Sex work, sex trafficking, and the law

[Randox]

A very long story short, I would lean towards legalization for the simple reason that where prostitution has been outlawed by law, we have inadvertently created an underclass who can be abused with almost no fear of consequence. They can't go to the police without incriminating themselves, so they stay silent. It would also create the potential for some measure of regulation.

[Range_This11]

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.

 

Perhaps if those drugs weren't illegal, it wouldn't be such a problem. For what it's worth, I have a friend whose mother stripped when he was very young in order to feed her family, and although he won't set foot in a strip club, he's still in favour of legalizing prostitution, despite the fact that some people are "forced" into it. As for the bureaucracy issue, read the article. Prohibition already ruins lives.

I don't think it truly matters where a person gets drugs from, as long as he or she can get them. And frankly, I don't care if people choose to use drugs. Is your friend embarrassed that his mother was an erotic dancer? Does he share that freely and proudly with others in his social cohort? My guess would be that he does not. Being a stripper is a far cry from being a prostitute. That is, unless the dancer takes his/her customers to the RV or the backroom.

[Tesset]

The thing is, you can't say prostitution doesn't affect anyone besides the two engaged. Even besides the STD problem, and the regulation difficulties, there's this thing called the broken windows theory, which basically says that if there is a minor problem in a neighborhood/community/society, it invites bigger problems simply by being visible. So, graffiti isn't just a sign of gangs being around, but a cause of it as well, because as you see the graffiti go (at least seemingly) unpunished, you feel that you could benefit from being in a gang just the same.

 

It applies not just to problems of legality, but also of morality. If everyday you see a prostitute on the corner, at a very subconscious level, this tells you that the rules/societal stigmas/your own morals that keep you from doing something "wrong." Even if you personally find no immorality in prosititution, you might take less credit of the opinions of someone who does, because if there's a hooker on your corner everyday, it can't be wrong.

 

There's no action that doesn't have an effect on the people around you, however slightly. For that reason, it's really hard to justify the "If it doesn't harm someone else" argument because there's a good chance it does.

[muggiwhplar]

I feel like someone should make a new thread to discuss the concept of morality >_>

[RpgGamer]

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.

[Range_This11]

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.

[Range_This11]

I feel like someone should make a new thread to discuss the concept of morality >_>

Screw that.

[Kaida23]

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

Not necessarily. One of the people is often also the producer and so isn't being paid directly for having sex. The point Rpg is making is that in both cases a woman is being paid to have sex, but pornography is legal.

 

I'm not entirely sure why though. No one has ever really been able to articulate the difference to me without it circling back around to prostitution.

[Alg]

I feel like someone should make a new thread to discuss the concept of morality >_>

Screw that.

More trouble than it's worth :razz:

[Omar]

I think it was one of the last debate threads we had and it didn't turn out too good IIRC.

[Range_This11]

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

Not necessarily. One of the people is often also the producer and so isn't being paid directly for having sex. The point Rpg is making is that in both cases a woman is being paid to have sex, but pornography is legal.

 

I'm not entirely sure why though. No one has ever really been able to articulate the difference to me without it circling back around to prostitution.

I understand exactly what was said, but if both parties are being paid for the act, whether directly or indirectly, then it is not prostitution.

[Tesset]

Besides, I feel like if we hammer out morality in every single discussion thread, as TIF tends to, it'll be about the same thing.

[Ezee]

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

Not necessarily. One of the people is often also the producer and so isn't being paid directly for having sex. The point Rpg is making is that in both cases a woman is being paid to have sex, but pornography is legal.

 

I'm not entirely sure why though. No one has ever really been able to articulate the difference to me without it circling back around to prostitution.

 

Not always just two people, just sayin'

[Assume Nothing]

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.

[Omar]

I don't want it placed in the hands of a bureaucracy. It already is. Now, don't get me wrong, prostitution can be a very big mistake. But keeping it illegal makes the consequences of that mistake much more dire (as pointed out in the OP article). Also, if objective morality doesn't exist, then there's reason to impose community/family values on people.

Anything that is subject to law is in the hands of bureaucracy, but trying to regulate it subjects it to even more bureaucracy.

 

I'm not trying to impose family values on anyone here. My point was that a daughter or son who turns to prostitution will probably be less likely to be accepted by his or her family. A husband or wife who engages in prostitution will probably cause harm to the marriage as well as subject the hypothetical children to social embarrassment.

 

To go back to this, my point was that if you're stopping people from going into the sex trade because they'll lose their family's acceptance, you're telling to value the first less than the latter, and stopping them from doing otherwise. This doesn't jive with your claim that nothing is objectively valuable.

On the distinction between pornography and prostitution: obviously those two things aren't the same. That's not the question. The question is whether the grounds on which prostitution is kept illegal are applicable to pornography. Now, I don't see what it is about the distinction you made that doesn't allow me to replace "prostitution" with "pornography" in your arguments against the former and end up with anything other than nonsense.

 

 

To whomever pointed out the broken window theory: the windows are already broken, and we're trying to fix them. If crime creates more crime, making something legal won't increase the amount of crime. If, rather than crime, it's behaviours that are frowned upon that favor crime, legalizing prostitution wouldn't make things worse.

