I dont care about worker or customer safety. I support legalization just on the basis of individual right to do what they want with their body. Knowingly spreading diseases would still be illegal regardless of whether or not prostitution is legal.

I guess I don't understand what you're getting at. I simply think that paying someone to have sex with you is wrong.

That's okay though, there's no objective morality.

I firmly believe people enter prostitution out of desperation and as a means to an end.

I'm sure many people do, just like many people get jobs at McDonalds because there are no other options. Clearly, sex workers think the sex trade is a lesser evil than poverty, or else they would rather be poor.

I think research into what truly drives people into prostitution--and fixing that--would be a better allocation of governmental resources than regulating the industry.

The government is already regulating it. If I had it my way, the sex trade industry would not need much regulation anyway. But I don't want to save the sex workers from the trade. I think they have the same rights as anyone else, and that's all.

 

@sees: I'm willing to bet the problems with illegal distilling you refer to are either not really problems or still the government's fault (alcohol is still regulated).

 

@highlander: Read the story about Jim, Sally and John I posted in reply to Tyler. Property rights are the only way to clearly define what you can and can't do. There's no difference in nature between stopping people from having naked people in their displays and stopping them from having anything else on their property.

@sees: I'm willing to bet the problems with illegal distilling you refer to are either not really problems or still the government's fault (alcohol is still regulated).

The problem with alcohol is that its taxed and regulated. People realize they can make and keep more money if they're not paying taxes and not following regulations. Really the only way to stop all that illegal activity is to remove the taxes and regulations, which makes the "legalize, regulate, and tax the hell out of it" argument bunk.

I'm pretty sure you're on my side here.

I'm pretty sure you're on my side here.

Sweet.

 

Those are the problems with illegal production; there are still problems with illegal consumption. Legalizing, taxing and regulating does not stop driving under the influence, public intoxication, underage consumption etc.

There are so many people in jail right now! If only we could legalize driving under the influence, there wouldn't be so many people in jail!

Well, for clarification, I still want it legalized, just not regulated.

Having prostitution illegal allows for the government to identify and help those in most need. Not saying they do a good job, just saying it gives them the opportunity to.

The government has neither the desire nor the incentive to do what's best for sex workers anyways.

Sounds like you and Muggiw could go on for hours and hours there Range.

 

Stigmas are subjective. If a marriage forms from prostitutes; so be it. I've seen quite a few porn star couples (even a documentary on their relationship) and while most will find their relationship strange and alien, it works for them. And who are you to say their lifestyle is wrong? (bold claim: how is it any different from saying gay people can't marry?)

Pornography is quite different than prostitution. In the pornography industry, both participants are (hopefully) being paid, but they are not paying each other for the sexual act. Comparing gay marriage to prostitution isn't a very good comparison. Prohibiting gay marriage is wrong because our laws say that heterosexual couples can marry, but homosexual couples cannot. It's a matter of discrimination based on sexuality. We are not saying that "x" group of prostitutes can legally sell their bodies to another person, but "y" group cannot.

 

 

saying "gays can't marry while straight people can" equates to "prostitutes cant have sex for money while pornstars can" in my book. it's still a discrimination based on sexuality, the only difference is orientation(preference) verse sexual feedom.

 

Remember: the only difference between a hooker and a pornstar is a camera.

Then you have missed my point entirely. Let me spell it out for you again so you may understand:

 

Prostitution=one person soliciting sex, another paying for sex.

Pornography=two people being paid to have sex by another party who then produces the act for entertainment value.

 

They are entirely different things. Clever sayings do not equate the two.

 

I think there is a way to separate pornography and prostitution though - the selection of whom to engage in intercourse with. It's probably harder for prostitutes to discriminate against the fat, the obese, and the ugly... let alone the STD-saturated john whom may be cheating on their partner, if it's based purely on money (which street prostitution, and window-prostitution is pretty much). If we're talking about escorts, on the other hand...

 

EDIT - Oh, I appear to have replied to the wrong person. I meant that to be in response to the idea that porn = prostitution with a camera.

 

With prostitution being legal, "hookers" would then be given a choice of their clients, yes? That sounds fair to me. It has to be a mutual agreement.

 

I suggest you(all of you really) research the "registered companion" character of the Firefly universe. They have an absolutely brilliant system of respectful prostitution.

 

Double post, but I missed this. Could you elaborate on which hookers we're talking about - every category has its own niche and appeal. I would imagine discrimination based on appearance could raise issue with disgruntled johns, if applied in window prostitution for example.

 

"hookers" as in prostitutes. The umbrella term for all things streetwalker/red light window girl/ escort

 

And sex workers are not acting?

For what it's worth, money isn't useful in and of itself. You have to use it to buy other goods. So really when you buy sex, you're trading a good for another, in the larger scheme of things. But all of this doesn't matter, because you still haven't explained what it is about being paid by your client directly instead of through the intermediary of a company that makes prostitution so much more damaging.

I guess I don't understand what you're getting at. I simply think that paying someone to have sex with you is wrong. Whether it is through a regulated system or through the black market, it strikes me as wholly disgusting. I firmly believe people enter prostitution out of desperation and as a means to an end. I think research into what truly drives people into prostitution--and fixing that--would be a better allocation of governmental resources than regulating the industry.

