Prostitution

[Samnmax221]

Also, the prostitutes could require clients to prove they're clean as well.

How are they going to do that, you need a full screening to be sure that someone isn't infected with even the most obscure STD. Both client and Prostitute are at risk for contracting something because of the vast clientel that go through one of these places.

[El Sitherino]

That's why you demand recorded proof of your cleanliness.

It's not that hard, no proof, no service.

[Samnmax221]

Who's going to want to take a physical once a month, medical screening is expensive.

[TK-8252]

Who's going to want to take a physical once a month, medical screening is expensive.

 

Someone who doesn't want to get crabs.

[Samnmax221]

Once a month medical screening plus the costs of sessions with a prostitute are a sure way to rocket yourself into debt. People aren't going to want to get constant screening when they could just go underground and take the risk of catching something.

[TK-8252]

Once a month medical screening plus the costs of sessions with a prostitute are a sure way to rocket yourself into debt. People aren't going to want to get constant screening when they could just go underground and take the risk of catching something.

 

And yet the cost of a prostitute would dramatically drop, because there would be more supply for the demand. You say you're a right-winger, and as someone on the right, you should know the basics of supply and demand. The reason why prostitutes are so expensive is because there's more demand for them than there is supply. This is directly because of the government ban of prostitution, which lowers supply. This is the same situation with drugs, but that's a different topic.

 

So depending on how much the screening would be, it would be either cheaper or about the same as prostitution is now. Besides, it's worth it to get a prostitute that is more likely to not give you AIDS. So even if it were to cost MORE, which is not likely, it's still better to have it legalized... if people would continue to go to unscreened prostitutes, fine, get crabs. I don't care.

[Samnmax221]

And yet the cost of a prostitute would dramatically drop, because there would be more supply for the demand. You say you're a right-winger, and as someone on the right, you should know the basics of supply and demand. The reason why prostitutes are so expensive is because there's more demand for them than there is supply. This is directly because of the government ban of prostitution, which lowers supply. This is the same situation with drugs, but that's a different topic.

 

So depending on how much the screening would be, it would be either cheaper or about the same as prostitution is now. Besides, it's worth it to get a prostitute that is more likely to not give you AIDS. So even if it were to cost MORE, which is not likely, it's still better to have it legalized... if people would continue to go to unscreened prostitutes, fine, get crabs. I don't care.

My understanding of capitalism is just fine. One of the reasons someone is driven to prostitution is because it requires almost no talent of any kind, and large amounts of money are earned quickly(Or they are working to support some form of addiction). The cost of regulating this activity would ammount to more then the income, when this happens the government would have to pay for the regulation of an activity that is only participated in by a fraction of the population. This country has enough debt as it is, regulating prostitution isn't something we need to be partaking at this point in time, maybe if we get a budget surplus going again, but not now. Ultimately the decision rests with the population as a whole.

[TK-8252]

Again, you're not taking into account the broader picture. Law enforcement spends about HALF of their time and money on vice (drugs & prostitution), and if cops didn't have to focus so much of their efforts on hunting down people who are breaking corrupt vice laws, the cost of funding law enforcement, the justice system, and the prison system, could essentially be cut in half as well. All these people moving through the system because of drug and prostitution charges would not be overcrowding our prisons.

[Samnmax221]

Most people don't want prostitution and recreational drug use legalized, that's why they continue to vote for people who aren't going to legalize it. When you are elected as a representative you uphold the will of the people who elected you or you are voted out of office. The facts are any sexual relationship that is not serialy mogonomous poses a serious risk of STD contraction. Vice laws are not corupt, maybe you'de think that way if your behavior contradicts that of most people in society.

[TK-8252]

Most people don't want prostitution and recreational drug use legalized, that's why they continue to vote for people who aren't going to legalize it. When you are elected as a representative you uphold the will of the people who elected you or you are voted out of office.

 

If there's anything we've learned throughout history, it's that being in the majority does not make you right. Banning drug use and prostitution is harmful to society. It floods our justice and prison systems with people who have not done any harm. It allows rapists and murderers and thieves to get away while police focus their effort on hunting down prostitutes and harmless stoners.

 

Besides, if the American people always got their way, Al Gore would have been President.

 

The facts are any sexual relationship that is not serialy mogonomous poses a serious risk of STD contraction.

 

This is true. So what do you suggest, ban fornication? Make it illegal to have sex out of marriage? That's like the kind of laws established in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Maybe they have a better control over the spread of STD's?

[Samnmax221]

If there's anything we've learned throughout history, it's that being in the majority does not make you right.Banning drug use and prostitution is harmful to society. It floods our justice and prison systems with people who have not done any harm. It allows rapists and murderers and thieves to get away while police focus their effort on hunting down prostitutes and harmless stoners.

We all know that the rights of the majority can't take away from the rights of the minority, but the last time I checked the constitution and it's amendments it didn't say anything about the right the get layed or stoned.

