Why is prostitution so wrong?

Great Debates
81

I did give examples of other professions that are disruptive, cause diseases and can lead to criminal activity. Did you read my link, wring?

Coal mining leads to black lung disease. Oil drilling is disruptive to the whole environment. The most dangerous job in the world is driving a taxi. Chinese restaurants lead to enslavement. Working on an engine lathe can lead to dismemberment. Migrant farming is devistating to families.

I’m not talking about whether or not legalization would help alleviate the distruption, disease and secondary illegal activity (although I think it would). My point is that these problems are not a reason to criminalize prostitution.

Selling sex for money involves two people (or more if that’s what you’re paying for). Everything else is ancillary. There is nothing inherent in the act of selling sex that warrents it’s criminalization. Except that people just don’t like it.

82

Biggirl yes, I read the link. so what? it shows that illegal immigrants often engage in awful working conditions when they’re in the new country. This is news? this is a refution of the argument that legalization of prostituion does not eradicate the problems associated with it? Not in my book.

It’s quite nice that you believe that the only people affected by prostitution are the sex worker and customer. It isn’t true, of course. And merely referring to the other issues as ‘ancillary’ doesn’t make them any the less real, significant, troublesome, worthy of consideration.

And, of course, you’re brushing by the problem of how ‘consensual’ is the set up in the first place. If my choices are starvation or sex work - can you really consider it a consensual choice? I’d think not. Issues faced by women in abusive situations, economic hardships etc. are not ‘fixed’ by legalizing one of the ways they manage to survive. By legalizing that way, we can pretend that we’ve made a significant improvement in their lives (gee, see, you’re not subject to arrest anymore. Of course, you’re still engaged in a behavior that economic conditions or drug dependancy forced you into, but hell, that’s ok), without attempting to get at the root causes and make a real change.

Your description of the other industries doesn’t answer my challenge, since the sex trade does all of those things at the same time and without any significant positive contribution to our society. What happened to the coal miners was awful. We’ve improved their condition, thank you, because, you see, coal mining was and is a legitimate interest of our society. Obejctifying persons for use as sexual outlets has not been demonstrated to be a valid social concern.

You keep repeating your position of **

** and I keep pointing out to you, that since you are the one urging change is necessary and beneficial, than you have the duty to provide evidence that it will be.

Since you keep on failing to do that, and merely repeating ‘I don’t think trading sexual favors for money should be illegal’, this isn’t going anywhere.

83

I keep repeating myself because I keep being misinterpreted. No where have I urged for the laws to be changed. Look back and read my posts. What I have said is that you are holding prostitution to a different standard than any other profession and the reason is because you don’t like it.

How is it that you can brush off the enslavement of restaurant workers as irrelevant but cry about the horrid working conditions of people in a completely different country? You asked for other professions that are dangerous, have a risk of disease and are disruptive to families. I gave you a very limited list of them. These are also irrelevant.

Why? Why is it O.K. to risk a limb in a factory but not O.K. to risk STD in a bordello? Why is it justifiable for the Chinese restaurants to continue to exist even though it has been proven that people are enslaved in order to work there, but it is perfectly justifiable to outlaw prostitution because immigrants in Amsterdam go there to prostute legally?

I am trying to point out that there is a double standard when it comes to prostitution. You, personally, find it distateful. Therefore it is O.K. to arm-wave about the terrible conditions prostitutes are now faced with.

Now it’s your turn to repeat yourself. I again say: terrible conditions exist in many professions. I have stated only a very few of them. Why is prostitution illegal and migrant farming not? If you promise not to answer the question with a list of terrible conditions, I’ll promise not to repeat that many other professions suffer from terrible conditions.

84

It strikes me this thread is suffering from a lack of analytical rigor. Which may not be possible to overcome as frankly the data may not be there, for possibly the same reasons good data on sexual relations in the aggregate are hard to come by in general.

Firstly, it’s probably best to try to seperate out the two main reasons to discuss the issues:
(a) morality
(b) public health and safety (abstracted away from the issue of public morality.

(a) Morality of course depends on non-scientific grounds in most respects. That does not make it illegitmate mind you, but does, in my opinion, set it outside the realm of analysis, or at least into the realm of philosophy.

