crimes. Is that a fair summary? If so, then I believe that these harms can be addressed without taking the drastic step of full legalization. Have an amnesty if a prostitute comes forward on her own volitation. Modify the criminal code so that acts of prostitution when committed under what amounts to duress are not prosecuted or only prosecuted with a very, very minor penalty. Modify the code to include a crime of something like “Aggravated Pandering” whereby if you are keeping women captive in a sense, or plying them with drugs so that they can have the stomach for prostitution, then there are very severe penalties. As far as New Zealand, I am not versed enough in its law or its experience to comment one way or another. But even if it works as advertised, I think a society that allows selling sex like the selling of a bushel of wheat or cattle has failed in its general duty to be a decent one, at least in that one respect. I’m not saying New Zealand is a failed society. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2019, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/63 "2019-01-13T07:14:00Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > 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… First, the theft of cigarettes is not comparable to sex without consent, unless we take the extraordinary step of saying that a woman’s body is a chattel to be bought and sold (or rented). Your cite is very instructive. The man gave the prostitute an envelope that he said contained money. After the sex act was complete, she opened the envelope and it contained pieces of paper (not money) and a card with a rose on it. He was prosecuted and pled guilty. The high court allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea and he later took a plea deal. That case does not settle the issue. If sex is a service for sale, then we why do we retain the old school morality that it is something sacred in this context. If it is offered for sale, then the theft of the service should logically only be punished as a theft, not an assault. IOW, legalized prostitution does take the extraordinary step of saying that women are chattel to be rented. ---
**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 13, 2019, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/64 "2019-01-13T09:15:07Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > First, I am not suggesting that prostitutes should be jailed for \*\*long \*\*periods of time. …so short periods are okay. Gotcha. And fines as well, I’m assuming? > [@](#): > > Second, you seem to be repeating the Libertarian ideal that so long as my individual act, or a multi-person individual act, considered in isolation does not impart some measurable form of harm on another person, then that act is not a proper purpose of regulation by the government. I fucking hate Libertarian ideals. This has nothing to do with Libertarianism. It has everything to do with what you continue to ignore: the opinions and life experiences of the people that work in and around the sex industry. > [@](#): > > You repeat this firmly as if it is self evident. I do not do this. > [@](#): > > Well, I and most people agree with it in principle but disagree with it in practice, and if we explore it further as I did above, I think nobody agrees with it in practice. Except of course everyone that does agree with it in practice. > [@](#): > > Again, that would abolish most of the regulations that the NZ bill has enacted. For example, why can’t the brothels advertise? If I pay a billboard company to advertise my brothel, and he willing accepts my money, who does it harm to tell someone an absolute truth that I have UltraVires’ Mustang Chicken Ranch off of State Route 50, if you arrive prior to 8pm and purchase a blow job, the second one costs only a penny? Fortunately I hate the Libertarian ideal. This isn’t about Libertarianism. So this is utterly irrelevant. > [@](#): > > You seem to invoke the Libertarian ideal that the prostitution contract is semi-sacred and should not be touched by the government, but the regulations which also infringe on free choices and contracts are a-okay. Except I’m not invoking the “Libertarian ideal.” I fucking hate the Libertarian ideal. The industry is regulated. I’ve shown you the regulations. > [@](#): > > Further, this Libertarian principle, even if it could be practically applied, is simply not one that has been adopted in any society that I know of. In case you haven’t already figured it out: I hate the fucking Libertarian ideal, and nothing I’ve said at all has anything to do with Libertarianism. > [@](#): > > Even in a free country like the United States, the government has general police powers to protect the health, safety, and yes, the morals of the people. Our laws around sex work are aimed at protecting their health and safety. But morals? You want the police to police morals? Really? Don’t you guys market yourselves as “The Land of the Free”? Don’t you mean “The Land of the Free unless you act in a way that I consider to be morally repugnant?” > [@](#): > > Laws against fornication, adultery, cohabitation, sodomy, polygamy, prostitution, incest, working on Sundays, etc. have always been held to be within the legitimate power of government for nothing more than the fact that a majority believes that