Prostitution

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Based on the ensuing discussion in the Boycott the World Cup thread, here it is: The Senate's possibly first thread on prostitution.

 

And the question is: Should buying and selling of sexual intercourse be legal?

[swphreak]

I don't see why not. It's their bodies, they can do what they want with it. Just have strict rules and regulations. Regular check-ups, registration to keep track, require the use to condoms ect, have them pay taxes (imagine the revenue!). Stuff like that. Prostitution is going to happen, why not cash in on it, and make it safer for everyone.

[Rogue15]

no it shouldn't be legal. -_-

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Have them pay taxes (imagine the revenue!)

The problem there is that I'm not sure if they can really afford to pay taxes. They need every cent they get.

 

But then again, I suppose that if there was to be a serious control system such as the one you describe (and I like the idea, as it could just make life a little safer for them), the money for it would have to come from somewhere.

[TK-8252]

First I'd like to point out that this thread is about prostitution by consenting adults (18+), not minors, sex slaves, or forced prostitution. At least that's what I'd assume.

 

no it shouldn't be legal. -_-

 

Well, why not? If you're going to post, at least explain your reasoning. You don't have to debate if you don't want to, but justify your post.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Give me a reason it shouldn't be that doesn't involve religion or personal belief.

[Point Man]

I could write a book on this subject, but I will keep my reasons for rejecting the legalization of prostitution brief:

1) I want to keep the spread of STD's down. Legalize it, and they go up.

2) You cannot separate the exploitation of people from the trade, even where it is legal. I have a good friend who goes over to Amesterdam (where it is legal) every year to minister to women caught in human trafficking. The entire sex industry is built on exploitation.

3) When societies remove the intimacy from sex, they suffer. When we get sexual satisfaction outside of marriage, then staying in marriage is no longer so important. When marriages disolve, the family suffers. When the family suffers, society suffers.

I hope nobody is honestly proposing this is a good thing. If you look at the results, you will see no good can come from it.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I could write a book on this subject, but I will keep my reasons for rejecting the legalization of prostitution brief:

1) I want to keep the spread of STD's down. Legalize it, and they go up.

2) You cannot separate the exploitation of people from the trade, even where it is legal. I have a good friend who goes over to Amesterdam (where it is legal) every year to minister to women caught in human trafficking. The entire sex industry is built on exploitation.

3) When societies remove the intimacy from sex, they suffer. When we get sexual satisfaction outside of marriage, then staying in marriage is no longer so important. When marriages disolve, the family suffers. When the family suffers, society suffers.

I hope nobody is honestly proposing this is a good thing. If you look at the results, you will see no good can come from it.

1. Not if it's regulated.

2. Amsterdam isn't exactly "tough on crime", there's also almost no regulations on it there.

3. I said reasons that don't involve religious or personal opinions.

[Samnmax221]

The cost of regulating prostitution would cost much more then any taxing of it could rake in (not the mention, THE DEPARTMENT OF SEXUAL REGULATION sounds quite orwellian). Anyone running a sleazy business such as this isn't going to want to pay taxes when they could just do things illegally like before and keep all of the money.

 

No moral arguments here

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

The cost of regulating prostitution would cost much more then any taxing of it could rake in (not the mention, THE DEPARTMENT OF SEXUAL REGULATION sounds quite orwellian). Anyone running a sleazy business such as this isn't going to want to pay taxes when they could just do things illegally like before and keep all of the money.

 

No moral arguments here

It'd be the health department that regulates it.

 

 

I should also clarify: I think that it should be allowed in brothels, which would then be subject to inspection by the health department.

[Samnmax221]

They already have that in Nevada, but of course everyone knows that illegal prostitutes exist in Nevada, and they certainly out number the legal prostitutes.

[TK-8252]

1) I want to keep the spread of STD's down. Legalize it, and they go up.

 

I'm not fond of government regulating much of anything, but you could have laws in place that in order to work as a prostitute, you must have regular STD exams by a doctor. If you have an STD, you are not allowed to (legally) be a prostitute. But that's if you prefer having the government regulating the aspects of people's lives. That's not something I am fond of.

 

2) You cannot separate the exploitation of people from the trade, even where it is legal. I have a good friend who goes over to Amesterdam (where it is legal) every year to minister to women caught in human trafficking. The entire sex industry is built on exploitation.

 

This thread is about consensual prostitution, not forced prostitution/sex slavery. A woman who, on her own will, turns to prostitution to earn money, is not being exploited. Nothing stopping her from working at Burger King if she doesn't want to be a prostitute.

 

3) When societies remove the intimacy from sex, they suffer. When we get sexual satisfaction outside of marriage, then staying in marriage is no longer so important. When marriages disolve, the family suffers. When the family suffers, society suffers.

