Prostitution

Couldn't agree more.

 

There's a reason she lumped all prostitutes under STDs. They are all at risk of infection, no matter the precautions. Anyone who has sex commercially is (see cases of HIV outbreaks in the porn industry, which is supposedly notorious for its high safety standards re infections). It's not that all of them are infected, it's that any of them could be. I wouldn't ever describe the risk as low, especially not when you factor in the dangers other than STDs.

 

I do not believe that the government should be involved with prostitution, drugs, or any other of the sleazy things some people choose to do with their lives.

Here is why. First of all, as people have noted, it is the choice of consenting adults.

Second of all, the criminal justice system is clogged as it is. People who are murderers and rapists -- real crimes with forcibly injured victims -- are being let off way too early, and defendents are being pressured to forego their right to a trial in favor of the plea bargain system, and the courts are way too full.
Meanwhile, the cops are all too busy busting people for drugs and prostitution -- which, while not the best choices to make, are still their CHOICES.

Drugs and prosititution damage people's lives, but I believe getting a nasty jail sentence and losing rights over a few bad choices damages your life much worse.

Now here's the main argument. Poeple say that drugs/prositution lead to all kind of dangerous activity, STDs, committing crimes for drug money, etc. See, in these cases, you prosecute the crime, not the root of the crime. If a pimp rapes a prostitute, get them for rape, not prostitution. If a drug addict robs a house to steal money for drugs, prosecute him for the home robbery to the fullest extent of the law, not for drugs.

We have the right to be safe from our houses being broken into and raided...but such raids would be acceptable in a case where the perpetrator is the government and the person just chose to inhale some plants in the privacy of his/her home? Really?

I apologize if I'm getting this thread off topic by mentioning the drug issue, but it falls under the same umbrella of actions that, while they can be harmful, they're the individual's choice and no victim is forcibly harmed/violated/infringed upon. Therefore, the government should stay out of it.

As for the horrible underground kiddie porn things and the like...those include rape, kidnapping etc, which DO involve forcibly infringed upon victims.

By outlawing prostitution/drugs/etc, the entire practice is driven underground and no one can go for legal, professional help when things go bad (without the risk of being thrown in jail). This is where the elevated violence comes from.

Prohibtion didn't work in the 1920s. It's not working now. Just my two cents.

 

One of the main roles of government is to ensure "domestic tranquility" and on the low level that's why many vice laws exist. In the US these vary state to state but exist in some form in all. Europe is no different but they have smartly legalized some activities to regulate them and reduce the harm harsh laws have against people with psychological problems. Although people in the west don't stone adulterers, they can use that as grounds for civil acts, so there!

Seriously though, it is very important to the maintenance of a civilization to protect families, finances, public trust and interpersonal trust. If these things don't exist then you could end up with a free for all versus the division of labor that marks a civilization.

For instance, just yesterday a 31 year old teacher in my area was caught in the backseat of her car naked with a 16 year old boy. That is highly illegal, but if you don't understand the ethics, then you may not see it as so. Many would say that the boy wants his genitals touched, knows it, knows who he wants to do it, and the woman agreed. But, that's a reduction because sex isn't about just the actions. The teacher's actions undermine the hierarchy of authority that adult/child relationships are built on. It also teaches duplicity and that one does not have to be serious, follow a code of professional ethics, etc as long as one can secretly get something they want. If those attitudes are allowed to spread everything will become a mercenary pay to play system with no trusting interdependence.

I don't recall any of these teacher sex situations when I was younger and I think that's because people in the US simply aren't taught ethics and honestly don't understand why you can't have sex with a teenager. The ethics problems reaches well beyond that subject though.

Anyway, all the vice and fraud laws are an example of trying to keep people from pulling apart.

The term "consent" is extremely loose unless you believe in free will. In psychology there is no such term and Behavioral ideas are seen as the fact. That means people are conditioned and/or educated to consent to what they do.

For instance, some guy who turns out to be a rapist probably didn't state that's what he'd like to do when he grows up when asked by grandma. He probably said "a fireman" or something. What likely happen is that a series of psychologically warping things happened to the guy that made him engage in extremely negative behavior outside the norm. In other words, he was conditioned to do something heinous.

If we look at the fact that getting sexually abused as a child can lead to hyper sexuality coupled with very low self-esteem and self-destructive behavior, then how can we say this person is "consenting" if they become a prostitute? You can also add general poverty and various additions to that list because both states act as a coercive factor. The only way we can claim consent is if we desire to play around with rhetoric as a means of cosigning oppression. There's plenty of motive for that since many enjoy all sorts of slavery, because it makes them feel good.

