Legalised Prostitution

[Astor]

I figured that if we are going to have this debate, i'd kick it off.

 

I dunno about you, but Nederland has had prostitution legalized for quite sometime, and from I what I've heard (), it's been well regulated by the government. IIRC, prostitution is a licensed trade, with solicitation limited to designated and government-inspected brothels, and compulsory STD tests, etc. In fact, just a year ago several brothels were closed by the government in order to curtail and outright eliminate any threat of organized crime corrupting the trade

 

In short, to say that prostitution can't be a well-regulated and respectable business is a folly.

 

(I've probably started an outright new topic; feel free to fork this into a separate thread )

 

All I can say is I agree. I don't know all that much about the issue, but it would surely be better to have the 'world's oldest profession' out in the open, in a safe, well-regulated institution than down a back-alley where anything could happen.

 

Although it is legal to offer sex for money in the UK, it is illegal to run a brothel, solicit for sex, and to kerb-crawl. I'm quite sure that if it were regulated properly, and prostitutes were subjected to proper checks and regulations, it's quite possible that the Suffolk Strangler wouldn't have been able to murder five prostitutes in the space of two months.

 

Of course, this wouldn't completely eliminate the problem of 'streetwalkers', but i'm sure that many would gladly exchange a dark, miserable street for a safe environment.

 

I imagine that it would also go some way in preventing human trafficking as well, but I doubt it would completely stop that trade either.

[JediAthos]

Really the only example here in the States would be in Nevada where the industry is heavily regulated, all workers are subject to weekly checks for STD's, condoms are mandatory, and it is confined to licensed brothels.

 

I don't really see an issue with having it legalized. To be perfectly honest it's been around for who knows how long, and will continue to be around no matter what is done to curb it. As has already been said I would much rather see it be conducted in a regulated in environment then in back alleys, truck stops, and seedy hotels.

[jonathan7]

I figured that if we are going to have this debate, i'd kick it off.

 

All I can say is I agree. I don't know all that much about the issue, but it would surely be better to have the 'world's oldest profession' out in the open, in a safe, well-regulated institution than down a back-alley where anything could happen.

 

Although it is legal to offer sex for money in the UK, it is illegal to run a brothel, solicit for sex, and to kerb-crawl. I'm quite sure that if it were regulated properly, and prostitutes were subjected to proper checks and regulations, it's quite possible that the Suffolk Strangler wouldn't have been able to murder five prostitutes in the space of two months.

 

Of course, this wouldn't completely eliminate the problem of 'streetwalkers', but i'm sure that many would gladly exchange a dark, miserable street for a safe environment.

 

I imagine that it would also go some way in preventing human trafficking as well, but I doubt it would completely stop that trade either.

 

Well, I may add in drugs to this debate as I have much the same view on legislation regarding them as I do prostitution.

 

As a Christian, I myself do not agree with prostitution, however it is a sad fact of life that regardless of any legislation both prostitution and drug taking will happen. So the question becomes do you push it underground or do you legalize it and make it safe.

 

I think the latter is a far better responce, not only can you bring in STI tests, (quality control, in the case of drugs) but you can tax it, thus generating income for the Government. You break the crippling hold organized crime has on vice; by legalizing it you can shut down a lot of organized crime. The vast majority of prostitutes in the UK are addicted to drugs, and are in a vicious circle where they need money to fund their drug use, and then use drugs to escape the methods they used to get the drugs. Legalizing it protects these women; ultimately I think that society should be judged on how it looks after those who are most at risk within it. The UK is quite frankly failing these woman at the moment; the government has no official responce to look after these woman - its only charities who do anything about the problem currently.

 

I have a similar view on drugs; most drugs in themselves don't have bad side effects, its what drug dealers add to them that causes the problems, as such I would argue for quite a few drugs being legalized. Though some such as heroin should always be illegal due to the extreme effects on health the drug has.