 

Besides, if the American people always got their way, Al Gore would have been President.

Well we still use an electoral system to decide Presidential elections. If you don't like write a letter to the supreme court, and your local representatives as they can put pressure on the supreme court. Nowaday's since we have complex computers and communication systems the need for electoral college is no longer needed. Just because I'm on the right doesn't mean I like the electoral college and throwing it in my face won't do any good.

 

 

 

This is true. So what do you suggest, ban fornication? Make it illegal to have sex out of marriage? That's like the kind of laws established in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Maybe they have a better control over the spread of STD's?

I'm simply saying people don't look out for their own well being or that of their families when they make snap decisions (Like soliciting a prostitute). Does the wife of a businessman who goes out of town for a meeting deserve to get an STD because her husband made a bad decision? I'm not calling for a ban or any sort of government intervention, I'm just saying that people don't weigh the consequences to them and those they care about when they make a bad decision.

[TK-8252]

We all know that the rights of the majority can't take away from the rights of the minority, but the last time I checked the constitution and it's amendments it didn't say anything about the right the get layed or stoned.

 

It's called the pursuit of happiness.

 

I'm simply saying people don't look out for their own well being or that of their families when they make snap decisions (Like soliciting a prostitute). Does the wife of a businessman who goes out of town for a meeting deserve to get an STD because her husband made a bad decision? I'm not calling for a ban or any sort of government intervention, I'm just saying that people don't weigh the consequences to them and those they care about when they make a bad decision.

 

So wait, who's to say that people aren't going to go to prostitutes just because it's illegal? That very same businessman could go to a prostitute and get an STD, and give it to his wife, no matter if prostitution is legal or not. But if he visits a screened prostitute, the chances of him getting said STD and giving it to said wife would be significantly less. So legalizing prostitution is a win for EVERYONE.

[Point Man]

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.

I just came off a tour in the Army and I work in a hospital in civilian life, and I can tell you from my experience with government and health care the government would never be able to do a good job of regulating health care for prostitutes. And, frankly, there are many much more worthwhile things the government should do. I would rather see well-funded health insurance plans for the poor first.

 

 

 

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.

The point is that you cannot separate the exploitation from it. There is no such thing as prostitution without exploitation. Think about it. Why do pimps get their girls hooked on drugs? Why do they enslave girls? Because they are vicious people. Legalizing the business is not going to suddenly turn them into legitimate businessmen who pay their workers good wages with health insurance and a 401(k) plan.

 

 

 

Marriage is not just about sex, anyway.

As a man who has been married 16 years, I think I can speak on that subject better than just about anyone else on this forum. Of course, marriage is about much more than sex. However, that was not my point. My point was that many people confuse sex with intimacy. Promoting something that allows men (and admit it, prostitution is overwhelmingly weighted toward servicing men) to find sexual satisfaction without the intimacy of marriage weakens the incentive to marry and stay married. When men do not stay married, a host of societal ills ensues. Those will be discussed below.

 

@ShadowTemplar:

1) I make no apologies for being up front about my religion, and, yes, I would call myself conservative. However, your resorting to throwing out epithets does nothing to diminish the validity of my arguments. It only makes you look bad.

2) My argument was not a deliberate red herring. I honestly believe society is badly served by promoting anything that diminishes the importance of the family. I may have failed to make it clear how I believe that legalizing prostitution does that, but I was not trying to derail the thread. I have better things to do with my time. Hopefully, in the above discussion I made it more clear.

3) Thousands of studies reveal that the best situation for children is to grow up in a house with a mother and a father (PM me if you want several pages of references--this is a special academic interest for me). Children of nuclear families have better health, perform better in school, and grow up to lead more productive lives. They have less incidence of poverty, incarceration, and teenage pregnancy. Tell me how it is better for a child to go through life poor, sick, struggling in school, and pregnant at 15.

 

@jmac: These are not personal beliefs, they are facts. I did not see any evidence to back up your statements.

[TK-8252]

I just came off a tour in the Army and I work in a hospital in civilian life, and I can tell you from my experience with government and health care the government would never be able to do a good job of regulating health care for prostitutes. And, frankly, there are many much more worthwhile things the government should do. I would rather see well-funded health insurance plans for the poor first.

 

I agree with you on this. The government sucks at pretty much everything it does, and that would include regulating prostitution (or regulating anything for that matter). To be honest, I wouldn't care if they just legalized prostitution and that's it. Not even regulate it. I'm about ready to just say fine, if you want to visit a prostitute, go ahead. But it's your own damn fault if you get crabs or AIDS. I think stupidity should be painful. And if you're a prostitute and get an STD, too bad, you should have worked at Taco Bell.

 

But I'm tired of cops throwing people in jail and wasting OUR TAX DOLLARS hunting down people who are not doing anything to harm anyone. A woman who turns to prostitution is most likely poor and can't get a decent job, and giving them a criminal record on top of that DOESN'T HELP.