So, putting that aside, there is

(b) public health and safety.

Here we have much conflicting data and no small degree of problems of confusing between cause and effect and simple correlation. There may be no clear answers to be had.

However, that being said it does strike me that the issue of illegal immigration and exploitation of workers exists independantly of the issue of prostitution. While sexual exploitation may in a moral sense (see above in re judgements) be worse than other forms of forced labor, I don’t know that legality or non-legality of prostitution per se impact on this.

Clearly, for example in the Dutch case, laws already exist in regards to forced labor, slavery etc. There is a clear pan-European problem (and of course in the U.S. to be sure) in regards to the Catch-22 of illegal immigration and illegal activities, up to and including de facto slavery.

On one hand, there is the clear state interest in discouraging illegal immigration and for regulating the level of immigration: saying this from the perspective of someone who considers immigration to generally be quite positive. However, there is the side effect of exploitation, for illegal immigrants --de facto if not de jure-- are denied access to the full protection of the law. Residing illegally, they fear availing themselves of police services, and thus deprived of state protection become prey to private exploitation without social controls. Where does one strike the balance? It is clear, however, that this problem is not that of prostitution alone, although it seems more morally offensive.

A question arises to the extent the police may turn a blind eye to such trafficking (be it prostitutes or house-maids or restraunt workers) and whether there is a necessary connection between the forms. A question further arises as to whether legalization may or may not if not eliminate such issues, render them more easily dealt with or alleviated. I believe the elimination standard really is not logicaly supportable.

We should also consider in this connection the issue of organized crime: like gambling I am not sure whether legalziation or continued criminalization of necessity addresses this issue --which I would guess is intimately connected with trafficking in people, be it maids or prostitutes(*)-- without looking at larger legal frameworks and the extent to which society is willing to tolerate the exploitation, legal or not, of marginal groups. A further question arises to the extent to which legalization or criminalization may feed into exploitation because of larger social attitudes.

(*: I believe that wring is wrong to brush off the essentially forced labor character of much illegal immigrant exploitation, it is not necessary for the argument)

Finally, in regards to the homeowner/business values issue, I consider this to be largely irrelevant in a logical sense to the issue of criminalization. In and of itself, the problems cited are matters of regulation, as any “nuisance” industry. In connection with other concerns, e.g. moral ones, of course one may arive at a different calculus.

All in all, I do not see a simple cost-benefit analysis. The question rather ressembles that of drug legalization. Or gambling for that matter. However, in that context, it does seem to me that laying aside the morality question, which I do not dismiss per se, that it may be that a well-regulated legalization of certain aspects of “sex work” with attention to problems associated. But this may not be a necessary result.

(Final aside, I’ve visited Amsterdam often enough to venture the opinion that the warning in re women in the Red Light District is exagerated. Of course, I’m used to living in rougher neighborhoods so it may be my perception of danger is skewed.)

85

Please excuse the title, rapidly typed it didn’t seem condescending while I was structuring my thoughts, but quite clearly in retrospect the title it wrong in implication.

86

Please excuse the title, rapidly typed it didn’t seem condescending while I was structuring my thoughts, but quite clearly in retrospect the title it wrong in implication.

87

ok Biggirl then, try this: (since you’ve still failed to prove that the only reason that prostitution is illegal is that some people find it immoral).

The “ancillary” factors in prostitution do not go away when the action is legalized. the ‘ancillary’ factors continue to damage real people, deny them their rights, diminish their quality of life. That would be the other reason (other than moral) to legislate the activity. We do not require that there be actual physical or economic harm before we legislate things (for example, tresspassing - I cannot tresspass on private property, even if I can demonstrate that I have caused no damage/harm.)

Collounsbury wasn’t attempting to dismiss the problems re: illegal aliens. My point with the Netherlands/immigration cite was that legalization per se did not do away with the other problems associated with prostitution, that unregulated trade kept on. (by the way, I didn’t take offense to your ‘title’. I wasn’t supposed to, was I? :wink: )

I think your perceptions of the issues in the red light district would probably be more at issue 'cause of your gender vs. your prior living circumstances. I used to walk to work (in the late 70’s), and the best lit, most direct route took me through an area where street walkers plied their trade. It was an issue. Even though my demeanor alone should have been sufficient (I walked quickly, with my face pointed foreward, semi down, not looking at cars passing by etc., carrying a backpack and sometimes a guitar), I was accosted routinely.