they are harmful to the good order and morality of society. If the majority of people think that working on a Sunday is “harmful to the good order and morality of society” then America has bigger fucking problems than I thought. > [@](#): > > Again, your argument ignores the aggregation principle. It is not me just sitting at a bar with one other woman and negotiating a prostitution contract. Legalization would mean that millions of these contracts are negotiated, it will be visible to the public including children and young women who might not otherwise have considered a career in prostitution, and that the state will have a widespread presence in its regulation. Holy fucking shit! NOT THE AGGREGATION PRINCIPLE! How could I have forgotten such an important thing? :: googles aggregation principle :: Huh. That doesn’t look relevant at all! Sex work has been legal in New Zealand since two-thousand-and-fucking-three. Fifteen years. There must have been BILLIONS of contracts negotiated by your calculations. We’ve got fifteen years of data for you to look through if you like. You can see what happened to society before sex work was legalised and how it looks afterwards. Care to make predictions on how things have changed? Do you want to set some metrics? Pregnancies before and after the law change? STD’s? Has our country been overrun by sex workers? Are we doomed? > [@](#): > > You make an excellent point which I believe can be summarized as follows: Outlaw prostitution all you want, but it will still go on. And recognizing that illegal prostitution is widespread, there is tangible harm to these women who can be and are actively exploited, in a condition not much different from slavery, but because of its illegal status, they are unable to go to the police and the courts for relief because they will be arrested and/or told that they should quit committing crimes. **Is that a fair summary?** Nope. Not a fair summary. This isn’t about me. Or my thoughts. Or my opinions. Its about the people you are ignoring. The people that you aren’t and wont listen too. > [@](#): > > If so, then I believe that these harms can be addressed without taking the drastic step of full legalization. Full legalization is not “drastic.” > [@](#): > > Have an amnesty if a prostitute comes forward on her own volitation. Modify the criminal code so that acts of prostitution when committed under what amounts to duress are not prosecuted or only prosecuted with a very, very minor penalty. Modify the code to include a crime of something like “Aggravated Pandering” whereby if you are keeping women captive in a sense, or plying them with drugs so that they can have the stomach for prostitution, then there are very severe penalties. And what happens when there is no duress? When sex workers freely and voluntarily engage in sex work? As I said before: > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > 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. The proposed law wasn’t just plucked out of thin air. All the major stakeholders came together along with members of parliament from both the left and the right to draft this, and it took six years from the start of the process before it made its way into law. But you \*\*have \*\*plucked your solution out of thin air. Its a solution based on your thoughts, your opinions, your morality. Did you spend more than ten minutes writing that up? If your solution doesn’t involve talking to the people whose lives you are playing with then it isn’t a solution that I can take seriously. > [@](#): > > As far as New Zealand, I am not versed enough in its law or its experience to comment one way or another. But even if it works as advertised, It does work as advertised. > [@](#): > > I think a society that allows selling sex like the selling of a bushel of wheat or cattle has failed in its general duty to be a decent one, at least in that one respect. I think a society reveals itself by how it treats its most marginalised people. And a society that treats sex workers as criminals, that locks them up, that fines them, that treats them like (in your words) “semen receptacles”: a society that treats sex workers like that is not a decent one. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying New Zealand is a failed society. I am saying that the way the United States treats sex workers is disgusting, disgraceful, and you can do much better than this. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2019, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/65 "2019-01-13T16:05:18Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Even in a free country like the United States, the government has general police powers to protect the health, safety, and yes, the morals of the people. Laws against fornication, adultery, cohabitation, sodomy, polygamy, prostitution, incest, working on Sundays, etc. have always been held to be within the legitimate power of government for nothing more than the fact that a majority believes that they are harmful to the good order and morality of society. Well, I guess we’ve reached our point of disagreement then. I don’t see myself as Libertarian - but on the specific idea regarding “morals”, since every “moral” you mention specifically is something that doesn’t have a factual justification without drawing upon a specific religion, I am against the government policing them. I think almost everything you mentioned is completely ok, even incest is a questionable thing to regulate without being consistent about it. We let adults with terrible genes reproduce, if we’re going to regulate incest we should require all partners undergo a real genetic screening before conceiving. And require couples who have heritable diseases, especially some of the particularly nasty ones like Huntington’s, have their embryos screened and prepared in a reproductive clinic (and edited if necessary). But instead, ancient tribal beliefs of a particular tribe, one that is barely a majority in the USA anymore, are what we use instead. