Full Version: Should we Legalize Prostitution?
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 27 2005, 11:28 AM)
With all due respect.......what's your point? I have acknowledged the fact that the laws are on the books, the question for debate was Should we Legalize Prostitution? I assumed that was what we were debating.
I'm confidant that there are issues where you don't believe your government or representatives share your concerns or beliefs, this is an issue that I have along those lines.
Do you lean more towards the concept of individual rights or your laws of morality?
Well, I already answered these questions several times.
I was originally for the idea of legalized prostitution until I thought it through more carefully.
Now, I am against the idea.
Why? Because it's another force that will pull families apart. It will hurt women the most and particularly single mothers. Sex is a tie that binds people together. When sex is marginalized (as it is in prostitution, porn, and similar things), then one more tie that keeps people together is lost.
I think that most of our social pathologies are the DIRECT result of the breakdown of the family. And what pulls families apart? The most common reason is adultery; with a prostitute or another. The divorce rate in this nation speaks for itself. Yet, the impact of the family is often ignored by the left who clamor for more state control over children, more funding for federal programs, and who denigrate "family" based initiatives as quaint, lacking sophistication, unrealistic, naive, or an attempt to force "morality" on others.
And it's the kids that suffer the most. Kids from a broken home are far more likely to engage in bad behaviors which they will carry to the next generation. Crime, drug use, low achievement.... all can be directly linked to the breakdown of the family.
This is nothing to do with "morality". I'm an atheist. I'm not the member of any organized religion. However, I think that I'm rational and realistic about how societies stay together in a positive way, or implode.
Like a house, a structure cannot stand up unless the foundation is strong. And the foundation of any civilization, of any society, is the basic family unit. And that unit is under attack in America and has been for some time. As President Bush would put it, prostitution is only one theater in the war to save the family. There are many more battles being fought.
And, unfortunately, when one accepts this premise, the political forces that are most often on the side of those who attack that foundation and who act like termites eating away at the basis of our societal structure, are those from the "left".
I believe in civilization and the rule of law. I see those conditions as a pre-requisite to human freedom and liberty. Therefore, I will continue to oppose all who undermine those two concepts. And, the legalization of prostitution is one of these issues.
Your posts sounds great when you speak abstractly. But two points of contention that have with your point of view are these:
Why? Because it's another force that will pull families apart. It will hurt women the most and particularly single mothers. Sex is a tie that binds people together. When sex is marginalizes (as it is in prostitution, porn, and similar things), then one more tie that keeps people together is lost.
Can you cite any evidence whatsoever that prostitution harms a marriage anymore than non-monetary infidelity, money issues, abuse, or various other addictions or afflictions? How in the world are single mothers affected? If more men go to prostitutes, then there's less chance of them getting a date?? Many couples use pornography to enhance their sex life, are they then marginalizing sex unwittingly? Pardon my crassness, but with morality in mind, is anything other than missionary with the lights off, marginalizing a couples sex life?
Can you cite the correlation between the approximate number of men who pay for sex and the number of divorces? And if you can, does it back up your point?
I believe in civilization and the rule of law. I see those conditions as a pre-requisite to human freedom and liberty. Therefore, I will continue to oppose all who undermine those two concepts. And, the legalization of prostitution is one of these issues.
Again, my poor little pea brain.......legalizing or at least de-criminalizing the act of giving money for a consensual act between two consenting adults, an act that seemingly in your world would only be legal between lawfully wedded adults........that undermines human freedom and liberty????
I'm all for promoting healthy families, and I agree completely that permissiveness, lack of discipline, and otherwise poor parenting has led to a distinct downfall of good citizenship in our country today. I may blame many trends and attitudes for this, but the legality or illegality of prostitution is not one of them.
Why? Because it's another force that will pull families apart. It will hurt women the most and particularly single mothers. Sex is a tie that binds people together. When sex is marginalizes (as it is in prostitution, porn, and similar things), then one more tie that keeps people together is lost.
Can you cite any evidence whatsoever that prostitution harms a marriage anymore than non-monetary infidelity, money issues, abuse, or various other addictions or afflictions? How in the world are single mothers affected? If more men go to prostitutes, then there's less chance of them getting a date?? Many couples use pornography to enhance their sex life, are they then marginalizing sex unwittingly? Pardon my crassness, but with morality in mind, is anything other than missionary with the lights off, marginalizing a couples sex life?
Can you cite the correlation between the approximate number of men who pay for sex and the number of divorces? And if you can, does it back up your point?
I believe in civilization and the rule of law. I see those conditions as a pre-requisite to human freedom and liberty. Therefore, I will continue to oppose all who undermine those two concepts. And, the legalization of prostitution is one of these issues.
Again, my poor little pea brain.......legalizing or at least de-criminalizing the act of giving money for a consensual act between two consenting adults, an act that seemingly in your world would only be legal between lawfully wedded adults........that undermines human freedom and liberty????
I'm all for promoting healthy families, and I agree completely that permissiveness, lack of discipline, and otherwise poor parenting has led to a distinct downfall of good citizenship in our country today. I may blame many trends and attitudes for this, but the legality or illegality of prostitution is not one of them.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 27 2005, 12:01 PM)
Your posts sounds great when you speak abstractly. But two points of contention that have with your point of view are these:
Why? Because it's another force that will pull families apart. It will hurt women the most and particularly single mothers. Sex is a tie that binds people together. When sex is marginalizes (as it is in prostitution, porn, and similar things), then one more tie that keeps people together is lost.
Can you cite any evidence whatsoever that prostitution harms a marriage anymore than non-monetary infidelity, money issues, abuse, or various other addictions or afflictions? How in the world are single mothers affected? If more men go to prostitutes, then there's less chance of them getting a date?? Many couples use pornography to enhance their sex life, are they then marginalizing sex unwittingly? Pardon my crassness, but with morality in mind, is anything other than missionary with the lights off, marginalizing a couples sex life?
Can you cite the correlation between the approximate number of men who pay for sex and the number of divorces? And if you can, does it back up your point?
I believe in civilization and the rule of law. I see those conditions as a pre-requisite to human freedom and liberty. Therefore, I will continue to oppose all who undermine those two concepts. And, the legalization of prostitution is one of these issues.
Again, my poor little pea brain.......legalizing or at least de-criminalizing the act of giving money for a consensual act between two consenting adults, an act that seemingly in your world would only be legal between lawfully wedded adults........that undermines human freedom and liberty????
I'm all for promoting healthy families, and I agree completely that permissiveness, lack of discipline, and otherwise poor parenting has led to a distinct downfall of good citizenship in our country today. I may blame many trends and attitudes for this, but the legality or illegality of prostitution is not one of them.
Why? Because it's another force that will pull families apart. It will hurt women the most and particularly single mothers. Sex is a tie that binds people together. When sex is marginalizes (as it is in prostitution, porn, and similar things), then one more tie that keeps people together is lost.
Can you cite any evidence whatsoever that prostitution harms a marriage anymore than non-monetary infidelity, money issues, abuse, or various other addictions or afflictions? How in the world are single mothers affected? If more men go to prostitutes, then there's less chance of them getting a date?? Many couples use pornography to enhance their sex life, are they then marginalizing sex unwittingly? Pardon my crassness, but with morality in mind, is anything other than missionary with the lights off, marginalizing a couples sex life?
Can you cite the correlation between the approximate number of men who pay for sex and the number of divorces? And if you can, does it back up your point?
I believe in civilization and the rule of law. I see those conditions as a pre-requisite to human freedom and liberty. Therefore, I will continue to oppose all who undermine those two concepts. And, the legalization of prostitution is one of these issues.
Again, my poor little pea brain.......legalizing or at least de-criminalizing the act of giving money for a consensual act between two consenting adults, an act that seemingly in your world would only be legal between lawfully wedded adults........that undermines human freedom and liberty????
I'm all for promoting healthy families, and I agree completely that permissiveness, lack of discipline, and otherwise poor parenting has led to a distinct downfall of good citizenship in our country today. I may blame many trends and attitudes for this, but the legality or illegality of prostitution is not one of them.
I can't see how prostitution helps keep families together. I'd say the burden of proof is on you to cite evidence that backs up your claim.
I am wondering how far in America we will go when we start to legalizing everything?
Once we legalize something it has its way of becoming moral. Example, before 1973 abortion was wrong, immoral and against the law. Now it’s acceptable in America.
The same would happen concerning prostitution.
If you’re talking about the right to do what you want with your body, then down the road will bestiality be the next thing to legalize after pornography? I mean why not?
If you’re talking about individual rights, then yes prostitution should be made legal. But if this is made legal there are many other things along the same line that should be made legal as well. In fact, most anything someone wants to do with their own bodies should be made legal. (As long as they do not hurt anyone else) Can you think of anything the government has the right to tell someone they can’t do to their own bodies?
Shouldn’t drugs be made legal? The drug addicts don’t hurt me in any way. If they want to right to destroy their bodies and spend their money on drugs they should be allowed. We allow people to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes don’t we? They are both socially acceptable, why not legalize drugs? Legalize it and then you won’t have the dark drug underground. Put those drug pimps out of business like you said legalizing prostitution would do to the pimps.
Laws of morality is another issue altogether. We certainly live in a time defined by its fascination with obscenity. But where has humanism taken us? Take a look at Holland especially Amsterdam. I visited Amsterdam once. It’s referred to as the “Sodom among the tulips”. It’s the drug and sex capital of Europe, second only to Bangkok. Look what they have become. Do we want that? Look at Sweden’s sad story. I believe they still have the highest suicide rate in the world. Why? Everything is legal…. sex, drugs. They have a very high rate of venereal disease. I guess immorality doesn’t lead to happiness, or does it?
What are the implications of amoral behavior? Self-gratification may lead to immediate pleasure, but it invariably sacrifices the permanence of morals and health. Ask the millions of Americans who are infected with a sexually transmitted disease if that disease brings them pleasure of fun.
I think there has been a shift in this country since the 60’s, from thinking that desires for sex should never be trusted, to thinking that desires for sex should never be questioned. Society use to think sex was something personal that creates a relationship. Now sex has nothing to do with relationships but only the act itself. A shift from thinking sex should fit moral standards; to thinking moral standards should fit sex.
Do we want to become another Amsterdam? Legal live sex shows, hookers behind glass doors, and porn shops everywhere. Do we want Starbucks to add pot and hash to their menu, like their coffee houses do over there?
How far do we want to go? I personally say we should not legalize prostitution. I lean toward morality.
Once we legalize something it has its way of becoming moral. Example, before 1973 abortion was wrong, immoral and against the law. Now it’s acceptable in America.
The same would happen concerning prostitution.
If you’re talking about the right to do what you want with your body, then down the road will bestiality be the next thing to legalize after pornography? I mean why not?
QUOTE
Lordhelmet asked, “Do you lean more towards the concept of individual rights or your laws of morality?”
If you’re talking about individual rights, then yes prostitution should be made legal. But if this is made legal there are many other things along the same line that should be made legal as well. In fact, most anything someone wants to do with their own bodies should be made legal. (As long as they do not hurt anyone else) Can you think of anything the government has the right to tell someone they can’t do to their own bodies?
Shouldn’t drugs be made legal? The drug addicts don’t hurt me in any way. If they want to right to destroy their bodies and spend their money on drugs they should be allowed. We allow people to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes don’t we? They are both socially acceptable, why not legalize drugs? Legalize it and then you won’t have the dark drug underground. Put those drug pimps out of business like you said legalizing prostitution would do to the pimps.
Laws of morality is another issue altogether. We certainly live in a time defined by its fascination with obscenity. But where has humanism taken us? Take a look at Holland especially Amsterdam. I visited Amsterdam once. It’s referred to as the “Sodom among the tulips”. It’s the drug and sex capital of Europe, second only to Bangkok. Look what they have become. Do we want that? Look at Sweden’s sad story. I believe they still have the highest suicide rate in the world. Why? Everything is legal…. sex, drugs. They have a very high rate of venereal disease. I guess immorality doesn’t lead to happiness, or does it?
What are the implications of amoral behavior? Self-gratification may lead to immediate pleasure, but it invariably sacrifices the permanence of morals and health. Ask the millions of Americans who are infected with a sexually transmitted disease if that disease brings them pleasure of fun.