Now, in the meantime, I believe that I may have come up with a method to attempt to discern the relative population of the ‘street walker’ vs. the call girl. (one of Stoids sticking points).

I believe there has been an agreement that outcall/call girl activities generate a much higher price than the stereotypical street walker. We have some empirical data re: the numbers of streetwalkers (through arrest records, many of the health organizations and other links from the other thread were primarily focused on them, they are visible, often end up on the arrest sheets, and there seemed to be agreement that many of the problems associated with prositution were associated with this level primarily).

Ok. Call girl (ball park) $1000 per encounter, street hustler $20 per encounter (slide the scales around a bit to suit ya, it won’t matter in my analysis).

I believe it is clear that fewer than 100% of the population uses these services (it’s not important to me what percentage, since we couldn’t hope to prove it anyhow)

It would also be clear, one would think, that some one earning 10,000 annually, wouldn’t be able to afford teh call girls services. Keep on going up the food chain, and you will see the relative numbers of folks being able to afford the services of the higher priced call girls are far fewer than the lower priced street hustlers. And, each needs more than one customer in order to make a living. It is, I would then propose, very easy to say, with some authority, that call girls would make up a relatively small percentage of those engaging in prostitution. there’s simply not enough of a customer base who can afford it (either sporadicaly or regularly).

And, as I’ve tried to point out to all the folks who want to build casinos all over Michigan, one cannot assume that since casino A in existance brings in $8 million per month that building casino B nearby will also generate $8 million per month. there’s a finite amount of disposable income available.

88

I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Prostitution was made illegal and remains illegal because this is the only way (or the best way) to deal with the ancillary problems.

But we have laws that deal with these other problems. Laws that should work whether or not prostitution is legal. And making prostitution illegal certainly isn’t helping, is it?

I believe prostitution laws interfere with personal rights and freedoms. If two consenting adults want to trade money for sex, that is their personal business. Whether or not I or anybody else finds it distastful or think it degrading should have no bearing on the matter.

89

legality/illegality historically: I don’t know of a time when prostitution, as a profession, was simply accepted and considered acceptable. If anyone else has a reference, they’re sure keeping it to themselves, so to make the statement ‘prostitution was made illegal’ assumes that at one point it was legal. I don’t know that to be true.

Your statement “laws that should work whether or not prostitution is legal”. and that’s the crux of the issue. Those arguing here for legalization and/or decriminalization have not been able to provide evidence to support their thesis that the problems go away once prostitution is decriminalized/made legal. I found the one cite that demonstrated that there were still problems with illegal prostitution in areas where the practice is legal. To me, this consistutes proof (at least some) of my position that the ancillary problems do not go away with the legalization. Which, again, suggests to me that before you make a drastic change you should have some reason to believe that some positive benefit should happen.

Since, as far as I’m concerned, we’ve shown that there are problems to real people, real people who are harmed by the practice as it happens now, that to legalize/decriminalize does not do away with the current problems, and only seems to be of benefit from the folks engaging in prostitution in the first place (those who are, in essence, harming these others), I don’t find it a compelling reason to change the laws.

You keep on making statements about ‘other’s personal views of distasteful/degrading’. Why? I’m not arguing that position at all. You wish to have the personal freedom choices of the two engaging in prostituion supercede the rights of others to have their property valued, to have their freedom of movement without being accosted, etc, etc etc. I don’t.

90

Criminalizing prostitution doesn’t make the other problems go away either. Criminalizing it doesn’t even make prostitution go away. Criminalizing prostitution makes the people who sell sex criminals.

It shouldn’t be a crime to sell sex. This is an intrusion on the rights of people to with their own bodies what they wish.

91

I won’t if you won’t. Also, stick with this thread, please.

But I will ask you this: when it comes to this topic, what exactly would you accept as “hard” evidence? There is no such thing. These are subjective experiences of people’s lives, people who are conducting said lives circumspectly, for fear of arrest.

