Prostitution, should it be legal?

[Bobbington]

I support it's legalisation, if it's approached in the correct fashion (which I am sure most governments would do). The amount of related crime from underground industries would massively be reduced:

 

 

 

Sex trafficking

 

drug use

 

rape (yes you can rape a prostitute!)

 

theft

 

assault & the odd murder

 

 

 

and other things such as reducing spread of STD's

 

 

 

 

 

I must say though I only support it in the format of official licence brothels, and wish to see an end to curb crawling.... the client must come to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Currently the UK government are indeed looking at prostitution.... but I have to say having the politician in charge of this area being a very 'Women are better than men' woman.... they are making a royal mess of it.

 

 

 

The proposition is that consensual sex with a prostitute will be classed as Rape.... yet another case of the UK making the actual terrible crime of Rape seem more trivial by including things in the term.

[Wouter828]

 

Also in America the best example of legalized prostitution is the so called 'Bunny Ranch'.

 

Sure you aren't thinking of the Playboy Bunny Mansion? Because that isn't a brothel, it's just a place for [bleep]s to live and... do other stuff.

 

No, not Hugh's crib. This one's run by a big bald guy.

[Ginger_Warrior]

See, with drugs and whatnot, I would say legalise it because it allows for taxation, policing, support etc. but with prostitution, my opinion's slightly different.

 

 

 

At the end of the day, no woman (well, hardly any) wants to sell her body for sex, while conversely, people do want to take drugs. Under that analysis, it's an abuse of power. The male (let's presume it's a female prostitute) knows the woman needs the money in order to survive, or feed an addiction she might have, and they still choose to abuse that position and get what they want out of it. Whatever way you look at that, it's still incredibly immoral even if the woman has no problems with that.

 

 

 

If you removed all the prostitutes that are forced into that position, and left the ones who want to sell their body for cash, you wouldn't be left with much of an industry to legalise. There's the difference.

 

 

 

As for comparing rape and prostitution, please, don't insult our collective intelligence. Rape is the completely lack of regard for someone's right to refuse sexual intercourse, and a complete lack of respect for the victim. Prostitution is hardly anything like it.

 

 

 

Currently the UK government are indeed looking at prostitution.... but I have to say having the politician in charge of this area being a very 'Women are better than men' woman.... they are making a royal mess of it.

 

There's a Minister for Prostitution? Who?

[MuffinMaddy]

I'm torn between thinking it should be legal and why it shouldnt.

 

I think it should be legal because its their business, not mine. If a man decides to have sex with a prostitute, he should be fully aware of the risks of getting an STD or whatever.

 

 

 

A reason why it should be illegal is that if a married man for example has sex with a prostitute and then comes home to have sex with his wife and she gets an STDits not really fair.

 

 

 

So yes, I am torn in between.

[Bobbington]

 

Currently the UK government are indeed looking at prostitution.... but I have to say having the politician in charge of this area being a very 'Women are better than men' woman.... they are making a royal mess of it.

 

There's a Minister for Prostitution? Who?

 

 

 

 

 

Alas there is no Prostitution minister! however it falls under the home office, and the bill I mentioned is put forward by Jacqui Smith.

[Ginger_Warrior]

 

Currently the UK government are indeed looking at prostitution.... but I have to say having the politician in charge of this area being a very 'Women are better than men' woman.... they are making a royal mess of it.

 

There's a Minister for Prostitution? Who?

 

 

 

 

 

Alas there is no Prostitution minister! however it falls under the home office, and the bill I mentioned is put forward by Jacqui Smith.

 

Jacqui Smith believes women are better than men...?

[greene8535]

Only if they tax it....

[Bobbington]

 

Currently the UK government are indeed looking at prostitution.... but I have to say having the politician in charge of this area being a very 'Women are better than men' woman.... they are making a royal mess of it.

 

There's a Minister for Prostitution? Who?