 

The counter argument is that by legalizing it you condone it, maybe or maybe not - however I think those that use drugs and prostitutes will do so regardless of if it is illegal or legal. I think it is of more benefit to society to have a controlled and regulated industry such as this, rather than an underground one. If the behaviour is "condoned" or not is to be frank irrelevant to my generation, in Europe at least right or wrong, the old morality has gone. If you really wanted to fight things such as drugs and prostitution, I would argue that trying to teach the current generation would be more beneficial. In all honesty it shows a great out of touchness with todays generations that you think something being illegal or legal influences most of them much. As such i think it makes far more sense, legalizing prostitution, regardless of my own opinions on the matter.

 

j7's shiney two cents...

[JediAthos]

I've always wavered on the drug thing because they have so many detrimental effects. I understand that, like prostitution, there will always be drug users and I understand the ability to generate government revenue as well, but I don't believe that drugs such as heroin, cocaine, meth, etc... should ever be legal. They are just too dangerous.

 

As far as the morality of it...well...that debate will always exist regardless of whether it is legalized or not, but I'll say this...I would be willing to bet that if the revenue from licensing fees, taxes etc...paid for a few new schools, road maintenance, or any number of other things that states require I think there would be a lot less protests.

 

It should be noted in Nevada, brothels do not pay the state's entertainment tax, and there is no state income tax there. They do pay fees, and federal income tax though, and Nevada refused to levy the entertainment tax on brothels even after owners petitioned to be taxed.

[mimartin]

I do not condone it or support it in any way, shape or form.

 

I do not believe it is possible to legislate morality. Making moral issues illegal only pushes them underground and allows things like organized crime to flourish. I’m not planning on visiting a prostitute or partaking in harmful drugs, so why should I care if they are legalized, regulated and more importantly taxed.

[Ztalker]

I do not condone it or support it in any way, shape or form.

 

I do not believe it is possible to legislate morality. Making moral issues illegal only pushes them underground and allows things like organized crime to flourish. I’m not planning on visiting a prostitute or partaking in harmful drugs, so why should I care if they are legalized, regulated and more importantly taxed.

 

Prostitution has nothing to do with morality, imo. It's a job people choose to do. No-one forces you to go there and buy the 'service.'

But simply saying 'I don't care because I won't go there' isn't a valid argument.

 

Because, in return, I could say something similar about drugs. "I don't use them who cares." But I do suffer the consequences when drug addicts do their thing. Recently a teacher was randomly killed by a drug user here.

 

If it's taxed you at least show it's there. It's visible. Which is the whole point, to draw the poor illegally imigrated sex slaves and child prostitutes, pimps and what not criminal stuff out.

[Q]

The thing is, a large part of any elicit trade will tend to stay underground just to avoid the tax, which is most likely going to be heavy. Legitimizing it would also have the effect of merely substituting the government for organized crime, which isn't too far of a stretch already, IMO.

[mimartin]

Guess you must have missed the regulated part.

 

@Edit - Sorry Evil Q, it was not directed at you. You were just faster at responding than me.

[Q]

No, I didn't; I just believe that more than enough is "regulated" already with no tangible benefit aside from more revenue for our already boated and corrupt government (woohoo), and that if people want to behave in an immoral fashion they deserve what they get, even if that means death or body parts rotting off. It's called accountability.

 

Doesn't anyone think that letting the government profit from corruption more than it already does sends the wrong message?

[jonathan7]

Prostitution has nothing to do with morality, imo. It's a job people choose to do. No-one forces you to go there and buy the 'service.'

 

Morality is a different subject, suffice to say however, if you accept religion as the pretext for morality, then prostitution is clasified as "amoral". If of course humans are just animals, than there is no such thing as morality.

 

But simply saying 'I don't care because I won't go there' isn't a valid argument.

 

Because, in return, I could say something similar about drugs. "I don't use them who cares." But I do suffer the consequences when drug addicts do their thing. Recently a teacher was randomly killed by a drug user here.

 

If it's taxed you at least show it's there. It's visible. Which is the whole point, to draw the poor illegally imigrated sex slaves and child prostitutes, pimps and what not criminal stuff out.

 

If the trades are regulated as they are in Holland I think you would see a reduction in the problems - as shown in Holland illegal vice activites, while not entirely stopped have greatly decreased.