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2019, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/66 "2019-01-13T17:24:01Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > If sex is a service for sale, then we why do we retain the old school morality that it is something sacred in this context. If it is offered for sale, then the theft of the service should logically only be punished as a theft, not an assault. I don’t see how that follows. Let’s say I’m a prizefighter: my profession involves a contract being drawn up before I collect a paycheck, and in between I get punched in the face a bunch of times and it’s all perfectly legal. And if some guy walks up to me on the street and punches me in the face, _that’s not theft._ Let’s say I’m an actor: a contract gets drawn up, and as we’d all agreed I then get punched because I’m playing a prizefighter. Or say I’m a stuntman: a contract gets drawn up, and as agreed I get punched because I’m standing in for the actor who’d otherwise get punched because he’s playing the prizefighter. Is all of that legal? Figure it is. Is it legal for some guy to walk up to me and punch me because I’m an actor or a stuntman? Figure it’s not. Is it _theft?_ Figure it’s _not._ ---
**Author:** ![Textual\_Innuendo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/898d66/32.png) [@Textual\_Innuendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Textual_Innuendo)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/67 "2019-01-14T01:40:37Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 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. Not much to add given that Banquet Bear is doing such a great job with their empirical, fact-based refutation of your largely incoherent invective here, so all I have to say is… **JFC you’re a prude**. Go start a church or something if you want to impose your morality on two consenting adults doing something victimless, because at least then it’s voluntary on your followers’ behalf, but you should not be using the organs of the state to impose your prudishness on the rest of the adults in the country for no more coherent reason than “it’s icky and I wouldn’t want my daughter to do it”. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/68 "2019-01-14T04:45:07Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I don’t see how that follows. Let’s say I’m a prizefighter: my profession involves a contract being drawn up before I collect a paycheck, and in between I get punched in the face a bunch of times and it’s all perfectly legal. And if some guy walks up to me on the street and punches me in the face, _that’s not theft._ > > Let’s say I’m an actor: a contract gets drawn up, and as we’d all agreed I then get punched because I’m playing a prizefighter. Or say I’m a stuntman: a contract gets drawn up, and as agreed I get punched because I’m standing in for the actor who’d otherwise get punched because he’s playing the prizefighter. Is all of that legal? Figure it is. Is it legal for some guy to walk up to me and punch me because I’m an actor or a stuntman? Figure it’s not. Is it _theft?_ Figure it’s _not._ I apologize for not being clear. I’m not suggesting that if you throw a prostitute down on the bed, beat on her, and forcibly have sex with her that you have only committed a theft of services. You have clearly committed a battery, perhaps even an aggravated battery, and yes a sexual assault. Why? Because there was no prostitution contract, and therefore no privilege to do any of the above, even if she otherwise would have agreed had you paid. I am talking about a scenario where you pretended to pay or promised to pay (e.g. an envelope filled with paper, a knowing use of a declined credit card, I’ll pay you tomorrow, etc.). Just a thing does not become a retroactive rape anymore than a prize fighter that gets stiffed on his payday may claim that his opponent battered him. Why? Because in both instances, the physical contact was agreed upon, and just like in any business, if you contract to provide a service, and make a decision not to get the money up front and verify payment, you run the risk of having to make collection efforts down the road. To say that it is rape in this circumstance would be like saying that if I don’t pay the plumber for his services that I should be charged with slavery as I required him to work for free. > [@Textual\_Innuendo](#): > > Not much to add given that Banquet Bear is doing such a great job with their empirical, fact-based refutation of your largely incoherent invective here, so all I have to say is… **JFC you’re a prude**. > > Go start a church