 

 

 

 

 

Alas there is no Prostitution minister! however it falls under the home office, and the bill I mentioned is put forward by Jacqui Smith.

 

Jacqui Smith believes women are better than men...?

 

 

 

 

 

Never said it (that I know of) but of what I have seen of her she is quite biased....

 

 

 

For example another on of her bills put through was for positive discrimination, meaning businesses should try and give jobs to everybody who is not a young white able bodied male......... (high focus on giving jobs to women)

[Wouter828]

 

Also in America the best example of legalized prostitution is the so called 'Bunny Ranch'.

 

Sure you aren't thinking of the Playboy Bunny Mansion? Because that isn't a brothel, it's just a place for [bleep]s to live and... do other stuff.

 

No, not Hugh's crib. This one's run by a big bald guy.

 

Found a picture of the guy with someone named judith regan? on google:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously the person left is the big bald guy I was talking about.

[Ginger_Warrior]

For example another on of her bills put through was for positive discrimination, meaning businesses should try and give jobs to everybody who is not a young white able bodied male......... (high focus on giving jobs to women)

 

...No, it means businesses that are stuck between two equally qualified candidates should choose the candidate from an ethnic minority, or in this case, the female since they're at a general disadvantage anyway.

 

 

 

If the white male is better, than the white male gets the job. It's still as simple as that. Positive discrimination is to stop an employer choosing a white male for the simple fact he's white or male when there are better candidates for the job, as used to happen quite frequently during the 1980s and before.

 

 

 

As it is, only one in five of MPs sitting in the House of Commons are female, when they make up half the population. The same pattern applies for most professional occupations. That's hardly representative of Britain, is it?

[venomai]

At the end of the day, no woman (well, hardly any) wants to sell her body for sex, while conversely, people do want to take drugs. Under that analysis, it's an abuse of power. The male (let's presume it's a female prostitute) knows the woman needs the money in order to survive, or feed an addiction she might have, and they still choose to abuse that position and get what they want out of it. Whatever way you look at that, it's still incredibly immoral even if the woman has no problems with that.

 

Street prostitution is what we typically think of when we use the term, but it's a poor representation of prostitution as a whole.

 

 

 

Research finds that many indoor workers made conscious decisions to enter the trade; they do not see themselves as oppressed victims and do not feel that their work is degrading. Consequently, they express greater job satisfaction than their street-level counterparts. And they may differ little from nonprostitutes: A study by psychologist Sarah Romans and colleagues comparing indoor workers and an age-matched sample of nonprostitute women found no differences between the two groups in physical health, self-esteem, mental health, or the quality of their social networks.

 

 

 

Some prostitutes feel validated and empowered by their work. In some studies, a large percentage of indoor workers report an increase in self-esteem after they began working in prostitution, state that they are very satisfied with their work, or feel that their lives improved after entering prostitution. scorts interviewed by sociologist Tanice Foltz took pride in their work and viewed themselves as morally superior to others: They consider women who are not in the life to be throwing away

 

womans major source of power and control, while they as prostitutes are using it to their own advantage as well as for the benefit of society. A study by the Australian government reported that half of the 82 call girls and 101 brothel workers interviewed felt their work was a major source of satisfaction in their lives; two-thirds of the brothel workers and seven out of ten call girls said they would definitely choose this work if they had it to do over again; and 86 percent in the brothels and 79 percent of call girls said that my daily work is always varied and interesting. Ann Lucass interviews with escorts and call girls revealed that these women had the financial, social, and emotional wherewithal to structure their work largely in ways that suited them and provided ... the ability to maintain healthy self-images. Other studies indicate that such control over working onditions greatly enhances overall job satisfaction among these workers.

 

 

 

If you removed all the prostitutes that are forced into that position, and left the ones who want to sell their body for cash, you wouldn't be left with much of an industry to legalise. There's the difference.

 

In North America, indoor prostitution makes up a huge portion, if not the majority, of the market.