I think there has been a shift in this country since the 60’s, from thinking that desires for sex should never be trusted, to thinking that desires for sex should never be questioned. Society use to think sex was something personal that creates a relationship. Now sex has nothing to do with relationships but only the act itself. A shift from thinking sex should fit moral standards; to thinking moral standards should fit sex.
Do we want to become another Amsterdam? Legal live sex shows, hookers behind glass doors, and porn shops everywhere. Do we want Starbucks to add pot and hash to their menu, like their coffee houses do over there?
How far do we want to go? I personally say we should not legalize prostitution. I lean toward morality.
Yes AZ- the goverment has no business whatsoever telling me what I can or cannot do with my body- or should not anyway.
Larry Flynnt is one of my heroes for his efforts towards freeing us all from the tyranny of the Christian right- he said it best "
"When the constitution protects a scumbag like me, we are all protected"
If a nanny state is what we want, just say so.
Let the goverment determine what you eat, what you wear, who you marry, who you date, what you injest- this is what you are asking for-
If you do not wish your children to become prostitutes and drug dealers , then it is on you to teach them better NOT THE GOVERMENT-
Yes, I want drugs legal, gambling legal, prostitution legal (any other sin I missed there AZ?
)- and have PARENTS teach their children that this is not a good lifestyle- NOT the goverment to enforce the fact that society or parents did not do thier job.
The more we allow the goverment to act as our nanny to keep us "from sinning"- the more freedom we give up in the end.
Larry Flynnt is one of my heroes for his efforts towards freeing us all from the tyranny of the Christian right- he said it best "
"When the constitution protects a scumbag like me, we are all protected"
If a nanny state is what we want, just say so.
Let the goverment determine what you eat, what you wear, who you marry, who you date, what you injest- this is what you are asking for-
If you do not wish your children to become prostitutes and drug dealers , then it is on you to teach them better NOT THE GOVERMENT-
Yes, I want drugs legal, gambling legal, prostitution legal (any other sin I missed there AZ?
)- and have PARENTS teach their children that this is not a good lifestyle- NOT the goverment to enforce the fact that society or parents did not do thier job. The more we allow the goverment to act as our nanny to keep us "from sinning"- the more freedom we give up in the end.
CrusinRam said,
I think you missed a bunch Ram but I won't list them all. ha ha
I am curious however to whether you think bestiality should be legalized?
How about group marriages? Marriages between brothers and sisters?
I am curious to whether you think someone should be prosecuted for not informing the person they are having sex with that they have AIDS/HIV?
I am just plain curious as to what you think the government should tell us we can't do?
If parents taught their children that something wasn't a good lifestyle, society would frown on them and tell them they were not tolerant.
Take homosexuality. If I teach my kids that it is wrong, and they go to school and in passing conversation mention they think it is wrong, they will be looked at as intolerant. In fact they might in some states get arrested for saying so.
Today we are not supposed to say anything is wrong about anything or anyone. And by society’s values, nothing is wrong, except failing to send in your tax money.
QUOTE
Yes, I want drugs legal, gambling legal, prostitution legal (any other sin I missed there AZ? )- and have PARENTS teach their children that this is not a good lifestyle- NOT the government to enforce the fact that society or parents did not do their job.
I think you missed a bunch Ram but I won't list them all. ha ha
I am curious however to whether you think bestiality should be legalized?
How about group marriages? Marriages between brothers and sisters?
I am curious to whether you think someone should be prosecuted for not informing the person they are having sex with that they have AIDS/HIV?
I am just plain curious as to what you think the government should tell us we can't do?
If parents taught their children that something wasn't a good lifestyle, society would frown on them and tell them they were not tolerant.
Take homosexuality. If I teach my kids that it is wrong, and they go to school and in passing conversation mention they think it is wrong, they will be looked at as intolerant. In fact they might in some states get arrested for saying so.
Today we are not supposed to say anything is wrong about anything or anyone. And by society’s values, nothing is wrong, except failing to send in your tax money.
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Jul 27 2005, 11:06 AM)
I can't see how prostitution helps keep families together. I'd say the burden of proof is on you to cite evidence that backs up your claim.
Allow me to state the glaring obvious. Legalizing prostitution isn't meant to do anything regarding the family, much less keep them together. The issue would be whether or not I could pay money for a legal consensual act with another consenting adult, if I so chose to. The family has absolutely nothing to do with this debate until you can cite some sort of empirical evidence that places the majority, hell even a minority of divorces on the doorstep of prostitution.
QUOTE(azchurchmouse Today @ 12:21 PM)
QUOTE
Lordhelmet asked, “Do you lean more towards the concept of individual rights or your laws of morality?”
If you’re talking about individual rights, then yes prostitution should be made legal. But if this is made legal there are many other things along the same line that should be made legal as well. In fact, most anything someone wants to do with their own bodies should be made legal. (As long as they do not hurt anyone else) Can you think of anything the government has the right to tell someone they can’t do to their own bodies?
Allow me a small correction here. I asked that question. And to answer your question, off the top of my head I can't think of anything that the government has the right to tell someone they can’t do to their own bodies.
QUOTE(azchurchmouse Today @ 01:02 PM)
I am curious however to whether you think bestiality should be legalized?
How about group marriages? Marriages between brothers and sisters?
I am curious to whether you think someone should be prosecuted for not informing the person they are having sex with that they have AIDS/HIV?
How about group marriages? Marriages between brothers and sisters?
I am curious to whether you think someone should be prosecuted for not informing the person they are having sex with that they have AIDS/HIV?
You're fond of the slippery slope argument, but it works both ways. If prostitution is illegal, then shouldn't all pornography be also? What about sex before marriage? Anything other than missionary between lawfully wedded couples? (i.e. sodomy) What about masturbation? Does your and LH's definition of morality and family values say that the above are harmful and thus should be outlawed?
There are obvious genetic issues with incest, animal abuse with bestiality and obvious assault with not informing partners of HIV positive status, so why exactly are you bringing them into the debate? If bringing up the issue of STD's, do you honestly believe that safe sex is practiced less in prostitution than in casual sex not involving money transactions?
QUOTE
I can't see how prostitution helps keep families together. I'd say the burden of proof is on you to cite evidence that backs up your claim.
Wow. So, wait, you make an unsubstantiated claim for the second time on this page of the thread...and we [DTOM] have to prove it wrong? No, you have to prove your claim. By the way, so far, that unsubstantiated claim is your only given reason as to why prostitution shouldn't be legalized.
CP
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Jul 27 2005, 12:06 PM)
I can't see how prostitution helps keep families together. I'd say the burden of proof is on you to cite evidence that backs up your claim.
And I'd say the burden of proof is on you to cite evidence that backs up your claim that prostitution pulls families apart.I wrote a story in 2001 about Internet prostituion. She quit a job working for the U.S. Justice Department to become an escort. She had some thoughts on the idea that prostitution shatters families.
Truth be told, the incredibly imprecise process that most men and women go through before they end up in bed together is also a game of dates, movies, dinners, and evenings where money is spent with the unspoken objective that after X amount of nights out somebody is going to put out. You're paying for it one way or the other. When you're paying a prostitute though you don't have to bring flowers or promise to call her tomorrow.
Men cannot always ask their wives What is wrong? many times because they do not fully understand themselves. They might not even care what exactly IS wrong but may be explaining a series of events that happen over and over. For me, it is the job of a courtesan to be able to get into the mind of the man she is with and think how he thinks and then from there think how his wife thinks and relate it to him in a way he can understand. There are many men who visit who are committing adultry with their wives spoken and/or unspoken permission. Either way it is not my job to enforce a marriage contract. It is my job to make sure the men have a nice time and make money. It is better to have a man pay for a discreet encounter than to have him go out looking for a one night stand, lover, girlfriend... new wife? etc. From what I understand, the women who are civilians (those who do it without pay) are a LOT less discreet and more likely than a professional to have unprotected sex and just in general cause havoc for the man. An escort or mistress is paid for many reasons... not the least of which is to make sure their marriage stays TOGETHER.
There are a lot of men (and women) who are in crappy marriages or good marriages where the sex has gone bad. Now we can tell expect these guys to just suck it up and get a subscription to Penthouse, or we can face reality and realize where there is a need there will be those to meet that need.
You want to change that lordhelmet? First, you'd better find a way to put a "off" switch on the male sex drive. The opponents of decriminalizing prostitution focus their efforts on punishing the one who supplies, not the one who demands. That focus is skewed and doomed to failure, but it does preserve the options of men while sanctioning the women who cater to the options.
Dontreadonme said,
Yes, it does work both ways. The whole thing in my opinion is one big slippery slope. We are talking also about how far we can go.
If prostitution is legal shouldn’t everything else be made legal, like the things I listed? We are talking about personal rights here. You might think it's wrong but if any sister and brother wanted to get married they should be allowed. And they should be allowed to have children.
If I wanted to have sex with one of my barn yard animals, I should be allowed. Right? Sodomy and all sex acts should be made legal. No laws concerning sex should be on the books. All pornography legal except child pornography, they are minors. If it’s legal to smoke or drink in public places, then why not have sex also, if it’s so natural and legal.
And your point? There are issues with alcohol and cigarette smoking as well, but they are legal. We are talking about the right to do with YOUR body as you so wish.
Woman have the right to have an abortion, and there are many issues with that.....so why not bestiality? You’re going to tell me I can't. Isn't that being intolerant of my rights? I own the animal; I own my body, so what?
I'm playin devils advocate here because this is all so immoral to me. And I am being upfront and honest when I say that. People might find me prudish and ridiculous but they are my opinions as yours are to you. I know we can't talk religion here, but faith and a religious worldview play into this debate, to me they can't be separated.
I realize I am pushin it, but I did it to make a point. If you say that a person has the right to do what they wish with their bodies, then you have to open it up to everything on the list. Because what right would you have to determine what things they can do?
I think prostitutes would have a greater opportunity to contract or spread a sex disease than the normal person. Why do you think they are tested as often as they are?
If you speed on a regular basis, you’re more likely to get a ticket or die in a car accident. If you smoke your more susceptible to lung cancer, alcohol with liver cancer....if you’re a sun worshipper you’re more likely to get skin cancer.
I would think if you’re a prostitute male or female, and you have sex with multiple partners on a daily basis, you would be more likely to get or spread something.
It just makes sense. This has nothing to do with money exchanging hands.
QUOTE
"If prostitution is illegal, then shouldn't all pornography be also? What about sex before marriage? Anything other than missionary between lawfully wedded couples? (i.e. sodomy) What about masturbation? Does your and LH's definition of morality and family values say that the above are harmful and thus should be outlawed?"
Yes, it does work both ways. The whole thing in my opinion is one big slippery slope. We are talking also about how far we can go.
If prostitution is legal shouldn’t everything else be made legal, like the things I listed? We are talking about personal rights here. You might think it's wrong but if any sister and brother wanted to get married they should be allowed. And they should be allowed to have children.
If I wanted to have sex with one of my barn yard animals, I should be allowed. Right? Sodomy and all sex acts should be made legal. No laws concerning sex should be on the books. All pornography legal except child pornography, they are minors. If it’s legal to smoke or drink in public places, then why not have sex also, if it’s so natural and legal.
QUOTE
"There are obvious genetic issues with incest, animal abuse with bestiality
And your point? There are issues with alcohol and cigarette smoking as well, but they are legal. We are talking about the right to do with YOUR body as you so wish.
Woman have the right to have an abortion, and there are many issues with that.....so why not bestiality? You’re going to tell me I can't. Isn't that being intolerant of my rights? I own the animal; I own my body, so what?
I'm playin devils advocate here because this is all so immoral to me. And I am being upfront and honest when I say that. People might find me prudish and ridiculous but they are my opinions as yours are to you. I know we can't talk religion here, but faith and a religious worldview play into this debate, to me they can't be separated.
I realize I am pushin it, but I did it to make a point. If you say that a person has the right to do what they wish with their bodies, then you have to open it up to everything on the list. Because what right would you have to determine what things they can do?
QUOTE
If bringing up the issue of STD's, do you honestly believe that safe sex is practiced less in prostitution than in casual sex not involving money transactions?
I think prostitutes would have a greater opportunity to contract or spread a sex disease than the normal person. Why do you think they are tested as often as they are?