 

While objective morality doesn't exist, I implore you to have a heart for those who sacrifice their social standings to pay for food for their kid, spouse, rent etc. Not every prostitute is a godless heathen sinner devil person. Tell me you've never seen someone hit rock bottom and then be rejected by those who they reach out to. This can lead to drug issues and other "disgusting" (your term, not mine) behavior. Not their fault, not most of the time. But you'd rather kick them while their down then give them a state of legitimacy by legalizing and de-stigmatizing selling sex. I'm not keen to your moral high ground that benefits no one but the egos of those who are "above" rock bottom.

Unless I'm reading it wrong, he's saying that the person who is hiring the prostitute is in the wrong, and that people who are forced to result to prostitution are in need of help.

We allow television, advertising and other media to sell sex constantly, yet we get upset when an individual must resort to it.

 

I love our society.

Well, for clarification, I still want it legalized, just not regulated.

 

Glad you agree with my logic, even if you don't draw the same conclusion.

I'm not quite sure what you think the benefits of keeping it regulated (in the sense that it's not allowed) are if you think that legalization and regulation is problematic.

Prosecution is easier when the entire act is illegal.

 

I'll give an example with alcohol. Possessing alcohol is not a crime, consuming alcohol is not a crime, but distilling your own is a crime. It is more difficult to prove that someone illegally distilled alcohol than they possessed or consumed alcohol.

So your position is similar to Range's? Again, I'm opposed to prohibition regardless of whether it works or not. It just conveniently happens not to work.

We allow television, advertising and other media to sell sex constantly, yet we get upset when an individual must resort to it.

I don't think those of us who are against the legalisation of prostitution are "upset" with those individuals who are forced into that situation. I know you were making a flippant point, but it was one that completely misrepresented how we feel about the issue nevertheless.

So your position is similar to Range's? Again, I'm opposed to prohibition regardless of whether it works or not. It just conveniently happens not to work.

There's enough undesirable things that surround prostitution that I'd rather the entirety of it be illegal than legal. I understand the hypocrisy of some of the laws right now; the difference between pornography and prostitution is only a web camera and an upload. Regardless of these loopholes and inconsistencies it's enough to keep the majority of the population from engaging in it.

 

For now you'll just have to settle on titty bars.

We allow television, advertising and other media to sell sex constantly, yet we get upset when an individual must resort to it.

I don't think those of us who are against the legalisation of prostitution are "upset" with those individuals who are forced into that situation. I know you were making a flippant point, but it was one that completely misrepresented how we feel about the issue nevertheless.

 

I'm not pointing the finger at anyone here, it was a comment about how society in general views prostitution.

Not just prostitution, but sex in general. We have a very immature attitude towards anything concerning sex. I agree with you. The best one is how much of medieval and renaissance art depicts naked figures, and how these works are seen as "cultural", but a lad's magazine in 2013 does the same and it's "porn". The only difference is the medium; it's a total contradiction.

Having prostitution illegal allows for the government to identify and help those in most need. Not saying they do a good job, just saying it gives them the opportunity to.

 

I'd love to know how having prostitution illegal allows the government to identify and help those in most need, when it merely pushes the market underground. Opportunity? If they've never acted on said opportunity, and never can act on it, is it really even there?

 

 

So your position is similar to Range's? Again, I'm opposed to prohibition regardless of whether it works or not. It just conveniently happens not to work.

There's enough undesirable things that surround prostitution that I'd rather the entirety of it be illegal than legal. I understand the hypocrisy of some of the laws right now; the difference between pornography and prostitution is only a web camera and an upload. Regardless of these loopholes and inconsistencies it's enough to keep the majority of the population from engaging in it.

 

For now you'll just have to settle on titty bars.

 

What does entirely illegal mean? On the same level as petty crime, or as a serious felony?

So your position is similar to Range's? Again, I'm opposed to prohibition regardless of whether it works or not. It just conveniently happens not to work.

There's enough undesirable things that surround prostitution

Like what?

Like what?

Pimping, human trafficking, child abuse, STDs, assault, drug abuse, stress, trauma.

 

List goes on.

Like what?

Pimping, human trafficking, child abuse, STDs, assault, drug abuse, stress, trauma.

 

List goes on.

 

For most of that, it's not prostitution that's the problem.

It plays a part, though, doesn't it?

Like what?

Pimping, human trafficking, child abuse, STDs, assault, drug abuse, stress, trauma.

 

List goes on.

Pimping relies on the fact that prostitution is illegal. Sex workers can't defend themselves because they're "criminals". It's like saying we should not end alcohol prohibition because bootlegging would go unbridled. Assault is due to the same thing. In fact, the same thing could be said of strip clubs, but because they're legal, owners have an incentive to provide protection for the workers, because otherwise fewer people would be willing to work and earn them a profit.

 

Child abuse: I have to admit I'm a little behind on human trafficking, but I don't intuitively see causation between that and sex work.

 

Drug abuse is contingent on drug laws, and you can imagine my position on that front. Maybe in another thread.

 

STIs: Been through this already. You don't have to work with anyone who's not willing to provide a test, and you don't have to hire a sex worker if you don't know how safe it is. If you get infected from a sex worker, it's your own fault. Sue whoever lied to you, but maybe you should have checked.

 

Stress and trauma: the same applies to any line of work. Corporate office workers become sleep deprived and suffer higher rates of heart disease, but no one is thinking of making it illegal. At what point does it start to become illegal to do something you otherwise wouldn't in exchange for money? That's the definition of having a job.