The best you can hope for is that some unbiased sociologist would manage to ask thousands of working prostitutes from all strata of the work questions about their work and their feelings about it. Assuming the prostitutes would talk, assuming the researchers could find them. Which they can’t, which is why most “data” are based almost exclusively on streetwalkers, because they are the only ones that are easy to find.

And even if all that could be achieved, you would still have the subjective reports of the women themselves.

In all discussions of this topic, I have never, ever denied the dark side. What I refute is the idea that it is representative. People think so merely because the dark side is the visible side. That doesn’t make it most common, only the most visible.

So how do we get the real numbers? Hard to do, but I do tend to believe Norma Jean and her friends and the many women in the sex-worker organizations, both above and underground, that she is part of. These are the real women working at all levels, communicating honestly with each other about who they are and how they live. You believe women in mental institutions and wring believes women in jails. Who is to say where the majority lies, hmm?

92

Well, I think we are veering into a new topic with this whole angle. I disagree with what you’re saying. Your sister is equating wolf whistles and admiring hollars (however crude) with the threat of rape. Sorry, I find this ludicrous. How many rapes have you heard about that started with a wolf whistle?

Agreed! And who is telling men such things? No one I know. Although… now that I think about it, that IS the message most men have. They don’t call it prostitution, but men certainly believe that the more money they have, the better the class of babe. I wonder why? Maybe because it tends to be true? But of course, an outright exchange of cash for sex is bad… :rolleyes:

Most of the men I know do have that attitude. It’s about the way we are raised and educated, by our families and our society, not by the presence or absence of prostitutes.

It isn’t force. Unless you consider me forcing the meassage therapist to give me a massage when I pay her. Am I forcing the grocer to give me the groceries? Forcing the doctor to treat me? That is just ridiculous. Someone offers a service for a fee. End of story.

93

It strikes me that the anti-legalization analysis in re the social policy arena suffers from the fallacy of the excluded middle, or put another way, you are viewing the issue in a false binary… First, the standard advanced, elimination is not a necessary standard for legalization.

A proper standard for legalization, as before laying aside the morality question, is the extent to which benefits outweigh costs. No social policy will ever eliminate all costs, however beneficial, or not, it may be.

In regards to the limited experiences of legalization, I do not know we have the proper data to establish causation. Problems cited may or may not be truly dependant on prostitution per se. If they are — for example trafficking in women — a question arises if the issue depends on criminalization or not. That is, does removing criminal penalties have an effect, positive or negative on the incidence of trafficking. It would be preferable to know actual causality established through statistical tests (on good data) rather than to have mere correlation. (For example, in re Amsterdam, we have the issue of the collapse of the Soviet Empire more or less at the same time as legalization. We would have to address an upswing in trafficking in people — be they women (or men) for prostitution or as forced labor in other areas — caused by economic collapse in the former Soviet Union etc. which may have no necessary connection with legalization or not.

A question must be asked in this connection whether criminalization or legalization better serves in terms of addressing this problem in regards to social policy and marshaling of resources? We can not simply say there is this problem ergo it must remain criminal since taking this route we fail to address the root causes and thus fail to address the problem per se.

A hypothesis to be tested would be whether legalization allows the issue of trafficking to be addressed better, either through removal of the “black” or “grey” market aspects of the trade — thus allowing the collection and analysis of data (which of course imply an active regime of regulation, not simple “fire and forget” legalization: an analogy might be drawn with gambling in this area.). The hypothesis may be that removal of the black or grey market cover on the trade will allow an attack on the most pernicious aspects of the trade, which is to say compulsory aspects. (Although nota bene, allowed does not mean it happens, clearly there is a question of active social policy which runs into the issue raised below plus the legal and moral ambiguities in re illegal immigration and access to services.) Can greater protections be afforded in one context and not another, or is this irrelevant.