If you speed on a regular basis, you’re more likely to get a ticket or die in a car accident. If you smoke your more susceptible to lung cancer, alcohol with liver cancer....if you’re a sun worshipper you’re more likely to get skin cancer.
I would think if you’re a prostitute male or female, and you have sex with multiple partners on a daily basis, you would be more likely to get or spread something.
It just makes sense. This has nothing to do with money exchanging hands.
QUOTE
There are a lot of men (and women) who are in crappy marriages or good marriages where the sex has gone bad. Now we can tell expect these guys to just suck it up and get a subscription to Penthouse, or we can face reality and realize where there is a need there will be those to meet that need.
I'll tell you what you should say......You tell someone who is married, to be responsible to the one they have committed thier lives to. You remind them that they took an oath, for good and bad, ............
For a wife, who finds out her husband has been with prostitutes and then coming home and sleeping with her............What I ask you is that?
There is no excuse on earth for this kind of lie and deception. No excuse.
If your a man and you don't like that your wife won't do a particular sex act and you feel that urge to do it with prostitute because the wife doesn't float your boat any more....,,,,,,,,, at least have the guts and the decensy to tell your spouse before you do it. Give her the option of either throwing you out on your can, filing for divorce or accepting your decision.
Do not decieve her just because your out of control. Be a man, and tell her.
How many of you men here, (try to be honest) would care and accept it, if you found out that your wife had been with men who sell sex because you just didnt do it for her anymore? Would the deception and lies stop you from loving her and accepting what she did as a positive thing? Would you let her continue seeing the male prostitute.
I think afraid to hear the replies.............
QUOTE(azchurchmouse @ Jul 27 2005, 03:03 PM)
QUOTE
If bringing up the issue of STD's, do you honestly believe that safe sex is practiced less in prostitution than in casual sex not involving money transactions?
I think prostitutes would have a greater opportunity to contract or spread a sex disease than the normal person. Why do you think they are tested as often as they are?
If you speed on a regular basis, you’re more likely to get a ticket or die in a car accident. If you smoke your more susceptible to lung cancer, alcohol with liver cancer....if you’re a sun worshipper you’re more likely to get skin cancer.
I would think if you’re a prostitute male or female, and you have sex with multiple partners on a daily basis, you would be more likely to get or spread something.
It just makes sense. This has nothing to do with money exchanging hands.
AZ, I certainly respect your opinions, and am pleased you have felt comfortable enough to voice them here.
In response to your quote above, I kindly refer you to this article.
The relevant paragraphs:
QUOTE
It matters little that scientific data do NOT support the common belief that sex workers are major contributors of sexually transmitted infections in the USA. The Centers for Disease Control have conducted several tests for HIV seropositivity in prostitutes and consistently conclude "risk factors for AIDS in female prostitutes may be similar to those in other women living in these [tested] geographic areas." (3) In other words, although the US government would love to prove otherwise, US prostitutes spread no more disease than US housewives and college girls. Some evidence even supports the contention that the presence of prostitutes DECREASES the incidence of STIs as Rita Brock and Susan Thistlethwaite point out in their book, Casting Stones: “When the Chicken Ranch, the famous Texas brothel, was closed, the number of gonorrhea cases in the general population rose substantially. Venereal disease also rose substantially when brothels were closed from 1917 to 1920. U.S Department of Public Health statistics have been consistently reporting that only 5 percent of sexually transmitted disease in the United States is related to prostitution, compared to 30 to 35 percent that is transmitted among sexually active teenagers. . . . The National Research Council notes: ‘Many people fear that prostitutes (who by definition have multiple sex partners) will not adopt safer sex practices with their clients and will therefore be the conduit through which HIV infection will spread to the heterosexual population. Yet existing data on prostitutes do not support this concern.’ “
Many here seem to suffer from "Cyprianophobia" - a fear of prostitutes and/or venereal disease.
source
QUOTE(ExistentialHedonist @ Jul 27 2005, 05:31 AM)
I have to ask- just how am I not supposed to blend in, exactly? Do you expect me to smell different? Shall I wear a scarlet letter "P" pinned to my blouse? Should I announce to all and sundry my sexual proclivities? Or should I just stick to telling them what my day job is? Perhaps I am a teacher too...or a guidance counselor... should I make all of my income activities public? Why is it any of your business?
Does the principle at your school make his penchant for S&M known to the PTA? Or how about the Phys Ed teacher's making his weekly visits to a massage parlor known to the schoolboard? And what about the lunch-lady's occasional dalliance with the young bisexual call girl? And the drama teacher's moonlighting as a phone-sex operator? Do you expect them all to 'fess up?
ExistentialHedonist:
I think you have hit dead on the 10X. Prostitution is illegal because of an outdated puritan ethic that still pollutes our society, by women who didn't want the competition, and by men who want the control. There is no logical, nor Constitutional reasons to make prostitution illegal.
Nor frankly is it anyones business if you are a full time, part time, or occasional prostitute, well other than your clients and the IRS anyway. Stick to your guns and do not let the people who are afraid of sex and sexuality beat you down.
Thank you for your warm support, Vandeervecken! I appreciate it.
QUOTE(ExistentialHedonist @ Jul 28 2005, 01:43 AM)
Thank you for your warm support, Vandeervecken! I appreciate it.
Please save such thoughts for PMs. Posts are to be constructive and on-topic.DEBATE:
1.) Should prostitution be made legal in the United States? Why or why not?
2.) Who does it harm and how?
3.) Are there any possible benefits to legalizing prostitution? If so, what are they?
QUOTE
I'll tell you what you should say......You tell someone who is married, to be responsible to the one they have committed thier lives to. You remind them that they took an oath, for good and bad, ............
For a wife, who finds out her husband has been with prostitutes and then coming home and sleeping with her............What I ask you is that?
There is no excuse on earth for this kind of lie and deception. No excuse.
If your a man and you don't like that your wife won't do a particular sex act and you feel that urge to do it with prostitute because the wife doesn't float your boat any more....,,,,,,,,, at least have the guts and the decensy to tell your spouse before you do it. Give her the option of either throwing you out on your can, filing for divorce or accepting your decision.
Do not decieve her just because your out of control. Be a man, and tell her.
For a wife, who finds out her husband has been with prostitutes and then coming home and sleeping with her............What I ask you is that?
There is no excuse on earth for this kind of lie and deception. No excuse.
If your a man and you don't like that your wife won't do a particular sex act and you feel that urge to do it with prostitute because the wife doesn't float your boat any more....,,,,,,,,, at least have the guts and the decensy to tell your spouse before you do it. Give her the option of either throwing you out on your can, filing for divorce or accepting your decision.
Do not decieve her just because your out of control. Be a man, and tell her.
While I do agree with you that those are compelling reasons not to "use" a prostitute, it is no reason for the government to make it illegal to do so. The only reasons that I've read in this thread to keep prostitution illegal are variations of "it's wrong/immoral". That may be [I think it is] true, but that is no reason for the government to criminalize it. So other than it's not right, or it's not decent or it's not the manly thing to do, why should the government prevent anyone from buying some time with a prostitute?
CP
Hmmm...good thoughts, AZ, but rather unrealistic for most people I imagine. 
I recently came across this in another message forum, and the source is listed beneath it:
Source
I recently came across this in another message forum, and the source is listed beneath it:QUOTE
THE PREHISTORIC ORIGINS OF PROSTITUTION
Contrary to conventional "wisdom," prostitution has a long and noble legacy, one that began hundreds of thousands of years ago among our prehistoric ancestors. Indeed, it is not only the oldest profession, it is the profession on which both monogamous marriage and human society were originally founded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM PROMISCUITY TO PAIR-BONDING
At one time, early humans were promiscuous. Like our closest living relatives, the gorilla, chimpanzee, and orangutan, they were pansexual; that is, prehistoric women and men engaged in sexual activities with all other group members, female and male, young and old. This sexual behavioral pattern would eventually change, however, from rampant promiscuity to one in which we formed pair-bonds based around female prostitution. This transformation occurred around 1 million years ago in an early human ancestor known as Homo erectus. Any animal behavior that spans such an enormous length of time will become biologically programmed into that animal's genetic code. And this is precisely what happened in humans when we switched from promiscuity to pair-bonding. To this day-because it is now a genetically determined behavior-pair-bonding is the type of bonding that the majority of women and men in every culture and society engage most actively in. What is the name of this pair-bond?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE HUMAN SEXUAL CONDITION: PROGRAMMED FOR POLYGAMY
There are some individuals who would call it "lifetime monogamy." But those individuals would be wrong. In fact, anthropological studies show that humans are not designed for lifetime monogamy, and that even in societies (such as the U.S.A. and England) where lifetime monogamy is held to be the ideal, only a tiny fraction of couples actually practice it. To the contrary, nearly all people, following our prehistoric ancestor's basic mating pattern, form a temporary pair-bond with a single mate, separate, then go in search of a new partner with whom she or he forms another brief, tenuous bond. This primal custom is overtly reflected in our obsession with dating, and in our extremely high rates of desertion, infidelity, divorce, and remarriage. Some go even further by incorrectly referring to this type of short-term intimate bonding as "serial monogamy." An objective observer will quickly realize, however, that our love of short-term pair-bonding is actually a form of what is called, "serial polygamy": having a series of temporary monogamous relationships; not simultaneously (as in straight polygamy), but in succession, spread out over time. More to the point, the modern human practice of both serial polygamy, and the far less popular lifetime monogamy, are rooted firmly in the soil of prostitution, an element without which no sexual relationship could exist. Let us look for a moment at the evolutionary background of our prostitution-based sexual behavior.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUR ENLARGING BRAIN & AND IMMATURE BABIES
With the passage of time, various biological pressures caused the prehistoric human brain to increase in size (a process well-documented in the human fossil record). This probably began when early humans went from independent foraging-and-scavenging groups (like living apes), to cooperative hunting-and-gathering communities, a more complex lifestyle requiring more brain power. Whatever the origins of this phenomenon, with the heads of infants now larger in size, they had to be born sooner in order to fit through the birth canal. This meant, in turn, that human babies were gradually born in a state of greater and greater immaturity. Unlike other primate babies, which mature rather quickly after they are born-and so require only a moderate amount of parental care-human infants now needed more parental care.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OF SISTERHOODS & BROTHERHOODS: FATHERHOOD IS NOT NATURAL TO HUMAN MALES
Up until this time, human mothers-like nearly all other living primate mothers continue to do-raised their offspring by themselves, in great all-female groups called "Sisterhoods," or "Matriarchies." In the 193 species of living primates, fatherhood and the two-parent family unit are literally all but unknown. Most primate males live as what primatologists call "vagabonds," in all-male groups or hunting parties called "Brotherhoods," or "Bachelorhoods." And so it always was for the human primate. That is, until the change from small-brained mature infants to large-brained immature infants. Now the burden of childrearing was so great that females needed extra help in order to protect and feed their young. It is out of this simple need that we find the origins of prostitution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SEX CONTRACT: FOOD FOR SEX, SEX FOR FOOD
Looking around them, the females found a large untapped work force in the nomadic groups of vagabond males. The question was, how to entice these independent creatures into giving up their wandering lifestyle in order to serve the interests of the females. The answer was not long in coming: the females would enlist the aid of the footloose males by offering them sex in exchange for food and protection. This arrangement, well-known to anthropologists as "The Sex Contract," was, of course, eagerly participated in by the males. The more sex the women were willing to provide, the more food and protection they received from the obliging males. Those females who prostituted themselves the most ardently, lived longest and produced the most offspring. Thus, their particular genes were passed on to the next generation in higher concentrations than those of less "sexy" females. The same process occurred among the men: those males who were most attracted to these early female prostitutes, transmitted the highest amounts of DNA into the gene pool.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEN AS PROVIDING OBJECTS, WOMEN AS SEX OBJECTS
The result today, 1 million years later, is that modern women are genetically programmed to view men as providers of material comfort, while modern men are genetically programmed to look at women as sex objects. To put it another way: the very nature of all intimate relationships between women and men is inherently prostitutional. Like their prehistoric ancestors, contemporary women provide men with sex in exchange for material goods; contemporary men provide women with material goods in exchange for sex. So strong is this genetic program that it has even been made the foundation of modern monogamous marriage: in all 50 states, by law, husbands are required to financially support their wives and children, while wives are legally required to provide sexual services to their husbands. This is why it is so difficult to convict a husband of raping his wife: until recently, the idea of "marital rape" was unthinkable. This also explains the curious fact that many men prefer that their wives not work outside the home.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFINING THE WORDS "MARRIAGE" & "WIFE"
And so we see that the monogamous bond began as a sexual contract based on mundane economic considerations rooted in prostitution. Not surprisingly, many contemporary feminists see little difference between the role a wife plays and that of a sex worker paid for hire. Dr. Dale Spender, for example, defines marriage as a form of legalized prostitution; that is, "the exchange of sexual services for material support." Andre Dworkin takes a less charitable view, calling marriage a "legal contract which sanctions rape." Some feminists, using our new politically correct vocabulary, now actually define a wife as "an unpaid sex worker." This is in contrast to a prostitute, who is defined as "a paid sex worker."