It is impossible to tell which prostitute is wholeheartedly into the "field" as a job they enjoy and have dreamed about and who is a broken person driven by abnormal motives, but I think the general lifestyle when viewed by an informed person indicates that all is not well. Thus, there's many challenges to the idea that it's two people consenting.

It's all about INFORMED CONSENT and a person who is psychologically impaired doesn't have it and that goes for the hooker and the John.

 

As a guy who used to work for the prison system, I'll tell you that I felt pretty sorry for all the drug users and sellers in prison. Some guys had 200+ year sentences for Possession With Intent to Deliver. There's a huge unstoppable market for drugs and they accumulated enough to sell, but they got caught and got a life sentence of it. It was very sad to see them, so I'm not for criminalizing drugs, but I'm certainly not a drug user and so my opinion isn't self-serving. I just hate seeing people suffer.

So, are you at least for regulation via government?

I mean if prostitution were legal, and say you were married, how would you like naked door to door prostitutes knocking on your door giving your husband their card? Don't you think that woman would be out to specifically damage your relationship and shift your husbands resources to her instead of you and your children, family, etc? Certainly, that's exactly what a smart prostitute would like to do and plans on doing.

There's many types of harm and it's not always physical.

 

I wish I had an easy answer, and even if this thread gets closed because people cant handle controversial topics without doling out insults, I'm glad that it was posed, because I still don't really have my opinions on prostitution sorted out. I suppose this is because I know that the real issues that come with prostitution are complex and sometimes very dangerous. Thanks, Islander, for posting this, because it made me think about an issue I normally don't consider.

In the words of George Carlin, "Selling is legal. F/cking is legal. So why isn't selling f/cking legal?" Much as I love the guy, if it really were as simple as a hooker working for herself on the street, I would wholeheartedly agree and support the legalization of prostitution. And someone earlier wrote that they think it's creepy that the government takes issue with people's sex lives. If it were that simple, I would agree.

But the real issues with legalizing prostitution, and the reason why I don't have my opinion sorted out (it has nothing to do with morals; morals and government, in my opinion, really shouldn't mix) is because it usually goes beyond that.

Prostitutes face a very real danger, and I think Ashleigh is right on with one of the dangerous aspects. Anyone who engages in prostitution is at risk for STDs, and I do think that the law prohibiting the practice is in place for a few reasons --one being a deterrent. Some people probably don't consider being a prostitute or soliciting a prostitute because it's illegal. Which helps prevent the spread of STDs. I'm not saying that all prostitutes have STDs or that all people who solicit have STDs... but the more people who get involved in the practice, the more STDs will spread. That's common sense.

Secondly, and this is where I feel a little unsure, don't a lot of prostitutes have pimps? (Correct me if I'm wrong; I don't know the stats about prostitution...) So the law is in place to protect prostitutes. (And the consumers, I think.) Most prostitutes don't work as the CEO of their own company / body, right? They report to someone higher up. And because of that, prostitution has become a very real, very big business, and business can get ugly. White collar crime is rampant and products are often made done cheaply and dangerously (because of course it's all about the cost). And when the product is a body, that's scary. People get hurt all the time, the seller and the consumer.

I wont even touch on trafficking or the sexual slavery deal that is wrapped up in prostitution, because I don't know about it and don't have the heart to learn. But I think that is a third reason the law is in place. Legalizing prostitution allows people to do these heinous things, which are still illegal of course, more easily.

And fourthly. Regardless of why the law was established, it cannot be changed now. In the polarized world of American politics (I don't know as much about international politics, so I wont speak for them, but would it be fair to assume they are the similar if the country in question is, to some degree, a democracy with competing parties?), if one party were to support legalization, it's very easy to predict what the other party's next move would be. There will be people shouting, "Senator XYZ supports the legalization of prostitution! This means that he in some way condones.. --insert any or all of the reasons I previously listed above."

So, politically, prostitution isn't really that can be touched in this heated political atmosphere for fear of public persecution. It's just too touchy of a subject.

I wish it were as simple as just some girl (or guy) who wants to sell herself because it's easier than working a 12-hour shift at a restaurant. If the darker and more complex world surrounding prostitution hadn't developed... I don't think anyone should have a political problem with prostitution. And if you've got moral issues, then you just wouldn't go to one (same as strip clubs, essentially).

Anyway. That's my two cents...

Thanks again for the prompt. Very interesting discussion.