However, the question is not so simple. Behind it is another question, there is the question of law enforcement. Clearly the Amsterdam issue raises a question of law enforcement generally surrounding the sex trade, not simply a question of legalization. Slavery and forced prostitution are illegal, regardless of the legal status of prostitution. We have to ask the question, if there is not sufficient enforcement in this area, what are the reasons? Are they connected with legalization, are they a relic of police forces “turning a blind eye” carried over from the period of criminalization? As hypothesized above, given the illegal state of the trade and its characteristics, one can not expect a self-correcting mechanism. Much the same as in naive calls for drug legalization within the context of a free market: a market which has been operating on black market/criminal terms will not be characterized by clear information or other conditions positively ascribed to markets for self-correcting mechanisms. Ergo, any manouevres to legalize a black market have to be taken in step with supervision to suppress criminal elements.

We might hypothesize that legalization could result, if undertaken properly, in a positive redeployment of state policing resources away from possibly non-productive (for whatever reasons, including “blind eye”) attempts to suppress to the trade to suppression of the organized crime or exploitatitive/forced labor aspects, per experiences in other areas. However, it should be noted that this is not a necessary result of legalization per se and perhaps could be achieved without. On the other hand, one has to examine whether legalization shines a light on activities and allows better responses, although as noted t

Finally there is the health issue: does legalization allow for better public health policy? Based on what I know of AIDS policy in re Africa, it strikes me that the answer here is a resounding yes, although there is some ambiguity in regards to whether this means de jure legalization or simply de facto legalization. One can observe the differential effects in regards to the policy in Senegal where a program, to my understanding from the director of Population Council, of treatment and education of prostitutes and distribution of condoms has helped keep STD and AIDS infection rates below 2%, among the lowest rates in Africa, despite endemic issues of poverty. The program practices, by all appearances, de facto legalization. I have no idea if there is de jure legalization however. In any event, it seems clear that by treating the issue as a public health concern and not as a criminal concern, large positive public health effects have been achieved, insofar as prostitution is a key vector in the region. Whether this is generalizable however is another question.

All in all, the analysis should balance the costs and benefits in a rational way. We should not expect the decriminalization to solve all problems or to make an otherwise objectionable market smell like roses. What should be expected is that in the ledger book of effects, there will be a net gain. Positive effects should outweigh negative ones. An issue here is there may not be an objective standard upon which this may be weighed. Obviously the public morality question arises, but I have excluded that since (a) I could care less about public morality (b) it’s not susceptible to this kind of analysis, but rather requires a philosophical/religious approach. In my mind there are two main issues which are outstanding: the issues of exploitation (trafficking or coercion) and the related issue of proper law enforcement — in civil and criminal senses. I believe the public health issue is fairly clearly positive for legalization, if not de jure at least de facto. In regards to the other two, I feel there is a lack of data.

(Aside, in re Amsterdam: I remain rather skeptical of the meaningfulness of the warning cited. I note that two female personal acquaintances of mine in the past liked visiting the area for the thrill or something and have never related serious issues to me. Admittedly, like myself, they are not sheltered sub-urbanites so perhaps the standard is skewed, but I nonetheless do not feel this is a particularly useful piece of “evidence.”)

94

I have no proof, of course, but I think it is almost certain to be the case.

I think you have made some excellent points, Collounsbury, and obviously approached this from an extremely rational point of view.

By the way, WRING… I disagree that the case has to be made by those who wish to legalize that it would definitely produce positive effects. Keeping it a crime uses up resources of all kinds that could be put to better use. Keeping it a crime requires effort and expense on the part of government, without showing any net gain to the community. The kee-it-a-crime forces are saying, essentially: keep diverting funds and other resources to harassing, prosecuting, and jailing women who otherwise are doing nothing criminal.

There is NO benefit to me as a citizen in keeping prostitution illegal. Nor to you. To any citizen. All vice crime is bogus in this respect. Your position is the active, costly one, without benefit. My position is the passive, nearly free one. I think it’s up to you to justify it, which you haven’t done. I have yet to see (I confess I have not read extremely carefully) how keeping it a crime benefits the community. It certainly doesn’t stop it or stop the other criminal element around it, so that won’t wash.