Contrary to conventional "wisdom," prostitution has a long and noble legacy, one that began hundreds of thousands of years ago among our prehistoric ancestors. Indeed, it is not only the oldest profession, it is the profession on which both monogamous marriage and human society were originally founded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM PROMISCUITY TO PAIR-BONDING
At one time, early humans were promiscuous. Like our closest living relatives, the gorilla, chimpanzee, and orangutan, they were pansexual; that is, prehistoric women and men engaged in sexual activities with all other group members, female and male, young and old. This sexual behavioral pattern would eventually change, however, from rampant promiscuity to one in which we formed pair-bonds based around female prostitution. This transformation occurred around 1 million years ago in an early human ancestor known as Homo erectus. Any animal behavior that spans such an enormous length of time will become biologically programmed into that animal's genetic code. And this is precisely what happened in humans when we switched from promiscuity to pair-bonding. To this day-because it is now a genetically determined behavior-pair-bonding is the type of bonding that the majority of women and men in every culture and society engage most actively in. What is the name of this pair-bond?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE HUMAN SEXUAL CONDITION: PROGRAMMED FOR POLYGAMY
There are some individuals who would call it "lifetime monogamy." But those individuals would be wrong. In fact, anthropological studies show that humans are not designed for lifetime monogamy, and that even in societies (such as the U.S.A. and England) where lifetime monogamy is held to be the ideal, only a tiny fraction of couples actually practice it. To the contrary, nearly all people, following our prehistoric ancestor's basic mating pattern, form a temporary pair-bond with a single mate, separate, then go in search of a new partner with whom she or he forms another brief, tenuous bond. This primal custom is overtly reflected in our obsession with dating, and in our extremely high rates of desertion, infidelity, divorce, and remarriage. Some go even further by incorrectly referring to this type of short-term intimate bonding as "serial monogamy." An objective observer will quickly realize, however, that our love of short-term pair-bonding is actually a form of what is called, "serial polygamy": having a series of temporary monogamous relationships; not simultaneously (as in straight polygamy), but in succession, spread out over time. More to the point, the modern human practice of both serial polygamy, and the far less popular lifetime monogamy, are rooted firmly in the soil of prostitution, an element without which no sexual relationship could exist. Let us look for a moment at the evolutionary background of our prostitution-based sexual behavior.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUR ENLARGING BRAIN & AND IMMATURE BABIES
With the passage of time, various biological pressures caused the prehistoric human brain to increase in size (a process well-documented in the human fossil record). This probably began when early humans went from independent foraging-and-scavenging groups (like living apes), to cooperative hunting-and-gathering communities, a more complex lifestyle requiring more brain power. Whatever the origins of this phenomenon, with the heads of infants now larger in size, they had to be born sooner in order to fit through the birth canal. This meant, in turn, that human babies were gradually born in a state of greater and greater immaturity. Unlike other primate babies, which mature rather quickly after they are born-and so require only a moderate amount of parental care-human infants now needed more parental care.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OF SISTERHOODS & BROTHERHOODS: FATHERHOOD IS NOT NATURAL TO HUMAN MALES
Up until this time, human mothers-like nearly all other living primate mothers continue to do-raised their offspring by themselves, in great all-female groups called "Sisterhoods," or "Matriarchies." In the 193 species of living primates, fatherhood and the two-parent family unit are literally all but unknown. Most primate males live as what primatologists call "vagabonds," in all-male groups or hunting parties called "Brotherhoods," or "Bachelorhoods." And so it always was for the human primate. That is, until the change from small-brained mature infants to large-brained immature infants. Now the burden of childrearing was so great that females needed extra help in order to protect and feed their young. It is out of this simple need that we find the origins of prostitution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SEX CONTRACT: FOOD FOR SEX, SEX FOR FOOD
Looking around them, the females found a large untapped work force in the nomadic groups of vagabond males. The question was, how to entice these independent creatures into giving up their wandering lifestyle in order to serve the interests of the females. The answer was not long in coming: the females would enlist the aid of the footloose males by offering them sex in exchange for food and protection. This arrangement, well-known to anthropologists as "The Sex Contract," was, of course, eagerly participated in by the males. The more sex the women were willing to provide, the more food and protection they received from the obliging males. Those females who prostituted themselves the most ardently, lived longest and produced the most offspring. Thus, their particular genes were passed on to the next generation in higher concentrations than those of less "sexy" females. The same process occurred among the men: those males who were most attracted to these early female prostitutes, transmitted the highest amounts of DNA into the gene pool.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEN AS PROVIDING OBJECTS, WOMEN AS SEX OBJECTS
The result today, 1 million years later, is that modern women are genetically programmed to view men as providers of material comfort, while modern men are genetically programmed to look at women as sex objects. To put it another way: the very nature of all intimate relationships between women and men is inherently prostitutional. Like their prehistoric ancestors, contemporary women provide men with sex in exchange for material goods; contemporary men provide women with material goods in exchange for sex. So strong is this genetic program that it has even been made the foundation of modern monogamous marriage: in all 50 states, by law, husbands are required to financially support their wives and children, while wives are legally required to provide sexual services to their husbands. This is why it is so difficult to convict a husband of raping his wife: until recently, the idea of "marital rape" was unthinkable. This also explains the curious fact that many men prefer that their wives not work outside the home.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFINING THE WORDS "MARRIAGE" & "WIFE"
And so we see that the monogamous bond began as a sexual contract based on mundane economic considerations rooted in prostitution. Not surprisingly, many contemporary feminists see little difference between the role a wife plays and that of a sex worker paid for hire. Dr. Dale Spender, for example, defines marriage as a form of legalized prostitution; that is, "the exchange of sexual services for material support." Andre Dworkin takes a less charitable view, calling marriage a "legal contract which sanctions rape." Some feminists, using our new politically correct vocabulary, now actually define a wife as "an unpaid sex worker." This is in contrast to a prostitute, who is defined as "a paid sex worker."
Source
QUOTE(ExistentialHedonist @ Jul 29 2005, 09:54 PM)
Hmmm...good thoughts, AZ, but rather unrealistic for most people I imagine. I recently came across this in another message forum, and the source is listed beneath it:
Source
I recently came across this in another message forum, and the source is listed beneath it:QUOTE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFINING THE WORDS "MARRIAGE" & "WIFE"
And so we see that the monogamous bond began as a sexual contract based on mundane economic considerations rooted in prostitution. Not surprisingly, many contemporary feminists see little difference between the role a wife plays and that of a sex worker paid for hire. Dr. Dale Spender, for example, defines marriage as a form of legalized prostitution; that is, "the exchange of sexual services for material support." Andre Dworkin takes a less charitable view, calling marriage a "legal contract which sanctions rape." Some feminists, using our new politically correct vocabulary, now actually define a wife as "an unpaid sex worker." This is in contrast to a prostitute, who is defined as "a paid sex worker."
DEFINING THE WORDS "MARRIAGE" & "WIFE"
And so we see that the monogamous bond began as a sexual contract based on mundane economic considerations rooted in prostitution. Not surprisingly, many contemporary feminists see little difference between the role a wife plays and that of a sex worker paid for hire. Dr. Dale Spender, for example, defines marriage as a form of legalized prostitution; that is, "the exchange of sexual services for material support." Andre Dworkin takes a less charitable view, calling marriage a "legal contract which sanctions rape." Some feminists, using our new politically correct vocabulary, now actually define a wife as "an unpaid sex worker." This is in contrast to a prostitute, who is defined as "a paid sex worker."
Source
Existential Hedonist, what is your point in posting this piece? I don't understand what you are trying to demonstrate here. If anything, it seems to work against your argument that we ought to legalize prostitution. Surely if society legalizes prostitution, we, as a society get even closer to the views espoused by Spender and Dworkin here:
QUOTE
"Dr. Dale Spender, for example, defines marriage as a form of legalized prostitution; that is, "the exchange of sexual services for material support." Andre Dworkin takes a less charitable view, calling marriage a "legal contract which sanctions rape." Some feminists, using our new politically correct vocabulary, now actually define a wife as "an unpaid sex worker." This is in contrast to a prostitute, who is defined as "a paid sex worker."
If we legalize prostitution society in essence, labels sex as a commodity and we move closer to mainstreaming these radical views.
How does it benefit our society to view marriage as a :" legal contract which sanctions rape"? It doesn't. This view distorts the meaning of marriage and degrades it. Moreover, it completely divorces sex from any link to family, partnership, trust, love, security etc. In short, it is a pretty lousy view and provides all the more reason why we ought not to take one more step down the path that leads to treating sex as a commodity.
Az- yes, I am all for Polygamy, group or line marriages, as long as THEY ARE CONSENTING ADULTS- so, bestiality won't do well under that line, nor would sex with children- if a large group of poeple get together, want to pool thier resources, raise children and have sex with all the other adults- I don't believe it is the goverments place to interfere.
This, in the end, is the true definition of a free society- maximum amount of freedom while protecting against fraud or violence from within or without- forcing society or adults to live by your morality or church's morality (which is especially galling to me considering how immoral religion is as a group) is not a free and open society- it is just a couple, very, very small steps away from a theocracy.
This, in the end, is the true definition of a free society- maximum amount of freedom while protecting against fraud or violence from within or without- forcing society or adults to live by your morality or church's morality (which is especially galling to me considering how immoral religion is as a group) is not a free and open society- it is just a couple, very, very small steps away from a theocracy.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Jul 30 2005, 11:03 AM)
If we legalize prostitution society in essence, labels sex as a commodity and we move closer to mainstreaming these radical views.
How does it benefit our society to view marriage as a :" legal contract which sanctions rape"? It doesn't. This view distorts the meaning of marriage and degrades it. Moreover, it completely divorces sex from any link to family, partnership, trust, love, security etc. In short, it is a pretty lousy view and provides all the more reason why we ought not to take one more step down the path that leads to treating sex as a commodity.
How does it benefit our society to view marriage as a :" legal contract which sanctions rape"? It doesn't. This view distorts the meaning of marriage and degrades it. Moreover, it completely divorces sex from any link to family, partnership, trust, love, security etc. In short, it is a pretty lousy view and provides all the more reason why we ought not to take one more step down the path that leads to treating sex as a commodity.
I think hayleyanne captures most effectively my opinion on this issue. Should prostitution be made legal, I fear for the commitments made at marriage. To love, honor and trust your partner is to never lay eyes on another. Even pre-marriage I cannot accept that you would be so unwilling to honor your unmade commitments simply based on the urge to have sex.
When men and women allow themselves to fall victim to the sex trade (either as buyer or consumer) it scars their views on love and commitment. If you lived one lifestyle prior to mending your ways are you not more likely to do it again? If you get married and had sex with a prostitute, say once a week, will you not be tempted? Prostitution defies all bonds made at marriage, legalizing invites people who could contribute so much good to this world to be consumed on their next fix of legalized sex.
Allow me to remove being a consenting adult from my opinion. I do not care whether or not the pair having sex is God himself and the most beautiful woman on earth, a bond should be taken before sex is even in the playing cards. Not a bond like "Hello, my name is... what is yours?" A time-honored bond in which no other person may enter or hopefully has never entered prior should be the basis on which sex is had with another person.
" There is no logical, nor Constitutional reasons to make prostitution illegal."
Ok, if this is true then the things I mention below should be legalized.
........ prostitution, bestiality, group marriage, marriage between family members, all drugs....
You legalize prostitution, then why not every one of these I just mentioned. You think you have the right to tell someone who wants these legalized they can't?