 

Where it is legal (Nevada, for example), there is strict oversight, including the use of condoms as well as regular checks for STDs.

And even so, should the government have control over all dangerous professions?

 

Hi Mercurial,

Thank you for taking the care to be respectful in the debate. I understand most of your points, but I still don't think it's right for the government to outlaw something because of STDs -- the way I see it, avoiding getting an STD is the responsibility of the individual, who should exercise a choice to use condoms, be picky about who they sleep with, or preferably both.

Some people are not prostitutes, but still will sleep with anything that moves (think about the people who will take someone home from a club after 20 minutes of knowing them). People who do this every weekend with lots of new people are probably just as dangerous, STD-wise, as a prostitute -- but can we have a government that makes laws on when two consenting adults can/cannot hook up after a party? I'd hope not.

Just my two cents - not trying to stir up hard feelings, and I hope I'm showing as much respect for your differing opinion as you show for mine.

 

Good point.

Except for the fact that this particular dangerous profession also endangers other people. If you want to be employed as a Human Cannonball, that's your choice. But the minute someone's profession can interfere with my health --even if I never become a prostitute or solicit one-- I think that, yes, the government has an obligation to get involved.

And no matter how strict oversight is, it doesn't change the fact that some people wont play by the rules. Nothing in business, and prostitution is a very real business, is ever done 100% legally.

 

As I've been saying and know from personal experience, the term "enjoy" is massive misunderstanding of situation. Living this kind of life is not like a movie with the happy hooker with a heart of gold.

Again, do you think that sane parents in Holland look and their daughter and say, "You know, I think Olga would really ENJOY being a prostitute in the red light district! I wonder if we could get her some kind of tutor for that? It really is a great way to make money, and not too stressful. We don't want that for her, you know."

I'm willing to bet those words have never been spoken, not even in Hollandish!

 

I'd agree with you if STDs were floating around in the air and you could get them just by walking down the street.

However, STDs are named such because you get them from having sex with someone. A person's got to realize that if he hooks up with a prostitute, he has a higher chance of getting an STD, so he'd better be able to wear a condom and deal with the risks.

 

Thanks! I'm so happy you read my babbletext and are challenging me. It makes me think. It could change my perspective or it could make me feel more strongly about my decision --all good things. I love it when debates are actually respectful.

I think you make a really interesting point with a lot of sense, and I think to an extent you're right. Prostitutes and people who are just easy basically do the same thing and promote the same risks, and it's not fair to hold a double standard just because someone wants money for it.

I'm definitely going to consider whether or not I think that is fair or not... currently I'm thinking that you're right --it's not fair. At the same time, while I agree that we shouldn't hold double standards, I still am in favor of any law that to some degree keeps me, a bystander in the issue, safer. I don't think that should be the only reason the law is still upheld, but I don't see any reason to not acknowledge the benefits of prevention as a positive side effect.

If I end up coming to another decision or just develop a more clear one, I'll leave you a visitor message on your profile.

Edit: Adding my answer to your second post.

I agree that if a person hooks up with a prostitute, he has to deal with the consequences. But the consequences spread... What if I fall in love with him and trust him? What if he lies to me (I'm going to come out and say it --usually the people you solicit prostitutes aren't the most brilliant or benevolent in the world, so it's no big stretch to assume he might lie)? What if I had no say in it at all? What if he raped me? What if my dad was the loser who slept with the prostitute, slept with my mom, and now I have HIV?

Edit again:

I just want to make it clear that I am not really a fan of big government. The less involvement, the better. But the minute someone else's life is at risk because of other people's poor decisions, I think that the elected establishment has to step in to protect its citizens in the least invasive and least oppressive way possible. I do think that the law to some extent serves this purpose..

 

Mercurial,

If a prostitute has sex with a client who pays for it, how does that make you, the bystander, unsafe?

If we're talking about the increase in STDs and therefore the likelihood of someone you sleep with having an STD -- well, keeping a sexual relationship disease-free is the sole responsibility of you and your partner. This is the case whether prostitution is legal or not.

If we're talking about shootings, violence etc among those involved -- this refers to one of my earlier posts, in which you prosecute the violence and not the root. (If someone robs a house for money for orange juice, should the government outlaw all orange juice because it promotes house-robbing? think about it)

 

I believe that any business that can "poison" people ought o be heavily regulated.