95

In re legalization:

I disagree that one can simply assume net positive benefits in re freeing up police assets. An issue is the extent to which police ignore the sex trade as much as they can, which may have the perverse effect of encouraging a wide range of criminal activities surrounding the core issues, such as trafficking in women. Legalization, if it hopes to address this and end up with a positive net effect in this area (I note that I am focusing on the crime part of the balance sheet for the moment and laying aside the public health part) may actually require a larger allocation of police assets. This may be a good thing, in one analysis, for suppressing otherwise ignored exploitation — perhaps in the mental rubric of they (the women) are doing bad anyway. Or perhaps not. It could be that criminalization is what is required to address the issue.

Finally, while I myself have no interest in the public morality argument, I do not believe it can be dismissed out of hand. Every society has to negotiate some degree of toleration versus non- toleration in order to achieve a stable equilibrium. It could be prostitution lies outside of the zone of possible “moral” toleration, although I would personally subject this to a cost-benefit analysis.

My own position, a cautious yes on legalization within the proper framework of regulation and attention to the issue of black market to open market transition. Without such, one does not address the problem of poor allocation of resources, one just shifts it.

96

I disagree that streetwalkers are the easiest prostitutes
for researchers to find. Escort services, massage parlors and the like have phone numbers, addresses, and often web pages.

Regardless of morality, the burden of proof usually rests on the activists seeking change. It's simply easier for the government to leave things the way they are. To legalize prostitution would require hearings, commitees, zoning laws, occupational-saftey-and-hazard rules etc. In addition, the government does not generally have to prove their case to the public. Current laws and police practices haven't eliminated prostitution, but I've never seen a press conference, city council session, or hearing calling for an explanation.
97

Biggirl once again asserts , without rationale to back it up“this should be, because I think so”. If you can’t be bothered to back up your statements, or refute my arguments, I have no need to address your assertions again.

Stoid once again (without proof) says ‘the happy hooker is a far closer to the average sex worker than the street walker’ . Stoid since we cannot (either of us) provide hard data to support this, I have suggested a rationale for attempting to get at the numbers by observable data. You ignored this. I’ll try again. Hershey’s and Godiva both make Chocolate. One costs substantially more than the other. Which one constitutes the greater number of items sold, do ya suppose???

No one has come up with historical data.

** Collounsbury ** There are three possibilities here – 1. Continue with the current practice of having it illegal. 2. “decriminalize” the practice , which would mean that the government would not regulate it, but also would not arrest it’s participants. And 3. make it a legal, regulated practice.

The ‘problems ‘ associated with prostitution, in my eyes are:

  1. There is empirical evidence to suggest that some percentage of sex workers are involved in a less than completely voluntary way. (and Stoid will quibble with the numbers/percentages involved, but as I point out above, I believe we can rightfully assume that most sex workers are the ones working at the lower end of the scale). If the consent is less than completely voluntary (due to drug addiction, abject poverty , coercion or whatever), I believe that we have all said that is deplorable. We (as a society) have taken a moral stand against nonconsensual sexual activity. I refer y’all to the other thread where many cites were given re: drugs/prostitution, but in the meantime, here’s [http://www.plumb.org/refuge/javina/JJ3/faq.html”] another one](”)

We may continue the debate re: consent (drug addiction = non consent ) for example, however, that’s a different issue.

  1. Prostitution as a trade has been sited as serious problems economically for society, as costs for medical care, lower property values, ancillary criminal conduct etc. Here’s some evidence . the Supreme Court in * Barns v. Glen Theater * held that freedom of speech (a Constitutionally specified right vs. the right of privacy) could be modified “the governmental interest at issue was to combat the secondary effects of adult entertainment, such as increased crime and a decrease in surrounding property values, and reasoned that this interest also was unrelated to the suppression of expression”. So, SCOTUS would seem to agree with me that the rights of the many would supercede the rights of the few.

here we have a discussion of the issues with nude dancing clubs, which mentions as one of the issues, increased prostitution and the rest of what follows that

Those on the other side have said “well, keeping it illegal hasn’t stopped it, we still have the problems associated with it as well as the practice itself”. Gosh darn. We still have people killing other people too, so laws against murder obviously haven’t prevented anything.

Ok. So, how would any of the three approaches change for the better the two listed problems?