What do you base your answer on?
There are people who think these are moral as well.
You think you have the right to tell them no?
Ok, if this is true then the things I mention below should be legalized.
........ prostitution, bestiality, group marriage, marriage between family members, all drugs....
You legalize prostitution, then why not every one of these I just mentioned. You think you have the right to tell someone who wants these legalized they can't?
What do you base your answer on?
There are people who think these are moral as well.
You think you have the right to tell them no?
QUOTE(azchurchmouse @ Jul 30 2005, 03:58 PM)
" There is no logical, nor Constitutional reasons to make prostitution illegal."
Ok, if this is true then the things I mention below should be legalized.
........ prostitution, bestiality, group marriage, marriage between family members, all drugs....
You legalize prostitution, then why not every one of these I just mentioned. You think you have the right to tell someone who wants these legalized they can't?
What do you base your answer on?
There are people who think these are moral as well.
You think you have the right to tell them no?
Ok, if this is true then the things I mention below should be legalized.
........ prostitution, bestiality, group marriage, marriage between family members, all drugs....
You legalize prostitution, then why not every one of these I just mentioned. You think you have the right to tell someone who wants these legalized they can't?
What do you base your answer on?
There are people who think these are moral as well.
You think you have the right to tell them no?
This analogy has been brought up before, so let me try to make this as clear as I can.
The things you list are not the same.
I don't know how many times I have seen someone say that, if we allow people of the same sex to marry, we have to let people marry animals, corpses, you name it. (None of the good folks here at
are so foolish, of course.) There are good, logical reasons why there should be some regulation of dangerous drugs. (I favor regulation rather than prohibition, but that's another issue. Similarly, I favor regulation rather than prohibition of prostitution.)
There is at least one good, logical reason to forbid most forms of bestiality -- it hurts the animals involved. Animal abuse is quite rightly forbidden by law, because it harms sentient beings. (If sexual relationships between humans and animals cause no harm to the animals, I cannot have any ethical objection to them, no matter how disgusting it might seem to us. I think eating mayonnaise is disgusting, but I don't think it's unethical.)
Personally, I have no objection whatsoever to group marriages or incestuous marriages among genuinely consenting partners. (Heterosexual incestuous marriage partners require more caution when it comes to bearing children than other partners, of course, but no more so, and probably less so, than persons with family histories of genetic disorders.)
My dear Hayleanne and ExistentialHedonist, quoting almost anything from Andrea Dworkin, not "Andre" as misspelled on the COYOTE website (that missing "a" makes a big difference) is suspect when one considers how radical and out of the mainstream of feminist thought the late Ms. Dworkin was.
"Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to be free."
"Childbearing is glorified in part because women die from it."
"Romantic love, in pornography as in life, is the mythic celebration of female negation. For a woman, love is defined as her willingness to submit to her own annihilation. The proof of love is that she is willing to be destroyed by the one whom she loves, for his sake. For the woman, love is always self-sacrifice, the sacrifice of identity, will, and bodily integrity, in order to fulfill and redeem the masculinity of her lover."
"Seduction is often difficult to distinguish from rape. In seduction, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine."
"No woman needs intercourse; few women escape it."
Andrea Dworkin
The term "radical feminist" is often casually tossed around without any real world application. Andrea Dworkin was very much the radical feminist. Dworkin inspired both passionate admirers and severe critics. Here's a link to both:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/...1457408,00.html
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...andrea_dworkin/
For the purposes of this debate she does have one quote that aptly sums up the vast gulf between some of our pro-prostitution and anti-prostitution female posters.
The argument between wives and whores is an old one; each one thinking that whatever she is, at least she is not the other."
Oh, and for those interested I would recommend reading the mission statement on the COYOTE (Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics) written by Margo St. James, Priscilla Alexander and Norma Jean Almodovar. http://www.coyotela.org/what_is.html
Ms. Almodovar is the author of "Cop to Call Girl" which is her story about going from a police officer to a prostitute and we exchange e-mails every so often. She's offered to write the foreword of my book if it ever gets published. She's a very cool lady.
"Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to be free."
"Childbearing is glorified in part because women die from it."
"Romantic love, in pornography as in life, is the mythic celebration of female negation. For a woman, love is defined as her willingness to submit to her own annihilation. The proof of love is that she is willing to be destroyed by the one whom she loves, for his sake. For the woman, love is always self-sacrifice, the sacrifice of identity, will, and bodily integrity, in order to fulfill and redeem the masculinity of her lover."
"Seduction is often difficult to distinguish from rape. In seduction, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine."
"No woman needs intercourse; few women escape it."
Andrea Dworkin
The term "radical feminist" is often casually tossed around without any real world application. Andrea Dworkin was very much the radical feminist. Dworkin inspired both passionate admirers and severe critics. Here's a link to both:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/...1457408,00.html
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...andrea_dworkin/
For the purposes of this debate she does have one quote that aptly sums up the vast gulf between some of our pro-prostitution and anti-prostitution female posters.
The argument between wives and whores is an old one; each one thinking that whatever she is, at least she is not the other."
Oh, and for those interested I would recommend reading the mission statement on the COYOTE (Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics) written by Margo St. James, Priscilla Alexander and Norma Jean Almodovar. http://www.coyotela.org/what_is.html
Ms. Almodovar is the author of "Cop to Call Girl" which is her story about going from a police officer to a prostitute and we exchange e-mails every so often. She's offered to write the foreword of my book if it ever gets published. She's a very cool lady.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Jul 30 2005, 08:03 AM)
Existential Hedonist, what is your point in posting this piece? I don't understand what you are trying to demonstrate here. If anything, it seems to work against your argument that we ought to legalize prostitution.
First of all, have you been reading this thread properly? Because if you had, perhaps you might have seen my earlier posts. One in particular makes it quite clear:link
In case you missed it, and would not care to return to see it, I will requote it ONE MORE TIME:
QUOTE
First, let me say I do not advocate legalization. I advocate decriminalization.
And I have already responded to your diatribes against the commodification of sex countless times. You already know we disagree. Perhaps you should campaign against Brittney Spears as well. Hers is a much more popularized form of commodification. Prostitution happens- has been since humans have been roaming the planet, and will long after we are all dead. It's a dead horse. The fact that it is illegal has changed nothing.
While Andrea Dworkin sure as heck was a radical feminist (I probably know more about radical feminism than most people here), it is exactly her views which gained the faithful ear of Ed Meese back in the '80s. So not everyone thinks she was extreme, and the consequences of what she espoused made their ways into many laws. And while the SCUM Manifesto may have been the seed for modern Women's studies departments across the east coast of the US, Dworkin's philosophies were certainly the fertilizer. It is difficult to find a sex-positive women's studies department on the east coast- although they are starting to become more prevalent.
And Nighttimer, you are right- Norma Jean is a lovely woman. I have the honor of counting her among my colleagues.
QUOTE(ExistentialHedonist @ Jul 31 2005, 01:29 AM)
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Jul 30 2005, 08:03 AM)
Existential Hedonist, what is your point in posting this piece? I don't understand what you are trying to demonstrate here. If anything, it seems to work against your argument that we ought to legalize prostitution.
First of all, have you been reading this thread properly? Because if you had, perhaps you might have seen my earlier posts. One in particular makes it quite clear:link
In case you missed it, and would not care to return to see it, I will requote it ONE MORE TIME:
QUOTE
First, let me say I do not advocate legalization. I advocate decriminalization.
And I have already responded to your diatribes against the commodification of sex countless times. You already know we disagree. Perhaps you should campaign against Brittney Spears as well. Hers is a much more popularized form of commodification. Prostitution happens- has been since humans have been roaming the planet, and will long after we are all dead. It's a dead horse. The fact that it is illegal has changed nothing.
While Andrea Dworkin sure as heck was a radical feminist (I probably know more about radical feminism than most people here), it is exactly her views which gained the faithful ear of Ed Meese back in the '80s. So not everyone thinks she was extreme, and the consequences of what she espoused made their ways into many laws. And while the SCUM Manifesto may have been the seed for modern Women's studies departments across the east coast of the US, Dworkin's philosophies were certainly the fertilizer. It is difficult to find a sex-positive women's studies department on the east coast- although they are starting to become more prevalent.
And Nighttimer, you are right- Norma Jean is a lovely woman. I have the honor of counting her among my colleagues.
Existential Hedonist, it makes no difference whether we are talking about "legalization" or "decriminalization" of prostitution as far as my most significant concern goes. Both legitimize prostitution (in varying degrees) in our society. Legitimizing prostitution negatively affects traditional marriage and family structure in our country by condoning paid sex acts.
The Brittney Spears' phenomena is also prevalent today-- and has been for many years. But it is still much different from condoning an individual purchasing sex from a "sex worker". The former sells an image and the latter sells a physical act. Surely you can see how the difference is relevant to my concerns about traditional marriage and family. Legitimizing prostitution is a concrete and significant step down the path toward redefining how society views sex generally. The closer it gets to equating sex with any other commodity on the free market, the more damage that is done to our notions of marriage and family.
Finally, your arguments seem rooted in, or at least bolstered by, radical feminist theory. This doesn't help your argument at all. Radical feminist theory (alot of it coming out of the women studies programs) seeks to deconstruct the notion of traditional family. So if someone (like me) fears that legitimizing prostitution might harm marriage and family, much of the "academic" support you provide for your arguments gives me more than just a little cause for concern.
QUOTE(ExistentialHedonist @ Jul 31 2005, 02:29 AM)
And I have already responded to your diatribes against the commodification of sex countless times. You already know we disagree. Perhaps you should campaign against Brittney Spears as well. Hers is a much more popularized form of commodification. Prostitution happens- has been since humans have been roaming the planet, and will long after we are all dead. It's a dead horse. The fact that it is illegal has changed nothing.
ExistentialHedonist I do believe your comparison to Brittney Spears and a prostitute is a byproduct of the society we live in today. Ms. Spears perhaps appears as though she is poised it popularize the sex-trade, however she is an entertainer who must maintain an image and or persona to keep her at the top of album charts. She is not on the streets selling her body; sex-workers are.
hayleyanne I am curious if you recognize that the legalizing of prostitution legitimizes it and undermines structures or concepts in our society you wish to preserve...do you then feel that it is possible that illegalizing it is also having some sort of detrimental effects?
If legalizing prostitution commodifies sex..then isn't illegalizing it criminalizing sex? And being that prostitution is predominately a women's profession could it be criminalizing a woman's role in sex in our society?
I can understand your wants and desires to preserve the family...as I desire this too... but we can not ignore women's roles and how society perceives women and then be capable of fully and completely addressing the needs of the family. Women are an important piece of the family structure.
If legalizing prostitution commodifies sex..then isn't illegalizing it criminalizing sex? And being that prostitution is predominately a women's profession could it be criminalizing a woman's role in sex in our society?
I can understand your wants and desires to preserve the family...as I desire this too... but we can not ignore women's roles and how society perceives women and then be capable of fully and completely addressing the needs of the family. Women are an important piece of the family structure.
The fact that prostitution already serves to destroy or nullify the marriage contract by providing a means for a spouse to be unfaithful on the Q.T. (if he isn't getting exactly what his fantasy determines), makes it damaging to our society. Already 50% of marriages end in divorce. Why should the fire be stoked further by legalizing something that encourages infidelity?
Broken marriage vows, especially in families with children, mean loss of trust and usually break-up of the family. Just how far should "what I want" on the part of the straying parent impact on the lives of his innocent progeny?
So many times prostitution is argued as not hurting anybody. I would say that any time the kids are ultimately hurt and have to do without living with a parent, it is tragic and unwelcome.
So why should we reward hedonistic tendencies by putting it out, all legally, so there are no civil deterrents to hold (mostly) men back? No, the fact that prostitution is illegal hasn't stopped men, but why in anyone's imagination should prostitution be accepted and encouraged in light of the consequences to families, the basic units of our society?
Broken marriage vows, especially in families with children, mean loss of trust and usually break-up of the family. Just how far should "what I want" on the part of the straying parent impact on the lives of his innocent progeny?
So many times prostitution is argued as not hurting anybody. I would say that any time the kids are ultimately hurt and have to do without living with a parent, it is tragic and unwelcome.