 

 

 

An estimated 20 percent of all prostitutes work on the streets in the United States. Although this number is hard to substantiate at the national level, some city-level studies support it. Regardless of the exact numbers, indoor sex work clearly accounts for a large share of the market.

 

 

 

Source:

 

Prostitution: Facts and Fictions by Dr. Ronald Weitzer

[Will H]

 

As it is, only one in five of MPs sitting in the House of Commons are female, when they make up half the population. The same pattern applies for most professional occupations. That's hardly representative of Britain, is it?

 

I thought that the idea was that the policies are representative of the public, not the gender/ethnicity of the politician. Now, if the policies weren't representative, something has gone wrong.

[assassin_696]

At the end of the day, no woman (well, hardly any) wants to sell her body for sex, while conversely, people do want to take drugs. Under that analysis, it's an abuse of power. The male (let's presume it's a female prostitute) knows the woman needs the money in order to survive, or feed an addiction she might have, and they still choose to abuse that position and get what they want out of it. Whatever way you look at that, it's still incredibly immoral even if the woman has no problems with that.

 

 

 

The problem with your argument fails at the premise that no woman could ever enjoy prostitution. I agree the majority wouldn't enjoy the profession, but it's never been a majority profession. There are women who do enjoy prostitution because they do it willingly in places where it's legal and enjoy their jobs.

[Ginger_Warrior]

venomai, many of the claims in that article are completely unsubstantiated. Frankly, I've no way of telling whether this man is telling the truth or whether he's pulling numbers out of his [wagon]. It's a poor article and there's a few claims in it which made me raise my eyebrow.

 

 

 

For one, attacking all anti-prostitution campaigners for using sweeping generalisations, and then using sweeping generalisations throughout the article to argue the case for legalisation is quite clearly a logical fallacy.

 

 

 

If it's two consenting adults, and one is fine with being paid to have sex with, then I've no issues with that. It's none of my business and I don't happen to find selling sex particularly immoral. I would also like to see greater protection for women and legalisation would be one way to see that.

 

 

 

What I take issue to is the wider social impact prostitution has on an area. People say the problem would be solved by moving all prostitution into a brothel. It wouldn't. People in the local vicinity would complain about it, the area around would become a hotspot for drug dealers and the crime that is associated with it. Moving all prostitutes into brothels still fails to create a distinction between "sex survivors" and those who are doing it completely out of their own will to make money or enjoyment. It also creates a new cultural attitude that it is fine to get whatever you want in this world so long as the price is right, sex included, and that is not an attitude I want my kids to be having. Given so many prostitutes are women, it also further fuels an attitude in some members of the male population that males are dominant to females by circumstance.

 

 

 

It is not the act itself I find bad, it's the wider impact. All legislation has consequences wider than the act it's trying to take effect on.

[Bobbington]

For example another on of her bills put through was for positive discrimination, meaning businesses should try and give jobs to everybody who is not a young white able bodied male......... (high focus on giving jobs to women)

 

...No, it means businesses that are stuck between two equally qualified candidates should choose the candidate from an ethnic minority, or in this case, the female since they're at a general disadvantage anyway.

 

 

 

If the white male is better, than the white male gets the job. It's still as simple as that. Positive discrimination is to stop an employer choosing a white male for the simple fact he's white or male when there are better candidates for the job, as used to happen quite frequently during the 1980s and before.

 

 

 

As it is, only one in five of MPs sitting in the House of Commons are female, when they make up half the population. The same pattern applies for most professional occupations. That's hardly representative of Britain, is it?

 

 

 

Fair enough...... that what I get for only reading that article in the Daily (hate) mail, however it's still not something I support A, as a young white male, and B, sombody who hates any discrimination official or not offical....

 

 

 

 

 

Anywho.... back to prostitutes (kinda) I feel that the prostitution industry could be more respectable if correctly monitored. I would hope brothel licences are issued in a similar way to alcahol where constant check ups are needed..... the problem will always be there, and rather than hiding the festering issues they need to be tackled head on.