 

The thing is, a large part of any elicit trade will tend to stay underground just to avoid the tax, which is most likely going to be heavy. Legitimizing it would also have the effect of merely substituting the government for organized crime, which isn't too far of a stretch already, IMO.

 

This hasn't prooven the case in Holland, indeed I fail to see how this argument holds - and legalisation hits into the illegal side of the market no matter which way you try and swing it. So even if there are people who would still choose the illegal option, you at least hit the human trafickers, and decrease their market. You can also concentrate police officers on a smaller illegal market, and them have to police the legal side less. So all in all I fail to see how your argument holds.

 

No, I didn't; I just believe that more than enough is "regulated" already with no tangible benefit aside from more revenue for our already boated and corrupt government (woohoo), and that if people want to behave in an immoral fashion they deserve what they get, even if that means death or body parts rotting off. It's called accountability.

 

Doesn't anyone think that letting the government profit from corruption more than it already does sends the wrong message?

 

So I take it you have been campainging to have smoking and alchol banned, you don't wish the government to tax them - and I presume you don't smoke considering that second hand smoke effects the health of others? Rather than sex, which just directly effects the individuals involved.

[Q]

Maybe you don't see anything wrong with having the government profit from crime in the same manner as the mafia, but that level of corruption really bothers the hell out of me. Legitimizing bad behavior doesn't suddenly make it right.

 

God; the parallels! Once again, I'm reminded of another situation...

 

EDIT:

So I take it you have been campainging to have smoking and alchol banned, you don't wish the government to tax them - and I presume you don't smoke considering that second hand smoke effects the health of others? Rather than sex, which just directly effects the individuals involved.

Those activities aren't illegal, and by your logic we should legalize drugs as well, which I would be far more in favor of.

 

Oh, and is putting words in my mouth like that really necessary?

 

 

EDIT #2: Aside from all of that, you do have a point regarding the weakening of criminal elements, even though the idea of the government profiting from vice (other than by criminalizing it) makes my skin crawl.

[mur'phon]

Maybe you don't see anything wrong with having the government profit from crime in the same manner as the mafia, but that level of corruption really bothers the hell out of me.

 

It's only a crime because the law says so, once it's legalized, it's no longer a crime.

 

Legitimizing bad behavior doesn't suddenly make it right.

 

I'm not sure what you think is bad behaviour in this situation, the prostitution/drug use/sale or the goverment (or criminals) profitting from it. Either way, who is to say what is right and what isn't?

[Q]

You're right. If people want to behave like pigs, they should be allowed to do so as long as they're not hurting anyone else.

 

I reserve the right to call them pigs, though.

[jonathan7]

Those activities aren't illegal, and by your logic we should legalize drugs as well, which I would be far more in favor of.

 

Oh, and is putting words in my mouth like that really necessary?

 

I wasn't meaning to put words in your mouth, but I don't agree with smoking, and I would argue that a) The government gets much more money from that and b) It causes far more harm to the nation than Prostitution (just because its far more widespread). So I was querying where you stood on them. However despite the fact I don't like smoking, I think it would be counter productive to make it illegal - you would great a whole new vice trade...

 

EDIT #2: Aside from all of that, you do have a point regarding the weakening of criminal elements, even though the idea of the government profiting from vice (other than by criminalizing it) makes my skin crawl.

 

I would personally argue its a neccecary evil - I don't like it, and I don't agree with it, however you may as well make "the best" of the situation.

 

Your right to do that is reserved

[Q]

As far as the smoking thing goes, I quit 4 months ago after 20 years of being chained to it and I'm pretty much against smoking in places where other people are forced to breathe second-hand smoke.

[Darth InSidious]

I'm slightly shocked that no-one here apparently has a problem with prostitution's inherent exploitative nature and the deep connexion between people trafficking and prostitution.

 

Needless to say I am firmly against any legalisation of this most repulsive trade.

[jonathan7]

I'm slightly shocked that no-one here apparently has a problem with prostitution's inherent exploitative nature and the deep connexion between people trafficking and prostitution.