So why should we reward hedonistic tendencies by putting it out, all legally, so there are no civil deterrents to hold (mostly) men back? No, the fact that prostitution is illegal hasn't stopped men, but why in anyone's imagination should prostitution be accepted and encouraged in light of the consequences to families, the basic units of our society?
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 31 2005, 04:35 PM)
The fact that prostitution already serves to destroy or nullify the marriage contract by providing a means for a spouse to be unfaithful on the Q.T. (if he isn't getting exactly what his fantasy determines), makes it damaging to our society. Already 50% of marriages end in divorce. Why should the fire be stoked further by legalizing something that encourages infidelity?
So many times prostitution is argued as not hurting anybody. I would say that any time the kids are ultimately hurt and have to do without living with a parent, it is tragic and unwelcome.
No, the fact that prostitution is illegal hasn't stopped men, but why in anyone's imagination should prostitution be accepted and encouraged in light of the consequences to families, the basic units of our society?
So many times prostitution is argued as not hurting anybody. I would say that any time the kids are ultimately hurt and have to do without living with a parent, it is tragic and unwelcome.
No, the fact that prostitution is illegal hasn't stopped men, but why in anyone's imagination should prostitution be accepted and encouraged in light of the consequences to families, the basic units of our society?
Any actual, verifiable proof, Paladin Elspeth? Twice in your post you use the term, "the fact that prostitution..." without offering any facts.How exactly are the acts of consenting adults harming the kids? And why exactly do the opponents of decriminalizing prostitution keeping dragging children into this?
Prostitutes have kids too. Why deny their mothers a means to make a living?
The fifty percent of marriages end in divorce is a compelling number, but without placing the numbers in context by explaining what are the contributing factors that lead those marriages to fail? What percentage of marriages fail due to husbands consorting with prostitutes or finding out their wives are prostitutes?
The burden of proof is upon the opponents of decrimilization of prostitution that such a move would further erode the institution of marriage. The worst case scenarios being made by some of the opponents that the sky will fall, men will walk out on their wives and children and mate with their cousins and beasts is both nonsensical and unconvincing.
Appeals to emotion and fear are not convincing ones.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Aug 1 2005, 01:11 AM)
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 31 2005, 04:35 PM)
The fact that prostitution already serves to destroy or nullify the marriage contract by providing a means for a spouse to be unfaithful on the Q.T. (if he isn't getting exactly what his fantasy determines), makes it damaging to our society. Already 50% of marriages end in divorce. Why should the fire be stoked further by legalizing something that encourages infidelity?
So many times prostitution is argued as not hurting anybody. I would say that any time the kids are ultimately hurt and have to do without living with a parent, it is tragic and unwelcome.
No, the fact that prostitution is illegal hasn't stopped men, but why in anyone's imagination should prostitution be accepted and encouraged in light of the consequences to families, the basic units of our society?
So many times prostitution is argued as not hurting anybody. I would say that any time the kids are ultimately hurt and have to do without living with a parent, it is tragic and unwelcome.
No, the fact that prostitution is illegal hasn't stopped men, but why in anyone's imagination should prostitution be accepted and encouraged in light of the consequences to families, the basic units of our society?
Any actual, verifiable proof, Paladin Elspeth? Twice in your post you use the term, "the fact that prostitution..." without offering any facts.How exactly are the acts of consenting adults harming the kids? And why exactly do the opponents of decriminalizing prostitution keeping dragging children into this?
Prostitutes have kids too. Why deny their mothers a means to make a living?
The fifty percent of marriages end in divorce is a compelling number, but without placing the numbers in context by explaining what are the contributing factors that lead those marriages to fail? What percentage of marriages fail due to husbands consorting with prostitutes or finding out their wives are prostitutes?
The burden of proof is upon the opponents of decrimilization of prostitution that such a move would further erode the institution of marriage. The worst case scenarios being made by some of the opponents that the sky will fall, men will walk out on their wives and children and mate with their cousins and beasts is both nonsensical and unconvincing.
Appeals to emotion and fear are not convincing ones.
Burden of proof?
What a load of self serving tripe...
The burden of proof does not lie with the majority who oppose prostitution, but with the few self centered individuals like yourself who have no concern for others and just want to satisfy your urges. Any of us old enough to be around for awhile have seen the results of men, and women, who let their crotch-cravings run their lives.
I personally feel that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol, but legalizing one stupid act just because it is no worse than a legal stupid act is, well, stupid.
Making irresponsible acts less shameful, or less illegal, is not the answer to any problem. I can't feel sorry for those who have voluntarily settled for such a life, but I can point them out to my children and grandchildren as the opposite of a good example. The lesson to be taught is that short term or quick and easy gratification is seldom without some long lasting negative consequences.
Want proof? Just keep going down that road you want decriminalized, and you will find your own. Then you will probably want sympathy. I suppose you can get, and give, sympathy to the other consenting adults in your life that are dying from Aids, or suffering less fatal STD's. Don't count on it from the rest of us.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Jul 31 2005, 06:40 AM)
Finally, your arguments seem rooted in, or at least bolstered by, radical feminist theory. This doesn't help your argument at all. Radical feminist theory (alot of it coming out of the women studies programs) seeks to deconstruct the notion of traditional family. So if someone (like me) fears that legitimizing prostitution might harm marriage and family, much of the "academic" support you provide for your arguments gives me more than just a little cause for concern.
I think I have successfully argued against the viewpoints of radical feminists. See this post in particular. Please tell me where I have supported their viewpoints, Hayleyanne.
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Jul 31 2005, 07:16 AM)
ExistentialHedonist I do believe your comparison to Brittney Spears and a prostitute is a byproduct of the society we live in today. Ms. Spears perhaps appears as though she is poised it popularize the sex-trade, however she is an entertainer who must maintain an image and or persona to keep her at the top of album charts. She is not on the streets selling her body; sex-workers are.
VDemosthenes, my Brittney Spears example was in response to Hayleyann'e obsession with not commodifying sex. Brittney Spears makes a lot more money than I do off of her sexuality, and I was just pointing out the fact that that is a far greater commodification of sexuality dollar-wise than what I do. It is also far more popular amongst the average US citizen, so many more people take part in that commodification- even women.
QUOTE(bucket @ Jul 31 2005, 08:20 AM)
hayleyanne I am curious if you recognize that the legalizing of prostitution legitimizes it and undermines structures or concepts in our society you wish to preserve...do you then feel that it is possible that illegalizing it is also having some sort of detrimental effects?
If legalizing prostitution commodifies sex..then isn't illegalizing it criminalizing sex? And being that prostitution is predominately a women's profession could it be criminalizing a woman's role in sex in our society?
If legalizing prostitution commodifies sex..then isn't illegalizing it criminalizing sex? And being that prostitution is predominately a women's profession could it be criminalizing a woman's role in sex in our society?
Excellent post, Bucket. See my response to the following quote.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 31 2005, 01:35 PM)
The fact that prostitution already serves to destroy or nullify the marriage contract by providing a means for a spouse to be unfaithful on the Q.T. (if he isn't getting exactly what his fantasy determines), makes it damaging to our society. Already 50% of marriages end in divorce. Why should the fire be stoked further by legalizing something that encourages infidelity?
Broken marriage vows, especially in families with children, mean loss of trust and usually break-up of the family. Just how far should "what I want" on the part of the straying parent impact on the lives of his innocent progeny?
So many times prostitution is argued as not hurting anybody. I would say that any time the kids are ultimately hurt and have to do without living with a parent, it is tragic and unwelcome.
So why should we reward hedonistic tendencies by putting it out, all legally, so there are no civil deterrents to hold (mostly) men back? No, the fact that prostitution is illegal hasn't stopped men, but why in anyone's imagination should prostitution be accepted and encouraged in light of the consequences to families, the basic units of our society?
Broken marriage vows, especially in families with children, mean loss of trust and usually break-up of the family. Just how far should "what I want" on the part of the straying parent impact on the lives of his innocent progeny?
So many times prostitution is argued as not hurting anybody. I would say that any time the kids are ultimately hurt and have to do without living with a parent, it is tragic and unwelcome.
So why should we reward hedonistic tendencies by putting it out, all legally, so there are no civil deterrents to hold (mostly) men back? No, the fact that prostitution is illegal hasn't stopped men, but why in anyone's imagination should prostitution be accepted and encouraged in light of the consequences to families, the basic units of our society?
Paladin, this argument does nothing but place the responsibility for mens' fidelity right smack-dab into the lap of prostitutes (or any sexually free woman).
Once again, women are blamed for the downfall of humankind. Ugh. I am so sick of hearing this very outdated and decidedly patriarchal argument. You might as well cover the hussies up with a burkah, make them stay inside their houses, and paint their windows black so men can't see them. And definitely outlaw sexy clothing- forbid the hussies to wear short skirts, tube tops, bustiers, or anything that might make the poor helpless man look at a woman in a sexual way.
It is not my job- nor any other woman's job- to babysit anyone's husband or boyfriend. To place the responsibility for male fidelity on women is simply ridiculous.
Further, to blame free sexuality (both transactional and non-transactional) for the destruction of "traditional families" is also a ridiculous thing to do. It is absolving yourself of responsibility for your relationships. Blame the devil for your misdeeds, and call the devil a prostitute. Bunk. Pure bunk.
A relationship built on enough trust and honesty between each individual is not going to fall prey to infidelity on either part. It is not my fault men cheat on their wives. To make this an excuse for continuing to criminalize women is just silly. If a man had no need to wander he wouldn't. Simple as that. I do not seek your husbands out- they seek me out.
And by emphasizing this dogmatic adherence to "the traditional marriage/family" you are condemning more people to a marriage built on "what we should be doing" rather than on doing what is right for us in our own time.
QUOTE(azchurchmouse @ Jul 30 2005, 03:58 PM)
" There is no logical, nor Constitutional reasons to make prostitution illegal."
Ok, if this is true then the things I mention below should be legalized.
........ prostitution, bestiality, group marriage, marriage between family members, all drugs....
You legalize prostitution, then why not every one of these I just mentioned. You think you have the right to tell someone who wants these legalized they can't?
What do you base your answer on?
There are people who think these are moral as well.
You think you have the right to tell them no?
Ok, if this is true then the things I mention below should be legalized.
........ prostitution, bestiality, group marriage, marriage between family members, all drugs....
You legalize prostitution, then why not every one of these I just mentioned. You think you have the right to tell someone who wants these legalized they can't?
What do you base your answer on?
There are people who think these are moral as well.
You think you have the right to tell them no?
Well, let's try a slippery slope the other way. If you criminalize prostitution, then what's stopping you from criminalizing drinking, dancing, reading certain books, atheism, independent thought...
There are people who think these are immoral, therefore, it is right to use violence against these activities. In the name of morality, let's condone violence!
If there is a slippery slope either way, I'd rather live in the free society than the totalitarian one. The activities listed in the quoted post are not aggressive - what, then, justifies violence against them? If people have a moral problem with these activities, they should use peaceful means (speech, economic discrimination, etc.) to discourage them.
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Jul 31 2005, 09:49 PM)
Burden of proof?
What a load of self serving tripe...
The burden of proof does not lie with the majority who oppose prostitution, but with the few self centered individuals like yourself who have no concern for others and just want to satisfy your urges. Any of us old enough to be around for awhile have seen the results of men, and women, who let their crotch-cravings run their lives.
I can't feel sorry for those who have voluntarily settled for such a life, but I can point them out to my children and grandchildren as the opposite of a good example. The lesson to be taught is that short term or quick and easy gratification is seldom without some long lasting negative consequences.
Want proof? Just keep going down that road you want decriminalized, and you will find your own. Then you will probably want sympathy. I suppose you can get, and give, sympathy to the other consenting adults in your life that are dying from Aids, or suffering less fatal STD's. Don't count on it from the rest of us.
What a load of self serving tripe...
The burden of proof does not lie with the majority who oppose prostitution, but with the few self centered individuals like yourself who have no concern for others and just want to satisfy your urges. Any of us old enough to be around for awhile have seen the results of men, and women, who let their crotch-cravings run their lives.
I can't feel sorry for those who have voluntarily settled for such a life, but I can point them out to my children and grandchildren as the opposite of a good example. The lesson to be taught is that short term or quick and easy gratification is seldom without some long lasting negative consequences.