On top of this, saying that you shouldn't implement a policy because it could affect other innocent people (essentially the "harm principle") is misleading. Let's take this for an example: Jim has been trying to win Sally over for the past two years. He is just about to propose to her, and he knows that she will accept to marry him. But seconds before, John comes in, sweeps Sally off her feet, and off they go.

Jim has clearly been harmed, but the reason why no one thinks this shouldn't be allowed is that Sally is not Jim's property. He doesn't decide where she goes and with whom. The same is applicable here. Those who engage in the sex trade aren't responsible for the broken window effect. No one has a claim on their behaviour--it's not their property. Those responsible for the broken window effect are the ones responsible for the crimes, and there's no reason why anyone else should be punished in their place.

 

 

@Assume: You underestimate the amount of males in gay porn who are heterosexual. To be at the "top" of the ladder in that industry, a great deal of sacrifice is required.

[Tesset]

If, rather than crime, it's behaviours that are frowned upon that favor crime, legalizing prostitution wouldn't make things worse.

But it would, because legalizing prostitution (or weed, or guns, or piracy, etc) will make it more prevalent. And the more broken windows, the more anarchic things feel to potential criminals.

 

On top of this, saying that you shouldn't implement a policy because it could affect other innocent people (essentially the "harm principle") is misleading. Let's take this for an example: Jim has been trying to win Sally over for the past two years. He is just about to propose to her, and he knows that she will accept to marry him. But seconds before, John comes in, sweeps Sally off her feet, and off they go.

Jim has clearly been harmed, but the reason why no one thinks this shouldn't be allowed is that Sally is not Jim's property. He doesn't decide where she goes and with whom. The same is applicable here. Those who engage in the sex trade aren't responsible for the broken window effect. No one has a claim on their behaviour--it's not their property. Those responsible for the broken window effect are the ones responsible for the crimes, and there's no reason why anyone else should be punished in their place.

But the government does have a claim on a behavior that is illegal. So long as prostitution is illegal, you can control to a certain extent that broken window.

 

But you're right - you can't punish someone for contributing to crime if they haven't actually committed a crime.

 

 

I'm not actually sure how I feel about this whole thing. On the one hand, it would be nice to think that it would raise living standards for sex workers who work in a very dangerous environment. On the other hand, legalization would definitely make things worse before they got better.

[RpgGamer]

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.

 

@Range, if your definition of pornography and prostitution only differs in payment plans consider this: you(client) pay(cash) to recieve sex. The employed sex worker is paid in cash and possibly hourly wages or whatever from the brothel. On top of that, the employed sex worker is paid in sex. Mutually, the employed sex worker pays sex for sex in a sense. The employee gets to enjoy sex likely just as much as the client (especially if terms are discussed and a mutual agreement is made).

 

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.

[Range_This11]

Some might argue that pornography is erotic art (see the director's character in Boogie Nights). It is created for viewing pleasure and the participants are definitely acting. If you think that the women in those videos are actually having screaming orgasms 100% of the time, then you are quite mistaken. They act, are recorded, and the videos are produced and distributed through different mediums. Furthermore, I doubt that prostitutes or those working in brothels consider sex a form of payment. Perhaps the extremely high-paid escorts do if they encounter a good-looking and wealthy customer, but I would guess that most prostitutes do not enjoy fat, sweaty, old strangers humping them day in and day out.

 

The difference still remains. Sexual enjoyment--for the person paying the prostitute--is not hard currency (heh) and cannot be spent or saved. Only one person of the two engaged in a sexual encounter is receiving money in a brothel or on the street corner.

[Kaida23]

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.

I'm already very familiar with all things Firefly. ;) But you're right, they definitely had the right idea. Unfortunately, as "Heart of Gold" showed us, even they still had a problem with unregistered women being mistreated.

[Omar]

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.

@Tyler: How would the "problem" become worse in the short run? The government isn't controlling the sex trade in any way to prevent broken windows, just like it isn't controlling the drug trade, and just like it didn't control the alcohol trade during Prohibition. By making prostitution illegal, the government is decreasing its supply, thereby making sure that pimps, instead of more law-abiding citizens, control it, and increasing their incentive to do so by driving prices up.

[highlanders]

I don't care what people do, as long as they keep their shit out of my face. I don't wanna see it, I don't wanna hear about it. Escorts are fine by me, people do their business and I never know about it. If this were to be legalized, you'd end up with whorehouses at every street corner. That breaks the golden "not in my face" rule. No support.

Actually, "not in my face" would be "not on my property", which every street corner is not.

Nope. Not my in my face = not in the open. What people do behind closed doors bothers no one. But when you have half naked girls in window display boxes dancing suggestively at every street corner, where people and children will be walking, that's a public nuisance.

[sees_all1]

In the U.S., alcohol is taxed, regulated and legal. There are still huge problems with illegal distilleries.

 

Until proponents of legalizing and regulating XYZ can explain to me how to deal with America's illegal alcohol problems, I'm going to ignore their argument about how legalization makes for safer activities and less crime.

[Assume Nothing]

... you think the problems with illegal distilleries would be the same regardless of regulation? It's fairly straightforward that driving markets underground exposes it to more dangers than otherwise.

[Assume Nothing]

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.

[Range_This11]

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.