 

This is the main reason I'm for legalizing it is to stop the above; regulation would mean registering those involved - and as such would stop people being forced into the trade (though why anyone would choose to do it is beyond me).

[Darth InSidious]

Oh, please. The legalisation of prostitution would only increase the use of trafficking.

 

These aren't arguments, they are special pleading to excuse evil. I suppose it's typical of libertarians that the only liberty you appear to be interested in is the liberty to think solely with what's between your legs.

[Q]

These aren't arguments, they are special pleading to excuse evil.

Thank you. That's precisely the problem that I have with the entire idea, along with the government's profiting from said evil.

[jonathan7]

Oh, please. The legalisation of prostitution would only increase the use of trafficking.

 

These aren't arguments, they are special pleading to excuse evil. I suppose it's typical of libertarians that the only liberty you appear to be interested in is the liberty to think solely with what's between your legs.

 

Darathy! You know this isn't true of me so why say it? Because I'm a Christian I will wait untill marriage, my thing between my legs has no influence on my thoughts, I find prostitution abhorrent. However, speaking as some who has friends who are prostitutes they would be an awful lot safer under legislation that not (they are drug addicts with very sad tragic stories).

 

Furthermore prostitution laws such as Holland mean a prostitutes identity has to be established for them to register, via ID; as such it would helo to stop people trafficking.

[Darth InSidious]

Furthermore prostitution laws such as Holland mean a prostitutes identity has to be established for them to register, via ID; as such it would helo to stop people trafficking.

I doubt it. The situation in Holland is still far from the ideal that you make out; at best that is only a reduction, and as usual this claptrap assaults only the end result and not the cause.

 

To top it all you still refuse to address my point that it is an inherently exploitative industry.

[Q]

...it is an inherently exploitative industry.

Of both prostitute and client.

[Jae Onasi]

Let's see who the typical prostitute is. A young girl/woman who is likely addicted to drugs, and has a high probability of having been sexually abused at some point in her life, usually starting at a young age. Prostitution just exploits the problems she already has and puts her in an unsafe situation on top of it. Does anyone here honestly think that the johns (male and female) are going to confine themselves to safe sex practices? Does anyone here honestly think people with a variety of fetishes that could seriously harm the prostitute won't carry them out? This is far more than just a 'business decision'. I don't know any young girl who's picked 'prostitute' as her future career.

 

Furthermore, it contributes to breakups of family. If someone has an affair with a prostitute, it puts the entire family at risk, not only emotionally but physically. Just because the prostitute tested negative for STDs yesterday doesn't mean she won't test negative today. There is no guarantee that condoms are used 100% of the time even if they are 'required by law'. This is in addition to the emotional and financial problems it causes for the spouse who got cheated on, and the family's money being used to pay for the prostitute when it should be getting used to take care of the family.

 

I see absolutely no good in legalizing something that contributes to further abuse of an already exploited woman (or man), encourages human trafficking, and contributes to family breakups and spread of STDs--no contraceptive is 100% effective at preventing STDs.

[jrrtoken]

Let's see who the typical prostitute is. A young girl/woman who is likely addicted to drugs, and has a high probability of having been sexually abused at some point in her life, usually starting at a young age.

That's definitely a probable cause, I agree with the thesis that most prostitutes in the modern world are victims of prior abuse and manipulation. That, however, is under the basis of illegal and underground prostitution in the majority of the world; if prostitution was legalized, I feel that there might be a large "reformation" of standards in several decades post legalization.

 

For example, like any other illicit drug, illegal prostitution is created out of the "need" of a user, so to speak, and when the user's need has not been "satisfied", the user could resort to outright violence. However, if the "drug" in question is legalized and stringently regulated, there's a very good chance that users will not resort to violence and abuse to obtain what they want, seeing as obtaining the "drug" will not cause the user to be subject to the law and its consequences. Therefore, the average user will legally and properly obtain what he wants, without government retribution as a provoker for the user to resort to violence.

Prostitution just exploits the problems she already has and puts her in an unsafe situation on top of it. Does anyone here honestly think that the johns (male and female) are going to confine themselves to safe sex practices? Does anyone here honestly think people with a variety of fetishes that could seriously harm the prostitute won't carry them out?