or something if you want to impose your morality on two consenting adults doing something victimless, because at least then it’s voluntary on your followers’ behalf, but you should not be using the organs of the state to impose your prudishness on the rest of the adults in the country for no more coherent reason than “it’s icky and I wouldn’t want my daughter to do it”. You act as if I just made up this system of government last Tuesday. If you want to have a Libertarian society, then elect those people who will do so. My ideas have been law across all religions and across all society since the Code of Hammurabi. I think the burden is on you to show the need for the change, especially (and I know it wasn’t you that said it) to say that things like polygamy and incest should be permitted. Perhaps you would like to answer the problems I posed earlier. If the idea is that a prostitution contract is an act of two free people agreeing to a thing which has no harm on any other person, then any regulation of it must fail. Why can’t two free people advertise the brothel? Why can’t two free people agree to a prostitution contract with no condoms involved? What if the state proposes that the place must close after certain hours, like is done currently with bars? Why can’t two free people engage in a liquor purchase contract at 4am on Sunday morning? Can a prostitution contract, between two free people, allow for sex on a public park bench? During the school field trip? I mean, who really is it harming? These kids will learn about sex soon enough anyways. I can keep tossing out examples, but at some point, I think you would say, “Well, okay, that one is a bit too far and I would support that regulation.” All that shows is that contrary to having a political philosophy that stands on its own, it just means that we draw the line at different places. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/69 "2019-01-14T06:21:41Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 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? Sorry, but you seem to be saying that other people shouldn’t have the sex they want so that you will feel that your sex is more valuable? Because by forbidding prostitution, you aren’t just restricting your ability to purchase sex, you’re restricting everyone else ability to do so, whether or not they are married, whether or not they share your views, whether or not they feel that their sex is cheapened by the existence of prostitution. I’m not sure how it’s different from banning same-sex marriage so that you will feel that your man with a woman marriage is more special, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/70 "2019-01-14T06:50:45Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > You object to the term “sperm receptacle” but only because it seems demeaning, yet it accurately describes the act. It also accurately describes the act between you and your wife. Still, I doubt that you’re using these word when you talk to her. There’s nothing that makes the sex between a prostitute and her patron, the sex during a one night stand between two partners who just want a good fuck, the sex between two fuck buddies, the sex between occasional lovers, and the sex between you and your wife more or less vile or more or less noble. I think you can’t grasp the concept that not everybody perceives sex as being inherently degrading unless done in some very special circumstances, as you do. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/71 "2019-01-14T07:26:55Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > You act as if I just made up this system of government last Tuesday. If you want to have a Libertarian society, then elect those people who will do so. **My ideas have been law across all religions and across all society since the Code of Hammurabi**. I think the burden is on you to show the need for the change, especially (and I know it wasn’t you that said it) to say that things like polygamy and incest should be permitted. > > Perhaps you would like to answer the problems I posed earlier. If the idea is that a prostitution contract is an act of two free people agreeing to a thing which has no harm on any other person, then any regulation of it must fail. Why can’t two free people advertise the brothel? Why can’t two free people agree to a prostitution contract with no condoms involved? > > What if the state proposes that the place must close after certain hours, like is done currently with bars? Why can’t two free people engage in a liquor purchase contract at 4am on Sunday morning? > > Can a prostitution contract, between two free people, allow for sex on a public park bench? During the school field trip? I mean, who really is it harming? These kids will learn about sex soon enough anyways. You do understand that this statement is bullshit, right? Our knowledge of the past is imperfect but for one thing, many societies have openly had various forms of prostitutes and brothels without anything like today’s form of industrialized and relatively efficient policing. A law nobody enforces is a meaningless piece of paper. And the park bench example - for most of human history adult members of the village had very little privacy. Realistically this probably happened all the time. In any case, the park bench example _does_ affect