Want proof? Just keep going down that road you want decriminalized, and you will find your own. Then you will probably want sympathy. I suppose you can get, and give, sympathy to the other consenting adults in your life that are dying from Aids, or suffering less fatal STD's. Don't count on it from the rest of us.
Thanks for the fire-and-brimstone sermon, Bill55AZ, but you can keep that old time religion to yourself. Give me some facts, because all I see you offering up is a highly subjective opinion.
If all you have to offer to this debate is your belief that anyone suggesting that the laws making prostitution illegal need revising should suffer from Aids [sic] or a STD while that may be worthwhile to you, it's pretty worthless to anyone else.
As for your remark describing me as self centered individuals like yourself who have no concern for others and just want to satisfy your urges, my response isTHANKS for making my point that the more logical and reasoned the arguments made by those who feel the laws making prostitution illegal deserve reconsideration and revising the more desperate are the moral crusaders and their shrill appeals to emotion because they have NO facts to back their wild claims.
Bring something a little more substantial than your feelings, Bill55AZ to the table and we can debate it. Trying to debate your "feelings" is a huge waste of my time.
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Jul 31 2005, 09:49 PM)
Burden of proof?
What a load of self serving tripe...
The burden of proof does not lie with the majority who oppose prostitution, but with the few self centered individuals like yourself who have no concern for others and just want to satisfy your urges. Any of us old enough to be around for awhile have seen the results of men, and women, who let their crotch-cravings run their lives.
What a load of self serving tripe...
The burden of proof does not lie with the majority who oppose prostitution, but with the few self centered individuals like yourself who have no concern for others and just want to satisfy your urges. Any of us old enough to be around for awhile have seen the results of men, and women, who let their crotch-cravings run their lives.
Utterly and completely without exception, the burden of proof lies on the one who favors criminalization. In the words of Locke, "there cannot any one moral rule be propos'd, whereof a man may not justly demand a reason." The fact that the law already exists is not an excuse to keep it. My thoughts on the reasons you've given thus far are already expressed, if not in my posts then in those of others, so I won't list them here. If a prohibitive law with which you disagreed were passed in the majority of states, and the majority of voting-age Americans supported it, would you consider these two reasons sufficient to quell your objections?
[quote=nighttimer,Aug 1 2005, 03:35 AM]
[quote=Bill55AZ,Jul 31 2005, 09:49 PM]Burden of proof?
The only thing I'm counting on from the extremely self-righteous moralists is for them to take their extreme self-righteous morality with them when they depart this life and hopefully not poison the minds of their impressionable children and grandchildren.
As for your remark describing me as self centered individuals like yourself who have no concern for others and just want to satisfy your urges, my response is what qualifies you to pass judgment on me? What makes you so holier-than-thou?
Thanks for the fire-and-brimstone sermon, Bill55AZ, but you can keep that old time religion. Give me some facts, because all I see you offering up is a highly subjective opinion.
If all you have to offer to this debate is your belief that anyone suggesting that the laws making prostitution illegal need revising should suffer from Aids [sic] or a STD while that may be worthwhile to you, it's pretty worthless to anyone else.
[/quote]
My qualifications to judge you? Who needs qualifications? You don't need them to espouse a stupid idea that only serves you and a very small minority of like minded persons. Using others and placing them at serious risk for disease (AIDS, o.k.?) just to get what you want is indicative of someone who has never developed past the childhood stage of being totally self centered. I never said you SHOULD suffer from AIDS, just that you likely WILL. Worse than spreading diseases, I hope you don't spread your ideas to your wife and children, altho it is unlikely that you have either.
You judge yourself by asking the rest of the world to cater to your whims. It isn't old time religion that drives me. I know from being forced as a child to attend a deep south protestant religion that I detested that there are self righteous people out there who do want to dictate to the rest of us how we should live. But if you were to ask people in countries that care little for religion, they will give you the same answer. Not all "moralists" are driven by religion. Not all amoral types blame the religious for keeping them from satisfying their urges. My opinion is no more subjective than yours, probably less so. I have almost 60 years observing others, and 12 of those were active duty in the Navy. Some men can't control themselves, and spend all they earn and all they can borrow for some Asian or Filipino sex. Is that commendable in any way? Is controlling yourself not commendable? Have you considered self gratification instead of insisting on the right of using the bodies of others?
All you offer is opinion from your self serving viewpoint, no facts proving that any part of decriminalizing prostitution is a worthwhile endeavor.
BayStateRebel, I am not worried about it ever getting on the ballot, much less a majority voting it in. I suspect most voters know that sex can be had for free so why would they want to pay for it? That would be the voters of reasonable attractiveness and personality, of course. The fat, ugly, old men with personality disorders who would vote for legalizing prostitution will still have to go to Nevada, if they have the money for it.
Of course, if it did happen, and a large number of young attractive girls starting selling their bodies, it would upset the economics of the sex trade. Prices would drop drastically until they figure out that they can probably flip burgers for more money and better benefits. It is supply and demand, excessive supply meets a large demand with only so much money to spend. BUsiness would "peter out", so to speak.
[quote=Bill55AZ,Jul 31 2005, 09:49 PM]Burden of proof?
The only thing I'm counting on from the extremely self-righteous moralists is for them to take their extreme self-righteous morality with them when they depart this life and hopefully not poison the minds of their impressionable children and grandchildren.
As for your remark describing me as self centered individuals like yourself who have no concern for others and just want to satisfy your urges, my response is what qualifies you to pass judgment on me? What makes you so holier-than-thou?
Thanks for the fire-and-brimstone sermon, Bill55AZ, but you can keep that old time religion. Give me some facts, because all I see you offering up is a highly subjective opinion.
If all you have to offer to this debate is your belief that anyone suggesting that the laws making prostitution illegal need revising should suffer from Aids [sic] or a STD while that may be worthwhile to you, it's pretty worthless to anyone else.
[/quote]
My qualifications to judge you? Who needs qualifications? You don't need them to espouse a stupid idea that only serves you and a very small minority of like minded persons. Using others and placing them at serious risk for disease (AIDS, o.k.?) just to get what you want is indicative of someone who has never developed past the childhood stage of being totally self centered. I never said you SHOULD suffer from AIDS, just that you likely WILL. Worse than spreading diseases, I hope you don't spread your ideas to your wife and children, altho it is unlikely that you have either.
You judge yourself by asking the rest of the world to cater to your whims. It isn't old time religion that drives me. I know from being forced as a child to attend a deep south protestant religion that I detested that there are self righteous people out there who do want to dictate to the rest of us how we should live. But if you were to ask people in countries that care little for religion, they will give you the same answer. Not all "moralists" are driven by religion. Not all amoral types blame the religious for keeping them from satisfying their urges. My opinion is no more subjective than yours, probably less so. I have almost 60 years observing others, and 12 of those were active duty in the Navy. Some men can't control themselves, and spend all they earn and all they can borrow for some Asian or Filipino sex. Is that commendable in any way? Is controlling yourself not commendable? Have you considered self gratification instead of insisting on the right of using the bodies of others?
All you offer is opinion from your self serving viewpoint, no facts proving that any part of decriminalizing prostitution is a worthwhile endeavor.
BayStateRebel, I am not worried about it ever getting on the ballot, much less a majority voting it in. I suspect most voters know that sex can be had for free so why would they want to pay for it? That would be the voters of reasonable attractiveness and personality, of course. The fat, ugly, old men with personality disorders who would vote for legalizing prostitution will still have to go to Nevada, if they have the money for it.
Of course, if it did happen, and a large number of young attractive girls starting selling their bodies, it would upset the economics of the sex trade. Prices would drop drastically until they figure out that they can probably flip burgers for more money and better benefits. It is supply and demand, excessive supply meets a large demand with only so much money to spend. BUsiness would "peter out", so to speak.
QUOTE(Existential Hedonist)
Paladin, this argument does nothing but place the responsibility for mens' fidelity right smack-dab into the lap of prostitutes (or any sexually free woman).
With a moniker such as yours, I am not surprised by your reply. But please do not assume that those you perceive as not as free as you are necessarily as bound as you think we are. Those of us who value fidelity and have partners who also value fidelity are often quite happy.I did not attack the women who work as the prostitutes, I attack the institution. Without men feeling stirrings below the waist, prostitutes would not exist, on this we probably agree.
While I do see a woman actually choosing to become a prostitute as a gargantuan lapse in judgment, it is her choice. It is also her choice to be treated as a whore; it comes with the territory.
And to the contrary: Patriarchial thought actually winks at the existence of prostitution (as it has for centuries) even as it (edited word-->) under-values the role of a more traditional wife and mother. You will find no friendship for patriarchy in my writings, unless you want to. Obviously we all have our own perceptions.
A prostitute may claim that she exists and works for herself, but by virtue of the fact that she provides the service of sex to men, she is under some form of servitude. This is the "sex person", the go-to girl when the man is horny. Beyond that, she doesn't exist to him.
No, to the contrary: I would assert that it is men who can't keep their pants zipped up or their passions otherwise under control who are most responsible for the world's ills. Those who cannot keep their word and betray trust in basic relationships are the culpable ones.
QUOTE(nighttimer)
Any actual, verifiable proof, Paladin Elspeth? Twice in your post you use the term, "the fact that prostitution..." without offering any facts.
Tell you what, nighttimer, have one or two of your married buddies tell their wives that they've been to see whores and they don't care what the Missus thinks about it, and see what kind of response they receive.Your request for proof is disingenuous, nighttimer, and you know it.
Betrayal of trust jeopardizes and destroys relationships. Are you going to deny you know that?
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Aug 1 2005, 12:19 AM)
Tell you what, nighttimer, have one or two of your married buddies tell their wives that they've been to see whores and they don't care what the Missus thinks about it, and see what kind of response they receive.
Your request for proof is disingenuous, nighttimer, and you know it.
Your request for proof is disingenuous, nighttimer, and you know it.
Ummm, no I'm afraid that I DON'T "know it," Paladin Elspeth. We can play volleyball all day and night long with whom the "burden of proof" lies with but I think it was you that said, "the fact is..." and then didn't present any. What kind of debating tactic is that?
As regards Bill55AZ and his remark:
QUOTE
My qualifications to judge you? Who needs qualifications? You don't need them to espouse a stupid idea that only serves you and a very small minority of like minded persons. Using others and placing them at serious risk for disease (AIDS, o.k.?) just to get what you want is indicative of someone who has never developed past the childhood stage of being totally self centered. I never said you SHOULD suffer from AIDS, just that you likely WILL. Worse than spreading diseases, I hope you don't spread your ideas to your wife and children, altho it is unlikely that you have either.
You judge yourself by asking the rest of the world to cater to your whims.
You judge yourself by asking the rest of the world to cater to your whims.
Just for the sake of clarity, I am married and have been for 24 years this month and have two lovely, happy and well-adjusted children who seem not to have suffered from being exposed to my "stupid ideas."
Oh, and before a Moderator comes in and points it out, while YOU may think those that favor keeping the authorities out of the private acts of consenting adults is "a stupid idea" I'm afraid you have to provide some valid reasons WHY it is "a stupid idea." Merely calling it "a stupid idea" is, alas, only your feelings once again and not subject to debate.
Just maybe you'll stop attacking the messenger and start providing some solid critical critique of the message that transcends the juvenile approach of slamming something as "a stupid idea" because you can't be bothered to buttress your contentions with something more substantial than your own hot and bothered opinions.
Maybe...
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Aug 1 2005, 04:38 AM)
[
Oh, and before a Moderator comes in and points it out, while YOU may think those that favor keeping the authorities out of the private acts of consenting adults is "a stupid idea" I'm afraid you have to provide some valid reasons WHY it is "a stupid idea." Merely calling it "a stupid idea" is, alas, only your feelings once again and not subject to debate.
Just maybe you'll stop attacking the messenger and start providing some solid critical critique of the message that transcends the juvenile approach of slamming something as "a stupid idea" because you can't be bothered to buttress your contentions with something more substantial than your own hot and bothered opinions.
Maybe...
Oh, and before a Moderator comes in and points it out, while YOU may think those that favor keeping the authorities out of the private acts of consenting adults is "a stupid idea" I'm afraid you have to provide some valid reasons WHY it is "a stupid idea." Merely calling it "a stupid idea" is, alas, only your feelings once again and not subject to debate.