I hope nobody is honestly proposing this is a good thing. If you look at the results, you will see no good can come from it.

 

This seems to be blatantly wrong. Societies that have strict rules banning fornication can be found in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran, and these two countries are clearly not so... well, ideal.

 

There is no law against fornication in this country, hell, no law even against adultry. And we can divorce all the time. If you think that families are going to suffer because of prostitution, you might want to think about perhaps banning divorce first. Not that I'm saying banning divorce would be good either.

 

Marriage is not just about sex, anyway.

[ShadowTemplar]

Hmm... I'm divided... On the one hand, I dislike the concept of prostitution. I think it cheapens and diminishes one of the most intimate and personal things humans can share.

 

On the other hand, I have to say that there are compelling arguments in favor of legalising prostitution. It will enable the courtesans to form labour unions. It will make it easier to stand up to exploitation, since you'll know that you won't get fined just for being in the business. And it just might cut down on a source of income for - ah - certain less than savory characters.

 

Troll-Be-Gone: I'm not saying that regulating the business would outright eliminate the criminal parts of it. Selling tobacco is legal, but that doesn't prevent people from smuggling in tobacco to do an end-run around taxes etc. Nor will legalising prostitution magically eliminate the problem of abusive pimps. But it might make it a tad easier to find and fine them.

 

And it would end one particular bit of hypocracy inheirent in our social matrix: When a woman ****s ten different elderly men for their money, it's called prostitution, and it's wrong. When a woman ****s a single elderly man for his money, it's called marriage, and it's right...

 

I could write a book on this subject, but I will keep my reasons for rejecting the legalization of prostitution brief:

1) I want to keep the spread of STD's down. Legalize it, and they go up.

 

More Religious Riech bull****. If organised in labor unions, regulated by working environment laws, etc. there's no reason to expect it to contribute to spreading STDs. Quite the opposite, actually.

 

2) You cannot separate the exploitation of people from the trade, even where it is legal.

 

I don't buy that argument. You could make virtually the same argument for cotton farmers, factory workers, and virtually every other industry in human history. Historically, the best cure for lousy working conditions and de facto slavery has been strong labour unions and strong government employee health regulation.

 

When we get sexual satisfaction outside of marriage, then staying in marriage is no longer so important.

 

This one gets points for honesty. In reality, the Religious Reich are opposed to legalising prostitution for no reason whatsoever other than protecting their fantasy-world conception of family and their equally rose-tinted conception of marriage. All the other reasons they give are smoke screen.

 

Think, however, for a moment about this line of reasoning. 'If you disassociate sex and marriage, marriage will die.' Give me a break... If you think that there is nothing more to a stable relationship than sex, then you shouldn't marry in the first place.

 

When marriages disolve, the family suffers.

 

I dispute that. I propose that it is better to endure a divorce than to endure living with a spouse that you can't stand. And I happen to know that it's not the end of the world to be a child of divorced parents.

 

In point of fact, I would go so far as to maintain that it is better for the child to grow up with parents who are divorced, but who speak with each other, than to grow up with parents who are married but do not speak with each other.

 

For that matter, in a society where marriage is solely the decision of the couple, and not a matter of ensuring the production of heirs or cementing political and legal relationsships between clans, I would claim that the possiblity of divorce is a requirement for the existence of marriage.

 

It is, after all, impossible to know your feelings twenty or thirty years in the future. So, if you cannot get out of a marriage that exists only on paper, you have a rather strong disincentive to marry in the first place.

 

When the family suffers, society suffers.

 

I would claim the contrary. In order to ensure liberty, the family must take a distinctly secondary role in society. Societies where the family is the primary fallback in times of economic or social crisis have always been totalitarian nightmares, and societies in which the family is the primary political unit are just plain barbaric.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Think, however, for a moment about this line of reasoning. 'If you disassociate sex and marriage, marriage will die.' Give me a break... If you think that there is nothing more to a stable relationship than sex, then you shouldn't marry in the first place.

Exactly. Kudos. Likewise with the "allowing gays/inter-racials to marry will wreck marriage"-arguments. I like to call it hunting ghosts. If you want the divorce rate down, educate youngsters on what to expect from marriage. Tell them what divorce does to children. Instruct them on how to divide responsibilities, solve disputes, avoid arguments, and cope with stress.

 

My high school in the 'States had a half-semester course that did just that. But no one applied for it, so it was not offered. Should've been mandatory.

 

I dispute that. I propose that it is better to endure a divorce than to endure living with a spouse that you can't stand. And I happen to know that it's not the end of the world to be a child of divorced parents.

