Why is prostitution illegal?

Great Debates
41

…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”.

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:

Other resources for those that are interested: Health and Safety Information for Operators of Businesses of Prostitution,and A Guide to Occupational Health and Safety in the New Zealand Sex Industry.

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. It means that sex workers can go after their employers for sexual harassment: and win.

The legislative framework we got in New Zealand is what happens when you listen. The “Nordic Model” 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.

42

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.

43

…not that there’s anything wrong with that.

:smiley:

44

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 :slight_smile: ) 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.

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?

45

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.

46

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.

47

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…

48

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.

49

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.

50

…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?

There is no good reason why they should have been punished. Its why we changed the law.

Empower: “Make (someone) stronger and more confident, especially in controlling their life and claiming their rights”.

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.

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 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.

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.

All covered by the act.

Do you really think they didn’t think this through? All covered by the act.

All covered by the act.

“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.

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.

Does the legality of sex work change what a “very extreme minority of people would think?” If not, then how is this relevant?

“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:

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.

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.

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.

Again: from the NZPC, the goals of legalization were too:

What is the problem you are trying to solve by having sex work illegal?

51

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.

52

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.

53

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?

54

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*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…

55

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.

56

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?

We’ve actually had threads on this kind of issue before—for example, Are prostitutes raped if they don’t get paid?

57

Based on supply and demand, prostitution would probably be very difficult to eradicate, were that a worthy goal.

The post to which you responded did not mention constitutionality. I suggest thinking in terms of tradeoffs and relative harm rather than absolutes.

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.

58

…ROFL!

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.

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.

There is no problem. Its all in your head. The regulation:

Nobody can be compelled to to have sex for any reason. Consent must always be present and can be withdrawn at any time.

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?

BYE!

What is fundamentally indecent or immoral about fucking?

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.

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.”

Well there’s a fucking surprise.

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.

59

Additionally, it’s worth noting that not all sex workers are women, nor do all sex workers do anything involving semen.

60

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.