If the government dictates which practices are and are not safe and acceptable, then I feel that there can definitely be a consensual and physically safe window for services offered. Again, consent is the key word, and it is necessary for both the client and the practitioner to make each other privy to what are both legal and desired practices.

This is far more than just a 'business decision'. I don't know any young girl who's picked 'prostitute' as her future career.

I'm sure that no one wants to be a "municipal waste specialist" either, but some people are just that, and if one enjoys their line of work, then more power to them. Money is money, and it's a necessity in Western civilization; I'd just rather see people collect money through safe and legal paths rather than illicit ones.

Furthermore, it contributes to breakups of family. If someone has an affair with a prostitute, it puts the entire family at risk, not only emotionally but physically.

Affairs in general always put marriages at risk; I don't see why the profession of one's lover should contribute to the moral standing of it.

Just because the prostitute tested negative for STDs yesterday doesn't mean she won't test negative today. There is no guarantee that condoms are used 100% of the time even if they are 'required by law'.

Agreed, and under a legalized system, that should be made privy to both client and practitioner. It should be much like warning labels on medication containers, flammable liquids, and other risky products on the market; the dangers should be made clear to the consumer, and the consumer should understand that the product is not 100% safe and reliable. Additionally, with oversight and regulation, the "product" can also become much safer and efficient over time, much like with any other newfangled product.

This is in addition to the emotional and financial problems it causes for the spouse who got cheated on, and the family's money being used to pay for the prostitute when it should be getting used to take care of the family.

Right, but that's their choice, and if one is not privy to their own actions and their according consequences, then they cannot blame anyone but themselves.

[jonathan7]

I doubt it. The situation in Holland is still far from the ideal that you make out; at best that is only a reduction, and as usual this claptrap assaults only the end result and not the cause.

 

So whats a better means of stopping the cause?

 

To top it all you still refuse to address my point that it is an inherently exploitative industry.

 

Because I don't disagree with that; it's a horrible, vile and exploitative industry; but the legislation I would argue for would stop those most at risk from doing it. I hate pornography for the same reason, it exploits young and naive girls and the men I would argue are harming themselves.

 

Let's see who the typical prostitute is. A young girl/woman who is likely addicted to drugs, and has a high probability of having been sexually abused at some point in her life, usually starting at a young age.

 

These are just the type of people legalized prostitution is designed to protect, as they won't qualify for a licence. If your using drugs you get disqualified from qualifying for the licence. The whole reason I would be in favour of its legalization is to help the above people. They are the most at risk, and I know the UK government does nothing to help them.

 

Prostitution just exploits the problems she already has and puts her in an unsafe situation on top of it. Does anyone here honestly think that the johns (male and female) are going to confine themselves to safe sex practices? Does anyone here honestly think people with a variety of fetishes that could seriously harm the prostitute won't carry them out? This is far more than just a 'business decision'. I don't know any young girl who's picked 'prostitute' as her future career.

 

Well, they can't do the above in a government run establishment, and keeping things confined to one area means you can concentrate on the individuals who do the above.

 

Furthermore, it contributes to breakups of family. If someone has an affair with a prostitute, it puts the entire family at risk, not only emotionally but physically. Just because the prostitute tested negative for STDs yesterday doesn't mean she won't test negative today. There is no guarantee that condoms are used 100% of the time even if they are 'required by law'. This is in addition to the emotional and financial problems it causes for the spouse who got cheated on, and the family's money being used to pay for the prostitute when it should be getting used to take care of the family.

 

But these guys are still going to use a prostitute regardless of if its legal or illegal; surely the added protection at least protects the wife from physical harm (STI's), though the emotional impact will never be lessened.

 

I see absolutely no good in legalizing something that contributes to further abuse of an already exploited woman (or man), encourages human trafficking, and contributes to family breakups and spread of STDs--no contraceptive is 100% effective at preventing STDs.

 

But again, legalisation is designed to stop people trafficking and the individuals involved being exploited.