other people who witness it. This _is_ different from if the partners are asked to take it inside, or at least out of view of the public. Which come to think of it, there _are_ public parks in France where this kind of thing happens. And, well, I don’t think everything has fallen into ruin as a result of this. ---
**Author:** ![yellow\_sausage\_bandit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yellow_sausage_bandit/32/394_2.png) [@yellow\_sausage\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yellow_sausage_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/72 "2019-01-14T08:22:41Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > My ideas have been law across all religions and across all society since the Code of Hammurabi. If you really believe that, you are quite ignorant about all religions and all society since the Code of Hammurabi (which, btw, granted protections for prostitutes) ---
**Author:** ![Bibliothecarius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b2d939/32.png) [@Bibliothecarius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bibliothecarius)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/73 "2019-01-14T08:56:06Z")
Short answer: Because lawmakers in the majority of countries in the world love sticking their nose in other people’s private business and have to justify the often insane amount of money they get paid. If people respected other people’s life decisions and thought about things rationally, we could easily get rid of at least 60% of all laws, by my rough estimate. Besides, we are _all_ prostitutes. It’s just that most of us sell our souls for money instead of our bodies. ---
**Author:** ![BenedictusXIV](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b19c9b/32.png) [@BenedictusXIV](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BenedictusXIV)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/74 "2019-01-14T13:17:20Z")
So since the discussion has swayed from legality to morality, the libertarian in me feels inclined to throw in a few cents. Governments regulate much more than they are historically entitled to and we are so used to it that we don’t even notice anymore. Let’s categorize: - Some religions forbid prostitution. That’s fine, but that makes it a matter between the church and its members. Unless we are living in a theocracy the government should not have an involvement. - Protection of citizens. Yes, the first and foremost governmental task. But who needs protection here and against what? - Public health. Kind of questionable. Why treat vd different then any other disease that one could attract in say the waterpark? Also these diseases are not restricted to prostitutes. - Humanitarian. The focus here is on female prostitutes, but you overlook a large number of gay male prostitutes. As long as nobody is forced to perform any act against their will, no harm is done. So there really is no good argument in favor of criminalizing prostitution (or solliciting). It’s one of those things, there will always be a demand and there will always be a supply. Criminalize it and you play right in the hands of the mafia who specializes in that kind of transaction. Legalize it and you keep things decent, under control and…taxable! Do I want my daughter to become a prostitute? Of course not, but there are many things I don’t want my daughter (or sons) to become. Prositute is not even ranked in the top 10. As somebody also pointed out already, there is a very thin line between prostitution and sex in return for (financial) favors. Suppose I was a Slowenian supermodel and I would marry a New York real estate agent who is 24 years older, really ugly, has a bad character and has a history of sleeping around with other women but has a nice penthouse and bottomless credit. Would that make me a prostitute? ---
**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 14, 2019, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/75 "2019-01-14T14:01:11Z")
> [@BenedictusXIV](#): > > - Some religions forbid prostitution. Can you elaborate? I am unaware of many things, but off the top of my head I am unaware of a sacred text prohibiting prostitution. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/76 "2019-01-14T14:12:19Z")
> [@BenedictusXIV](#): > > Governments regulate much more than they are historically entitled to… Without getting into the nuance of that particular statement, it’s an interesting addition to the discussion: for a Libertarian or a small-c conservative, the very fact of reducing government involvement in individual lives goes into the “legalize it” column when considering the net benefit or detriment to society. Governments, as societal constructs, _always_ regulate societal norms to some degree or another, pretty much by definition. We consider chattel slavery to be broadly detrimental to our society, and therefore allow our government to outlaw it. We consider adults having sex with 12 year olds to be broadly detrimental to our society, so we outlaw that. We believe that having speed limits is broadly beneficial to society, so we enforce them. Lather, rinse, repeat. What I believe **UltraVires** is arguing (and I trust he’ll correct me if I mischaracterize), is that _legal prostitution is, on balance, detrimental to our society and therefore ought to be discouraged through illegality and punishment._ I’m honestly still not 100% sure quite what his reasoning is, or the calculus he is using to determine that the negatives outweigh the benefits. These discussions tend toward the emotional on all sides. But that’s what they boil down to: Is X a net benefit to society? ---