Absolutely, absolutely. What I think he meant was that it's better to fight for a marriage than to just give it up. Lots of people have mis-conceptions about what marriage is.

 

My parents went through this period of fighting and not talking to each others when I was young. I was (and although we didn't dare talk about, I daresay I think my siblings were too) seriously scared they were going to divorce. But they stuck together and are now really, really close.

[ShadowTemplar]

Absolutely, absolutely. What I think he meant was that it's better to fight for a marriage than to just give it up.

 

Maybe. Sometimes. Depends on what you mean by 'fight for' and 'give up.' If by 'fight for' you mean staying in something that's eating you from the inside, then it's a Bad Idea. If by 'give up' you mean breaking up over the sligtest misgiving or practical problem, then you're right that 'giving up' is a Bad Thing.

 

In the end, I suppose what matters most is that the decision - whatever it is in the end - is made with thought and care.

 

But marriage wasn't really the topic of this thread - in point of fact, the attempt to get us to debate marriage was a more or less deliberate red herring.

 

EDIT: Oh, and Dagobahn, the guy I was replying to is a RR troll. Your charitable interpretation of his ignorant rant does him far too much credit.

[edlib]

Prostitution is as old as human civilization (perhaps even older) and has existed in each and every human society to date,.. and I have no reason to believe that will ever change. Men who wish to visit prostitutes will always be able to find a way to do it.

 

For that reason alone I think it should be legalized and regulated... to give some power to the authorities to control it. There will always be those that choose to operate outside the laws even then, but what patron would think to attend an unlicensed operator when he could visit a legal, licenced, and guaranteed clean establishment?

 

I also find it somewhat ironic in American society that it is perfectly legal for a woman to get paid to have sex with perfect strangers, as long as it happens on camera, but never in any other circumstances. Is the only difference that the men she is having sex with are also being paid to be there, and not (generally) the ones doing the paying? I've never been quite able to find that moral fine line that separates "prostitution" from "adult entertainment." Why should one be perfectly legal to participate in, but not the other? What exactly is the distinction?

[Samnmax221]

For that reason alone I think it should be legalized and regulated... to give some power to the authorities to control it. There will always be those that choose to operate outside the laws even then, but what patron would think to attend an unlicensed operator when he could visit a legal, licenced, and guaranteed clean establishment?

Because maybe they're into something exceptionally strange, by that I meen not legal.

[ShadowTemplar]

Because maybe they're into something exceptionally strange, by that I meen not legal.

 

Possibly... But how would that situation differ from the present one?

[Samnmax221]

I'm referring to people who are into pedophilia, sadism, or something along those lines. Besides if your going to pick up a prostitute you're already throwing caution to the wind, I don't think you care how clean the place is.

[ShadowTemplar]

I reiterate my question: How would the legalisation of prostitution among adult, willing people change the situation w.r.t. the costumers you bring up?

[ET Warrior]

Besides if your going to pick up a prostitute you're already throwing caution to the wind, I don't think you care how clean the place is.

Of course. I mean, who cares if they contract AIDS or other STD's these days anywho?

 

It's just like when people get tattoos. If there's a choice between a nice clean tattoo parlor or the back of some guys van...I dont think there's much of a choice to be made there.

[Samnmax221]

Sure she/he looks clean but these days that doesn't mean anything, generally having intercourse with someone you don't know is a potentially dangerous activity.

[edlib]

Well sure... you are better off not going at all.

 

BUT if you are going to go (and lots and lots of people do make that choice everyday,) wouldn't it be better to go to one that has regular screenings and has a stamp of approval from a state health board and has mandatory condom usage?

 

You are still taking chances somewhat (you'll never truly know about the guy that was just before you...) but seems to me that your odds are slightly better in the latter case.

 

But even leaving all the "customer protection" issues aside... having it out in the open seems a much better situation for the workers, who currently live under mostly abusive situations (often crossing into the realm of human-rights violations) by pimps as well as clients. Having it legal, regulated, and out in the open will make these abuses far harder to cover up.

[swphreak]

Sure she/he looks clean but these days that doesn't mean anything, generally having intercourse with someone you don't know is a potentially dangerous activity.

 

Which is why if prostitution was legalized and regulated, the chances of a customer contracting STDs would be less. Also, the prostitutes could require clients to prove they're clean as well.

 

And yeah, I think there is a pretty huge difference between the clean looking tattoo parlor with certifications on the wall and the smelly old van in the back parking lot.

[Darth_Terros]

I agree with whats been said already that it should be legalised with the idea being of regular health screenings like in porn where the "actors" have to have a check up every 28 days and have to have a certificate saying they are clean before they are allowed to work.