Just maybe you'll stop attacking the messenger and start providing some solid critical critique of the message that transcends the juvenile approach of slamming something as "a stupid idea" because you can't be bothered to buttress your contentions with something more substantial than your own hot and bothered opinions.
Maybe...
Now, you know I never said anything about private acts of consenting adults. Casual sex among friends is one thing, even threesomes, foursomes, etc. as long as it is private. Whatever blows your kilt up. I have a few permanently single female friends who are quite liberal in that way.
However, prostitution is hardly private. These "ladies" would become as public as urinals in a bus station, and about as clean.
Like it or not, you are in a very small minority. Like I said, if it ever gets on a ballot somewhere, it will likely die a quick death.
Can you honestly call it a smart idea?
QUOTE(nighttimer)
Ummm, no I'm afraid that I DON'T "know it," Paladin Elspeth. We can play volleyball all day and night long with whom the "burden of proof" lies with but I think it was you that said, "the fact is..." and then didn't present any. What kind of debating tactic is that?
Perhaps you would like for me to prove that when someone steps off the edge of a building and has nothing below his feet, he falls down. Yeah, there might be some data out there to support that fact, but I don't know if people keep statistics on it, since that "gravity thing" is old news. In 1980, there were two grounds under which a woman could get a divorce in South Carolina: the man's habitual drunkenness or adultery. I'm sure the laws have changed in all states by now to be more inclusive. Geez, I wonder why people were so sensitive about adultery to think that it would be grounds for divorce?
There are some instances where a woman does not divorce a man, assault him, or leave him after she has found out about his infidelity. She might forgive him (a nice thing to do if he is man enough to tell her he is sorry and he won't do it again), decide to take on an extra-marital lover herself (either because it suits her or she wants to get back at him), stay with him (because she figures the kids need a dad, or she is afraid of him, or he makes enough money that she would miss it a lot if she left him), or act like she doesn't know it is going on. But with a divorce rate of 50% or more these days, there just aren't a lot of people staying married.
Why was the word "cuckhold" such an insult for so long in society? Because the spouse was openly being wronged by an unfaithful wife. Why was it considered wrong? Because it was a betrayal of trust. How many people like knowing that they are married to a liar and a cheat?
If there is no promise of exclusivity in a sexual relationship (and that's what marriage is, isn't it, the "forsaking all others" part of the vow?), then no harm, no foul if one partner goes out on the other one.
If there is a clear expectation of exclusivity in a relationship, then to consort with another woman in a sexual way is just plain wrong. We don't need a Bible to figure that out. Again, who wants to be married to a liar and a cheat?
And as far as prostitutes themselves go, we can compare it to someone opening a liquor store below the Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. Yes, it remains the responsibility of those in recovery to remain that way, but providing an easily accessible way for them to buy booze is wrong when we know that their intention is to stay away from it. It is unethical.
No, a prostitute cannot be expected to check each john's hand for a wedding ring before taking money from him and performing the service. She, like the amoral corporations that are running this country, denies any responsibility for the welfare of her customers. They're in it for the money, and as long as there are johns who are in it for the pleasure, they will stay in business.
But don't we have enough entities here and now that couldn't care less for the well-being of our communities and country? Why continue to reduce our quality of living to lowest terms by using the common denominator of making money by any means possible to further erode our better inclinations?
3.) Are there any possible benefits to legalizing prostitution? If so, what are they?
Moral considerations aside, I can think of one practical benefit of legalizing prostitution. "Ladies of the night" have been around since the beginning of recorded history. We expend a lot of law enforcement manpower and funding chasing down prostitutes and their johns without even putting a small dent in the practice. Trying to enforce prostitution laws is like butting one's head into a bridge abutment.
I think there are more important ways to spend limited law enforcement budgets and manpower than setting up sting operations, etc.
I've seen some Court TV programs on the issue. Much prostitution is now done over the internet. Perhaps those against legalization would settle for getting it off the streets, something that might protect the lives of both prostitutes and johns. Even that, however, seems to be a losing proposition. Typically, Court TV programs show law enforcement setting up a sting operation in a roach moltel. On a good night, LE may jail half a dozen or so prostitutes--hardly a drop in the bucket in a city like L. A., Dallas, New York or Chicago. The next day, the girls jailed the night before are out and back at work--how neat, a jail with a revolving door.
As with other things, we have to prioritize how we spend finite resources. I would put personal use of marijuana, for example, in the same category. Motorcycle helmet and seat belt's would fall in the same ategory. I've never ridden a motorcycle, but I religiously fasten my seat belt. There is no discomfort involved and the seat belt seems a reasonable altenative to going through a car's front window. If, however, someone is too foolish or hard headed to wear the belt... Police in the metroplex now have lighted signs on the freeway that say "clicket or ticket." I can't imagine an officer stopping someone for now weaing a seat belt when there are an infinite number of speeders, people weaving from lane to lane talking on cell phones and drunk drivers. Again priority.
BTW: Whenever this issue comes up, I think about the line in Larry McMurtry's Lonesome Dove. It was spoken in the mini-series by the great Robert Duvall as Augustus McCray, "whores have hearts, too."
Moral considerations aside, I can think of one practical benefit of legalizing prostitution. "Ladies of the night" have been around since the beginning of recorded history. We expend a lot of law enforcement manpower and funding chasing down prostitutes and their johns without even putting a small dent in the practice. Trying to enforce prostitution laws is like butting one's head into a bridge abutment.
I think there are more important ways to spend limited law enforcement budgets and manpower than setting up sting operations, etc.
I've seen some Court TV programs on the issue. Much prostitution is now done over the internet. Perhaps those against legalization would settle for getting it off the streets, something that might protect the lives of both prostitutes and johns. Even that, however, seems to be a losing proposition. Typically, Court TV programs show law enforcement setting up a sting operation in a roach moltel. On a good night, LE may jail half a dozen or so prostitutes--hardly a drop in the bucket in a city like L. A., Dallas, New York or Chicago. The next day, the girls jailed the night before are out and back at work--how neat, a jail with a revolving door.
As with other things, we have to prioritize how we spend finite resources. I would put personal use of marijuana, for example, in the same category. Motorcycle helmet and seat belt's would fall in the same ategory. I've never ridden a motorcycle, but I religiously fasten my seat belt. There is no discomfort involved and the seat belt seems a reasonable altenative to going through a car's front window. If, however, someone is too foolish or hard headed to wear the belt... Police in the metroplex now have lighted signs on the freeway that say "clicket or ticket." I can't imagine an officer stopping someone for now weaing a seat belt when there are an infinite number of speeders, people weaving from lane to lane talking on cell phones and drunk drivers. Again priority.
BTW: Whenever this issue comes up, I think about the line in Larry McMurtry's Lonesome Dove. It was spoken in the mini-series by the great Robert Duvall as Augustus McCray, "whores have hearts, too."
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 31 2005, 09:19 PM)
While I do see a woman actually choosing to become a prostitute as a gargantuan lapse in judgment, it is her choice. It is also her choice to be treated as a whore; it comes with the territory.
Can you please define the treatment of one "as a whore"?
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 31 2005, 09:19 PM)
And to the contrary: Patriarchial thought actually winks at the existence of prostitution (as it has for centuries) even as it (edited word-->) under-values the role of a more traditional wife and mother.
You're right- the patriarchy does wink at prostitution, and tolerates it on its own terms. That means keeping it illegal here (minus NV), or in a legal limbo in most places, leaving the women who perform the work at the mercy of serial killers, law enforcement officers, abusive clients, rabid pseudo-feminists, and pimps. And yes, the reproductive work performed by traditional mothers and wives is under-valued, as is all caring work in our society and around the globe. this is essentially patriarchy at its core- value that which kills and destroys over that which gives life or cares for and sustains life. You and I are in agreement on this. But I repeat- your argument appeared to place the responsibility for infidelity on prostitutes, and it simply doesn't belong there (as you subsequently argued).
But prostitution existed long before the patriarchy. The patriarchy simply commandeered it for its own use.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 31 2005, 09:19 PM)
A prostitute may claim that she exists and works for herself, but by virtue of the fact that she provides the service of sex to men, she is under some form of servitude. This is the "sex person", the go-to girl when the man is horny. Beyond that, she doesn't exist to him.
Prostitutes perform a service, just as a dentist does. The client of a prostitute is far likelier to remember her services more fondly than those of his dentist. Neither service individual exists beyond the services performed. As with a waiter, bank teller, grocery store attendant, or any other service person. This doesn't seem to bother the service people, as they do not live to exist in the mind of those they serve beyond the service rendered. As I receive cards, gifts, emails, phone calls, etc. long after the service has been rendered, I imagine I do exist beyond that moment when services were rendered. And judging from my numbers of repeat clientele, I perform my service very well.
Re Divorce and prostitution:
Source
Source
QUOTE
When data from countries that ban prostitution is compared with data from countries that do not, many startling discoveries can be observed. Countries without anti-prostitution laws have less murders, less rapes, and prosecute/imprison less people. HIV/AIDS is less of a problem; suicide rates are lower as are divorce rates, too.
Source
QUOTE
Why Marriages Fail
Not all marriages fail for the same reason. Nor is there usually one reason for the breakdown of a particular marriage. Nevertheless, we hear some reasons more often than others.
They are:
Poor communication
Financial problems
A lack of commitment to the marriage
A dramatic change in priorities
Infidelity
There are other causes we see a lot, but not quite as often as those listed above. They are:
Failed expectations or unmet needs
Addictions and substance abuse
Physical, sexual or emotional abuse
Lack of conflict resolution skills
Not all marriages fail for the same reason. Nor is there usually one reason for the breakdown of a particular marriage. Nevertheless, we hear some reasons more often than others.
They are:
Poor communication
Financial problems
A lack of commitment to the marriage
A dramatic change in priorities
Infidelity
There are other causes we see a lot, but not quite as often as those listed above. They are:
Failed expectations or unmet needs
Addictions and substance abuse
Physical, sexual or emotional abuse
Lack of conflict resolution skills
Source
QUOTE(bucket @ Jul 31 2005, 10:20 AM)
hayleyanne I am curious if you recognize that the legalizing of prostitution legitimizes it and undermines structures or concepts in our society you wish to preserve...do you then feel that it is possible that illegalizing it is also having some sort of detrimental effects?
If legalizing prostitution commodifies sex..then isn't illegalizing it criminalizing sex? And being that prostitution is predominately a women's profession could it be criminalizing a woman's role in sex in our society?
I can understand your wants and desires to preserve the family...as I desire this too... but we can not ignore women's roles and how society perceives women and then be capable of fully and completely addressing the needs of the family. Women are an important piece of the family structure.
If legalizing prostitution commodifies sex..then isn't illegalizing it criminalizing sex? And being that prostitution is predominately a women's profession could it be criminalizing a woman's role in sex in our society?
I can understand your wants and desires to preserve the family...as I desire this too... but we can not ignore women's roles and how society perceives women and then be capable of fully and completely addressing the needs of the family. Women are an important piece of the family structure.
Interesting question Bucket. I would say that the detriment to society as a whole that comes with legalizing (or decriminalizing) prostitution outweighs any detriment to women that comes from keeping prostitution illegal.
What troubles me is that both "legalization" and "decriminalization" of prostitution legitimize prostitution. When I say: "legitimizing prostitution negatively affects traditional marriage and family structure in our country by condoning paid sex acts", I mean this in the broadest sense.
Legitimizing prostitution denigrates "marriage" as an institution by casting sex as a commodity for sale on the open market, instead of a special bond between a husband and wife. But it also denigrates women, generally, in the eyes of society.
I thought you made this last point really well, way back at the beginning of this thread when you said:
QUOTE
I personally believe that any society that openly accepts and even governs the sale of sex..that provides, legitimizes and acknowledges such roles for women in society someway or another feels women are of less value in society. It is what I like to refer to as my livestock theory.
The livestock theory captures my broader concern perfectly. It takes the focus off the morality of legalizing prostitution and shifts it to the practical effect. When we legitimize prostitution, society implicitly adopts a view of women that is both denigrating and destructive. It perpetuates the notion that women are of less value in society and undermines the important societal goal of establishing strong family bonds through equal partnerships in marriage.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Jul 31 2005, 09:11 PM)
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jul 31 2005, 04:35 PM)
The fact that prostitution already serves to destroy or nullify the marriage contract by providing a means