**Author:** ![BenedictusXIV](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b19c9b/32.png) [@BenedictusXIV](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BenedictusXIV)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/77 "2019-01-14T14:17:35Z")
Why do I have to do all the googling? :rolleyes: [Judaism](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/prostitution-2) [Islam](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pnGwP9-FhxYC&pg=PA36&dq=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) Not sure about christianity given the take that Jesus slept with a hooker. Probably one of those controversions between new and old testament. I believe Hinduism has no explicit prohibition. However, with most religions it doesn’t really matter what the scripture says, but how it is interpreted. ---
**Author:** ![BenedictusXIV](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b19c9b/32.png) [@BenedictusXIV](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BenedictusXIV)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/78 "2019-01-14T14:48:28Z")
> [@andros](#): > > What I believe **UltraVires** is arguing (and I trust he’ll correct me if I mischaracterize), is that _legal prostitution is, on balance, detrimental to our society and therefore ought to be discouraged through illegality and punishment._ I wasn’t responding to any particualar post, but if I read **UltraVires** last post then the reasoning is > [@](#): > > I can keep tossing out examples, but at some point, I think you would say, “Well, okay, that one is a bit too far and I would support that regulation.” All that shows is that contrary to having a political philosophy that stands on its own, it just means that we draw the line at different places. If I pull that in extreme, then the reasoning is that because I believe murder is a crime, somebody else should be allowed to think walking barefoot is a crime. My point is that you can be morally opposed to prostitution (or whatever), but that is no basis for prohibition. Society as a whole is perfectly capable of handling moral issues without government involvement. Where do I draw the line? Quite simple, when people get harmed (physically or otherwise). That is when the government/the law should be there to protect you. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/79 "2019-01-14T16:02:17Z")
> [@BenedictusXIV](#): > > My point is that you can be morally opposed to prostitution (or whatever), but that is no basis for prohibition. I agree. > [@](#): > > Society as a whole is perfectly capable of handling moral issues without government involvement. I disagree. Government is one of the ways we handle those issues; it is a part of “society as a whole.” Without government and the rule of law it allows, we are left without an effective structure to establish and maintain many of the fundamental principles we hold valuable as a group. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482/80 "2019-01-14T16:12:37Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I note that you don’t use the term prostitution, but call it “sex work” in an attempt to use buzzwords to legitimize it. > [@andros](#): > > Additionally, it’s worth noting that not all sex workers are women, nor do all sex workers do anything involving semen. Indeed, the term “sex work” covers a wider range of activities than straightforward prostitution. A hired dominatrix may be doing sex work without ever taking off her clothes or the customer achieving climax. There are people who get paid to clean other people’s houses in the nude - no touching involved, only looking (and before your mind goes all “sexy French maid” I’ll point out that the person I first heard about this from was _David Sedaris_, who wrote a book about his experiences doing this for a living). Strippers could likewise be classified as sex workers although I understand that some object to this categorization. Phone sex and webcam sex operators don’t even have to be in the same hemisphere as their customer. It’s a broad and complex industry involving a lot of transactions of varying legality that don’t remotely fall into the “sperm receptacle” category. > [@UltraVires](#): > > First, the theft of cigarettes is not comparable to sex without consent, unless we take the extraordinary step of saying that a woman’s body is a chattel to be bought and sold (or rented). While it’s a fair point that sex is a service, not a good, I wonder if you’d characterize paying someone to wash your car or mow your lawn or debug your computer or do your taxes as treating their “body as chattel”. If you’d prefer to narrow it down to services involving physical contact, that still includes professionals such as personal trainers, physiotherapists and other medical practitioners, masseurs/masseuses, and so on. I’m pretty sure the carer that helps an elderly person out of the bathtub isn’t treating their body as chattel. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-prostitution-illegal/827482.md?page=5)