 

The point is that you cannot separate the exploitation from it. There is no such thing as prostitution without exploitation. Think about it. Why do pimps get their girls hooked on drugs? Why do they enslave girls? Because they are vicious people. Legalizing the business is not going to suddenly turn them into legitimate businessmen who pay their workers good wages with health insurance and a 401(k) plan.

 

Wait a minute, doesn't the prostitute CHOOSE their pimp? Doesn't the prostitute CHOOSE to take the drugs? And enslaving girls isn't prostitution, it's called sex slavery. Entirely a different matter.

 

And if it's legalized, there wouldn't be pimps anyway. Pimps are used BECAUSE it's illegal and the woman needs some kind of protection, guidance, etc. that wouldn't be needed if she worked at a brothel instead of on a street corner.

 

Promoting something that allows men (and admit it, prostitution is overwhelmingly weighted toward servicing men) to find sexual satisfaction without the intimacy of marriage weakens the incentive to marry and stay married. When men do not stay married, a host of societal ills ensues.

 

Again, you seem to be saying that marriage is more about sex than anything.

 

"Okay, so I love this woman and I want to be with her forever, raise our kids together, buy a home together, go on vacations together, but since I can get sex from a prostitute, I'll just forget about marriage"?

 

It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

[Samnmax221]

It's called the pursuit of happiness.

That's from the Declaration of independence

[El Sitherino]

Who's going to want to take a physical once a month, medical screening is expensive.

Oh my, what's this? You mean there are places coincidentally named "Free Clinic" that offer free screenings?

 

Or we could tax sex workers, making part of their pay go toward medical.

[Samnmax221]

Free clinics are the reason that Healthcare is so damn expensive for everybody else, everybody should not have to pay just so a small percentage of the population can get laid. You're already suggesting taxing sex workers to pay for their screenings plus the screenings of all their clients, where's the profit? There won't be any money left to go to the government in the end they'de be better off just going at it the same as before.

[edlib]

Or better yet: Keep it illegal and still tax them.

 

Also: The Wiki entry on Nevada prostitution laws and regulations.

Seems like it could be relevant.

[toms]

I'd go for legalisation. Like with the legalisation of drugs or alchohol there would be problems and downfalls, but i think the advantages of having it out in the open would outweigh the disadvantages.

 

Also, like with the legalisation of drugs there would need to be clear, logical limits and guidelines, and strict enforcement of those that cross those lines.

 

Its legal in germany, and isn't it also legal in Nevada? I don't remember hearing that there is an increase in problems in those locations.

 

Problem is, even when politicians do legalise things like drugs or prostitution they usually still bottle it and do a bad job of it.

[Point Man]

For those who support legalization of prostitution and say it's okay, let me ask this: would you want your daughter to be a prostitute?

[TK-8252]

For those who support legalization of prostitution and say it's okay, let me ask this: would you want your daughter to be a prostitute?

 

Most prostitutes don't have parents to help them. That's why they're prostitutes.

[Point Man]

Most prostitutes don't have parents to help them. That's why they're prostitutes.

The point is this: if you say no, then it must be because you believe there is something wrong with it. If you say yes, I pray you never have daughters.

[TK-8252]

The point is this: if you say no, then it must be because you believe there is something wrong with it. If you say yes, I pray you never have daughters.

 

By injecting the word "wrong" you seem to imply that this is more an issue of morality.

 

So let me ask you this: do you support politicians legislating morality?

 

There are plenty of things that I think are morally wrong, but I wouldn't make them crimes. Why? Because it's not anyone else's business, and frankly I don't care. For example, cheating on your spouse is morally wrong. Do I want adultry to be a crime? No. Not my business, nor is it the government's business.

[Point Man]

By injecting the word "wrong" you seem to imply that this is more an issue of morality.

 

I do believe this is an issue of morality, but I was not meaning to limit it to religious belief. There could be other reasons people believe it is wrong that have nothing to do with religion.

 

So let me ask you this: do you support politicians legislating morality?

Of course I do, just as you do. I assume you support making such things as larceny, assault, murder, and rape illegal. I know from another thread you support laws preventing harrassment of people attending funerals. On what do you base those views but your moral beliefs? There is no law without morality. Most laws are based on morals that are pretty much universal, so we don't think of this, but it is true just the same.

[TK-8252]

Of course I do, just as you do. I assume you support making such things as larceny, assault, murder, and rape illegal. I know from another thread you support laws preventing harrassment of people attending funerals. On what do you base those views but your moral beliefs? There is no law without morality. Most laws are based on morals that are pretty much universal, so we don't think of this, but it is true just the same.

 

Those things aren't illegal just because they're immoral. They're illegal because they HURT PEOPLE! There is no consent between both parties during a murder, rape, or robbery. There IS consent, however, between a prostitute and a customer. So why is it a crime? Because many people would consider it immoral? Well adultry is immoral too, why is it legal?

 

Victimless crimes shouldn't BE crimes. There's no victim. No harm was done.