 

 

 

 

 

To talk about something similar..... Abortions, abortions are legal in most western countries and they probaly would be even if a Pro Life campaigner became in charge of a country, why? because if it's not correctly monitored crime will thrive, and many will die, if sombody wanted an abortion they will probaly get it by any means, legal or not. And it's the same with prostitution...... it should be out in the public (bad wording I know)

[Bobbington]

 

 

 

If it's two consenting adults, and one is fine with being paid to have sex with, then I've no issues with that. It's none of my business and I don't happen to find selling sex particularly immoral. I would also like to see greater protection for women and legalisation would be one way to see that.

 

 

 

 

 

Well if you think of it from how I argue the introduction, to become a sex worker you would have to be part of a government licensed brothel, and by law would need to be checked for STI's, and other major defects (open ended point there, but you get the idea)

 

 

 

That would mean it's not a rash decision, it's a job with pay, and it's not the case like it is currently with some prostitutes where they are out of money the rent is due and have no option but to sell their bodies.

 

 

 

By legalising it that sort of practice is all but excluded. As far as I am concerned all agreed actions between client and prostitute are 100% consensual.

[venomai]

venomai, many of the claims in that article are completely unsubstantiated. Frankly, I've no way of telling whether this man is telling the truth or whether he's pulling numbers out of his [wagon]. It's a poor article and there's a few claims in it which made me raise my eyebrow.

 

Apologies for the poor source, I had rushed to find it. Here is a better article (by Weitzer) with proper citing.

 

 

 

[hide=]... [a] comparison of 29 prostitutes in New Zealand (27 of whom worked as call girls, escorts, or in massage parlors; 2 worked the street) and an agematched sample of nonprostitutewomen found no differences between the two groups in physical health, self-esteem, mental health, or the quality of their social networks (Romans et al., 2001) ... Another study found that call girls, brothel workers, and massage parlor workers generally were handling themselves well, manifesting good emotional controls, being well aware of conventionality, and doing well in the occupation of their choice, whereas streetwalkers

 

exhibited significant psychological problems (Exner et al., 1977: 483). ...

 

 

 

Research on streetwalkers and call girls in California and legal brothel workers in Nevada found that 97% of the call girls reported an increase in self-esteem after they began working in prostitution, compared with 50% of the brothel workers but only 8% of the streetwalkers (Prince, 1986: 454). Call girls expressed positive views of their work; brothel workers were generally satisfied with their work; but street prostitutes evaluated their work more negatively (Prince, 1986: 497). Similarly, a study of indoor prostitutes (most of whom worked in bars) in a Midwestern city in the United States found that three-quarters of them felt that their life had improved after entering prostitution (the remainder reported no change; none said it was worse than before); more than half said that they generally enjoy theirwork (Decker, 1979: 166, 174). In The Netherlands, three-quarters of indoor workers report that they enjoy their work (Dalder, 2004: 34). Research on 95 call girls in Sydney, Australia found that they were generally emotionally healthy (Perkins and Lovejoy, 1996). All of the escorts studied by Foltz (1979: 128) took pride in their profession and viewed themselves as morally superior to others: they consider women who are not in the life to be throwing away womans major source of power and control [sexual capital], while they as prostitutes are using it to their own advantage as well as for the benefit of society. And an Australian study found that half of call girls and brothel workers felt that their work was a major source of satisfaction in their lives, while 7 out of 10 said they would definitely choose this work if they had it to do over again (Woodward et al., 2004: 39). Other studies of indoor work report that the workers felt the job had at least some positive effect on their lives or believed that they were providing a valuable service (Brents and Hausbeck, 2005; Bryant and Palmer, 1975; Chapkis, 1997; Farley and Davis, 1978; Lever and Dolnick, 2000; Lucas, 1998; Verlarde and Warlick, 1973; West, 1993).