A business like this prostitution even when legal and made safe from STDs can still have a poisonous effect. For instance, let's say Bob decides to go to the Bunnyranch, or whatever, in Nevada and oops, he uses his credit card. His wife finds it (ironically she wouldn't find an illegal transaction), then she divorces him. They have four kids who now see their male role model as a lying betrayer gain that general opinion about men, see women as victims and/or whores and later are unleashed on society. Since many people don't challenge their world view, but seek to confirm it, they will be viral in nature thus spreading harm for decades if not generations after Bob's hour with the hooker.

That's far worse than ripping the public off through fraudulent goods and services.

 

No.

Prostitution is not about being "easy" or about sex. It's about earning money in a calulated manner by PRETENDING to be easy, when in fact you aren't and that's why you charge money.

A person who's "easy" may enjoy sex, have poor social skills, etc and that can get them into trouble and other people too through disease and social pressures. However, the easy person is probably uninformed and not acting with intent.

AIDS got wildly spread via "bath houses" frequented by gay men who found it an easy location to have casual sex, not prostitution. Had the disease not existed then such places would probably continued on without anyone caring. Such places had no sinister intent that I'm aware of, but gained it due to happenstance.

That's the difference between innocence and intent.

 

In what way does it interfere with your health?

So all business should be made illegal because of a few bad apples? That is not how any system should work. You allow those that play by the rules to continue while penalizing those who do not follow the rules and laws.

 

As I mentioned, physical violence isn't the only harm that can be done. In fact, it's some of the best kind to have because it can be easily stopped. What's extremely hard to stop is Vice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice

In short, it's activities that destroy honest and idealistic behavior. As I said, this kind of thing is like a virus and is much less simplistic than a guy with a gun running around crazy. If you short him, then his threat ends. But, how do you "shoot" cynicism and corruption?

 

Read my other posts. I've made that clear. Or at least I think I have. Mallory also made it a point to ask that question. If you haven't read my other posts, read them, and send me a PM or a visitor message if you're still confused with my reasoning and care enough to ask or to make me see how I'm being cryptic. On the other hand, don't do so if you understand my point and just want to debate more...

This is a good point. You're right --business should not be illegal because people don't do it legally. But I take more of an issue with a business that puts human bodies at risk. If not my own, definitely the prostitute's. (At the same time, perhaps we should let them make poor choices and damage their lives. Survival of the fittest, eh?)

But I don't really appreciate your argumentative tone... to me or anyone else. However, if that is how you want to win an argument, by being argumentative and rude, so be it. You win. Congrats.

And yet none of that is actually what I said... If you read my longer post, you'll see I address the issue that prostitution is a very big business, and that gets scary when people's bodies are the product being sold.

I said that being easy and prostitution result in the same thing being sold (or given away). Which is casual sex.

xxx

Anyway. I appreciate being challenged, but I don't appreciate argumentative tones, taking my words out of context, or just not reading what I've written at all. So it's time for me to say so long, farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, goodbye.

Interesting conversation, sparked a lot of thought. Thanks!

 

I pointed out the bold because the selling and giving are two different things with different motives, although they look the same. It's two different things.

 

Mercurial: I apologize for not reading your previous posts in full. I've taken a few parts and responded to them here.

STDs will only spread if the unregulated practice is the only one that exists. If you have a properly educated populace and strict oversight of the industry, STDs will be almost non-existent. Who, in their right mind, would choose to get an STD? No one. It only occurs because many prostitutes work in poor conditions that they do not choose. If they were able to get together and form actual businesses that they, themselves, would run, I am sure the decision would be made to protect themselves from life-threatening diseases.

Again, your penalizing a large group of people for the bad actions of a few. And I'd like to make note that many of the actions described above are illegal. Not telling someone you have HIV and having sex with them is illegal. Raping someone, illegal. As for the parents example, that is a sad tragedy that a child is born with a disease. But, with proper sex education, medicine, and safety precautions, that risk should be lower substantially.

 

Did you read the thread?

All of your points were addressed.

 

I don't think age should matter.

 

If we're talking about two teenagers who agree to have sex, I agree. It's none of the government's business to punish them, tell them they can't buy condoms, or anything like that. However, if there's a 40-year-old offering to pay a cash-strapped 14-year-old for sex, there's an issue. Even as a Libertarian, I can admit that's a case of exploitation.

 

No there isn't.

Age is only a law thing, not a moral thing.

If paying for sex is okay, then why does it matter what age they are? If they consent, they consent. Money is money no matter who it's from.

 

I generally agree, but what if it's a case where the younger person is prepubescent and doesn't even really understand what sex is? What if we're talking about a 7/8year old?