Current practice of keeping it illegal :

  1. Makes it easier to identify the persons who are involved against their will. Since the police would be actively seeking out the activity in order to effect arrests, the participants would be identified. Probationary sentences can actually help some one in the situations cited, since probationary sentences commonly have conditions (such as attendance in drug programs, employment requirements, achievement of educational goals etc.). While it obviously does not prevent the activity completely, it does offer resources and potential solutions for some of the unwilling participants. For those who are willing participants, yea, it’s a drag.

  2. For the problems associated with diminishing quality of life for others, again, keeping the status quo makes some attempt to improve their individual situations. People risking arrest have more of an incentive to change their behavior than if the threat of arrest is not present.

Proposed practice of decriminalizing:

  1. For those who are in prostitution by choice, this option is the best. In addition to no longer worrying about arrest, they would not have to worry about governmental regulations/taxation. However, for those who are in the trade less than willingly, they will become completely invisible, cut off from any potential crisis based change. They currently exist, and are often unable to reach out for assistance (or may be ineligible) to get out of the life. Those of you who support this option, please explain how it will improve the conditions of those who are there unwillingly?

  2. For the other problems associated with the trade, I cannot see how decriminalization will improve that issue, either. Those who support this option, please demonstrate how this will happen. Keep in mind that decriminalization would not change the demographics of who are in the profession. Remember, decriminalization means no governmental intervention. In particular, disease issues and substance abuse would not be addressed.
    Proposed practice of legalization:

  3. For those in the trade by choice, this would be a good option. They would no longer fear arrest, however, they would be subject to a long laundry list of regulations and taxes. The same problems about persons who are not there voluntarily would be present. Because, as has been demonstrated, the existence of legalized prostitution does not do away with the existence of the illegal side. Instead of the model where all who were arrested were given the structure and support of the legalized system (which would allow those who were unwilling access to support for change), legalization would put the onus onto those who were least likely to be able to attempt to change on their own (those who are there unwillingly).

  4. For the ancillary problems, property values etc, the links above seem to demonstrate that those issues are still there. However, because of regulation and taxation, the government would accrue some new income, some of which it would have to spend in order to regulate the industry. There is some evidence to support the concept that STD transmissions would be reduced amongst regulated workers, but the possabilty exists that those who became infected would merely enter into the unregulated trade.

In summation: for the two main problems arising from prostitution, the only positive benefits of either legalization or decriminalization that I have been able to find (and I look for evidence on both sides), would accrue only to those who are in the trade willingly, with an additional taxation coup for the government. Those who are in the trade unwillingly and those who are not in the trade either have a worse set of circumstances or no appreciable change. Now, we’re left with deterimining the relative value of tax revenue potential vs. quality of life for the population. I’d side on the quality of life side personally, YMMV.

Finally here’s Cecil on the subject.

98

I don’t quite understand the problem you are having with my posts, wring. You state that the reason prostitution is illegal is because of the other problems that come along with it.

I state that if you are going to use this criteria to criminalize prostitution, then why is it not applied to all occupations that come with attendant problems.

Is this not a valid question? Why is this an example of “because I say so?”

You ask for a reason why I think prostitution should be legal. I give you my reason. But this is not valid either. Because I show no “proof” that criminalizing prostitution infringes on rights?

Don’t answer my questions if you don’t want, but don’t act as if my questions are invalid.

99

Crap. Thought I’d included this one too, from a sex worker who’s worked in a number of different venues, (except street work).

100

I will try once more. Biggirl : You’ve said it should be legal because individuals have a right to make decisions etc. Right? However. One individual’s rights do not supercede the rights of the society as a whole. Example, a person may have a right to freedom of speech, but that freedom is curtailed when the rights of the many are in question (as in you can’t scream “fire” in a crowded theater).

So, it has been shown, over and over, that prostitution has negative effects for persons other than those choosing the activity, and the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few. For these other occupations that you have submitted ‘have problems associated with it’, the benefits accrued to the greater numbers is sufficient to warrant the problems to the few. And I addressed that before. You haven’t responded to refute my counter. you just keep on interjecting “but they have a right to do what they want”, without supportive evidence that some how, my other assertions aren’t true, and THAT is what I’m refusing to deal with. Clear?