 

 

 

... As Lucas (1998: 320) concluded from her interviews with escorts and call girls, these women had the financial, social, and emotional wherewithal to structure their work largely in ways that suited them and provided . . . the ability to maintain healthy self-images. In sum, although certain aspects of the work are disliked, indoor workers are more likely than street prostitutes to describe positive aspects of their work.[/hide]

 

 

 

Source: http://www.bayswan.org/New_Directions_prost.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

What I take issue to is the wider social impact prostitution has on an area. People say the problem would be solved by moving all prostitution into a brothel. It wouldn't. People in the local vicinity would complain about it, the area around would become a hotspot for drug dealers and the crime that is associated with it.

 

Research so far has not found this to be the case. The same article discusses the community impact of indoor prostitution:

 

 

 

[hide=]Street and off-street prostitution have very different effects on the surrounding community. Indoor prostitution has little, if any, negative impact on the environment and, if discreet, there is normally little public awareness of it (Reynolds, 1986).4 Arecent examination of legal brothels in Queensland, Australia, found that they had no negative impact on the local community (Crime and Misconduct Commission, 2004).[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

Moving all prostitutes into brothels still fails to create a distinction between "sex survivors" and those who are doing it completely out of their own will to make money or enjoyment.

 

The aim of legalization is not to throw streetwalkers indoors. Perhaps this would be a side-effect of legalization, though. It would be interesting to see more research on this.

 

 

 

It also creates a new cultural attitude that it is fine to get whatever you want in this world so long as the price is right, sex included, and that is not an attitude I want my kids to be having.

 

A stretch, if you ask me. The same could be said about legalization of drugs.

 

 

 

You can already pay for sex (legally) in many jurisdictions. This shouldn't translate to "Kids, if you have the money, you can do absolutely anything to a girl." If this is the attitude of your children, I would seriously question the parent's involvement in forming that attitude..

 

 

 

Given so many prostitutes are women, it also further fuels an attitude in some members of the male population that males are dominant to females by circumstance.

 

Sounds similar to the anti-pornography arguments. It's more likely that the male dominance seen in the mass media, the porn industry, sex work etc. caters to a pre-existing ideology about gender roles, rather than creates or fuels that ideology.

[l0l0lpur32]

Of course it should be illegal, due to the human trafficking etc which goes with it.

[purfishx]

Of course it should be illegal, due to the human trafficking etc which goes with it.

 

 

 

What does the "etc" include...

[Ginger_Warrior]

Given so many prostitutes are women, it also further fuels an attitude in some members of the male population that males are dominant to females by circumstance.

 

Sounds similar to the anti-pornography arguments. It's more likely that the male dominance seen in the mass media, the porn industry, sex work etc. caters to a pre-existing ideology about gender roles, rather than creates or fuels that ideology.

 

You presume I'm fine with all types of pornography? Most types I'm fine with, but I find pornography which depicts a false image of sex as a male dominated process in which the female is submissive deeply misleading and in some cases inappropriate. There are some sites out there which depict rape (although it's obviously not rape, it's acted). Are those sites OK for general viewing, just because the woman in the film agrees to be portrayed in that context? It provides a distorted reality of a sexual relationship that will affect some people's perception of women, and I'm not obliged as a liberal to shrug and say, "Oh well, it's their choice".

 

 

 

The same goes with prostitution.

 

 

 

That same argument could have been applied to racism all those years ago. The image of a movie director filming a story now about white people being dominant over black people, and then using the excuse "I'm only catering to an ideology that already exists", even if the black actors consented, is ridiculous. I think that any society should have certain standards in regards to how groups are perceived and treated, and I don't see why that should be any different for women.

 

 

 

As far as pornography and prostitution are concerned, it's one of very, very few areas I am more conservative in. I promote tolerance and respect, and as far as I'm concerned, prostitution is a very gender-specific trade that only fuels intolerance towards women. In my opinion, despite being a liberal in almost every topic elsewhere, these areas are the point where liberalism goes a little dizzy.

[raven_gaurd0]

Prostitution comes down to the social contract, or the rights of the government, to regulate what it's people do in terms of morality. There are plenty of applicable, social reasons for limiting prostitution, not withstanding:

 

 

 

Disease

 

'Under the table' economics

 

Citizen protection (violent things often happen with a 'client')

 

Subculture values being imposed upon 'typical' society.

 

 

 

People aren't allowed to make choices. That's a weak argument. Generally, we are, but we (as America, I speak for no other countries) have deemed that sexual intercourse is special, and, foremost, private. Prostitution dismantles both of those values. Therefore, our government limits it, and rightly so.

[Barihawk]

This topic reminds me that the vast majority of people here are either sexist or haven't the faintest clue any knowledge of women.

[BlueLancer]

 

What I take issue to is the wider social impact prostitution has on an area. People say the problem would be solved by moving all prostitution into a brothel. It wouldn't. People in the local vicinity would complain about it, the area around would become a hotspot for drug dealers and the crime that is associated with it.

 

 

 

There are plenty of applicable, social reasons for limiting prostitution, not withstanding:

 

 

 

Disease

 

'Under the table' economics

 

Citizen protection (violent things often happen with a 'client')

 

Subculture values being imposed upon 'typical' society.

 

 

 

Not a big fan of prostitution, but at least in the US, the above isn't true at all. You will be hard pressed to find any serious concentration of crime or drugs near the brothels itself such as in the state of Nevada. They operate as professional businesses that pay taxes, they don't accept employees with STD's or drug problems. The workers also have to apply for the jobs like with any other business.

 

 

 

Illegal brothels are a small niche and are a problem of it's own, which have absolutely nothing to do with the legal operations run in the US, and some other countries such as the Netherlands and Germany which have legalised brothels. They have strict standards and are subject to frequent checks and raids by the police for accounting fraud or other crime.

[raven_gaurd0]

Ah, we're not talking about just brothel-based prostitution. We're also including pimp-based selling of women as merchandise. Sexual disease can be contracted by a 'worker' during their sessions, and then spread, and on the street, it's a very, very real possibility.

 

 

 

Under-the-table economics occur in this pimp-based business as well, therefore detracting from America's severely crippled economy. Citizen protection is also a problem, because with prostitution being so widely frowned upon by society, a prostitute is less likely to stand up and declare themselves an abused prostitute. They'd get help, but they'd also get ridiculed and fired. Also, my last claim is a tad bit erroneous; I believe it to be true that normal society fears that the subculture will encroach upon them, but it's hardly a legitimate concern for them to feel so.

 

 

 

However, the above arguments are weak. I acknowledge that much. Please bear in mind, though, that America, the presumed target of the debate of legalization, is a democracy-based republic. You said it yourself: "Not a big fan of prostitution," and that's exactly why prostitution will largely remain illegal: because people don't like it. At least in America, whatever people want, that's what they'll get, and if they don't get it, they have the right to seize it.

 

 

 

 

Thus, whenever the people wish to dismantle or abolish government, it is their right to do so, since the existence of government depends on the will of those who bring it into existence that is, the people. - Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence

 

 

 

 

Admittedly, over an issue like prostitution, I hardly expect the people to get up in arms, but it would be their right.

[warri0r45]

Keep in mind though that we're not talking about whether it's likely to be legalised. I'd agree that outright legalisation across America, for example, is totally unrealistic. The same goes for marijuana legalisation, but it doesn't stop us discussing whether it should happen.

 

 

 

You bring up a valid point with pimps, though. Not all of them are into ensuring the safety of their girls (whether it be if they're abused, on drugs or catch an STD). All the more reason to legalise and regulate brothels. I think people will see more sense in going to a brothel, where the girls are treated well and get regular checks for STDs, than in picking up a girl off the street.