Because in this case the employer is hurting the employee. The employer takes advantage of the employee's ignorance so that the employee's consent is not informed consent. Different story altogether.


We are not talking about tacit approval here; we are talking about the state making an attempt to interfere in the transactions between two consenting adults. Yes, decriminalizing a behavior (or reducing the criminal penalties consequent to that behavior) will permit increased incidence of the behavior. That is not the same thing as encouraging the behavior; it is permitting it. We're talking about prostitution, not drugs. If the state decriminalizes prostitution, then there will be more prostitution. This in and of itself harms nobody. I believe that a much better approach to prostitution is to attack the destitution that so often leads to prostitution.

Creating more prostitution "harms nobody." After all, there is no "good" or "bad" really. Just a bunch of hookers fulfilling market needs. And by all means, let's look at the destitution that leads to prostitution. Like the 70% of black children born out of wedlock who are more likely to grow up poor and use drugs. The men are far more likely to end up in prison, so I suppose the destitute women could be slightly more likely to be prostitutes.

It couldn't possibly be that American society has devalued the family, encouraged single motherhood via welfare, actually laughed at the nuclear family for 30 years. Couldn't be that black "leaders" like Kwase Mfume and Jesse Jackson themselves have fathered kids out of wedlock. Nope, gotta get to those "root causes" - and what are they again? Racism? The drug war? James Dobson?

If you have two parents, graduate from high school, and wait until you are married before you have children, it is nearly impossible that you will be poor in America. If, after that, you choose to be a prostitute, you are a complete outlier in your career choice and probably suited to be a sex worker. And a criminal.

This is a rant. The points you are making have nothing to do with decriminalizing or legalizing prostitution. There is no relationship between black children who are born out of wedlock and prostitution; indeed, I would think that a prostitute would not want to become pregnant, as it would interfere with her income and the unknown father would surely not contribute to the child's maintainence. I also don't see any direct or inverse causal relationship between the nuclear family and prostitution. Let's get back on track here.

The contiguity of your reference to "sex worker" and "criminal" suggests that you posit a causal relationship between the two. Would you care to expand on that thesis?

Actually this would be more of a rant. Or for sure this. I was merely answering your statement:
by noting that the causes for destitution and the legitimization of prostitution are related. That is, moral decay. Moreover,
I don't have a lot of time, but here is a quick read on homeless teens, their backgrounds and family status. Admittedly it's a small sample, but directionally, it makes my point.
Now, like I said I don't have a lot of time, but you know darn well that if we dig up a large study of the sex worker population, we are going to find non-nuclear families in proportion in excess of the general population. Why would you pretend that the nuclear family doesn't provide a more stable home environment, less likely to cause someone to make bad moral choices? The lack of a positive male role model in a home is probably the one single leading indicator for juvenile trouble, ahead of every other root cause.

Absolutely, for a few reasons. One, as previously stated, the Government has no Constitutional authority in anyone's bedroom, period, and by arresting people for what they do there, the gov't, is [yawn], yet again, breaking the law. Furthermore, it costs money to keep prostitutes in jail, money that I don't feel like paying. It is ridiculous that Americans have to pay for the prosecution/imprisonment of people who have sold their bodies for cash, what a waste. Finally, this whole argument of immorality and the like. I understand, I look down on prostitution too, and I think most people do, and I've got nothing against them for that. Morals are a good thing, but they don't need to be [and legally can't be] legislated. Morality is not a legitimate reason to keep prostitution illegal.

CP

I really don't get this argument. How exactly does this differ from the 9-5 grind that the vast majority of us find ourselves in? Does that mean that most work should be illegal because its dehumanizing? What specifically is it about prostitution that makes doing that work so much different from any other occupation which someone may not like but which they choose to do for money? Also, those choices are out there currently...which means that those who chose prostitution did so because they preferred it over the other choices. As such, if you took away that choice, you would be worsening the very things you say are bad for them.

You seem to argue here that the decay of the nuclear family leads to prostitution. That does not necessarily mean it works the other way around. I'd like to point out something you mentioned in a previous post:



So is welfare the cause of the decay of the family that is the cause of increased prostitution? If so, then this is yet another laughable case of the schizophrenic State where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. So this whole problem that the Moralizing State is trying to solve is actually created by the Welfare State, which was trying to solve the problems created by the Rich Man's Privilege State, which the Moralizing State is a part of, and so on. Ridiculous.

As for the general issue of legalized prostitution, I say that if a social problem is to be solved by government intervention, then the cure is worse than the disease. Moreover, I actually think it is a subtle way of keeping the poor poor. Objectively speaking, prostitution is an exit from poverty, and to prohibit it is to close one more door of opportunity - all on the basis of "ew."

carlitoswhey _ The lack of a positive male role model in a home is probably the one single leading indicator for juvenile trouble, ahead of every other root cause.

Fantastic carlitoswhey- you have found the root cause- so instead of attacking prostitution, a symptom, why don't we make single motherhood or having children out of wedlock illegal instead, with all the same punishments and promise of life ruining sanctions- after all, it meets all the criteria, and then some, of immoral behavior- since it is the root cause, it will probably eliminate prostitution, right?

Let us recap why single motherhood should be illegal, with fines and imprisonment:

1) It is immoral
2) It harms society because if it is not illegal, then it must be acceptable
3) It is the root cause of all crime in America

Altho I think your choice of example was more an attempt to be as inflammatory as possible and not as comparative as possible ...I think you failed entirely to make a valid comparison of any kind..

My argument is that a societal validation of prostitution through the governing, condoning etc of it is detrimental to women in society. You claiming this is the same argument one can make for the housewife must mean that you believe being a housewife is degraded in society and stigmatized as much as a prostitute and in some way this role as a housewife harms society.
So essentially you are saying being a mother, raising children, making dinner, vacuuming, washing laundry, oh yes and having sex with your husband is not only an undesirable role for a woman in our society but one that is detrimental to project as acceptable in our society.
Also I have to ask you why do you view the woman as the weak one in the equation...but seem to hold the view that the women often involved in prostitution hold the powerful role? Why isn't the housewife prostituting her husband but instead vice versa? Isn't it the man in this equation that must go out and earn money in order to keep or provide for his wife so they have a bed and a house to have sex in?



You have a license to be peddling that fruit?
Cannibalism is as much a health issue as eating any other meat is. If you eat raw chicken you can die but they sell raw chicken all over the place. Pork has strong societal taboos globally too...would you find it appropriate to outlaw pig or chicken meat as something we can sell, eat or consume? It is all an ew argument..I never disagreed that we regulate things based on societal norms that exactly is my point.

My point that I am trying to make by giving examples of how our society governs morality is to just attempt to put an end to the tired and absolutely inaccurate argument that is always given in the legalize prostitution debate. That we should not ask society or the government to legislate, define or as some put it impose morals on others. I just wish to point out that society will always do this as it is what society does and to claim otherwise is ..to me..absurd.


Actually if you read over the statement I made entirely (and even my argument in it's entirety} I did not just question or exclude my argument to merchandising..I said appropriate for merchandising, sale or consumption Consumption I think would include what's for dinner and we don't have Babies it's for dinner commercials on our tellies now do we.
So I don't think you have much of an argument here. I never claimed that these things were wrong only because a monetary exchange was being made. I said they were considered immoral wholly in our society..whether you buy babies to eat, sell babies to eat or eat babies for dinner....and that was why in our society it is illegal and immoral to sell babies, dogs or cats for meat. We value babies, cats and dogs more than we do cows, pig and chickens.
I believe wholly sex is valued more in our society then say..sneakers, bubble gum or stereo equipment.
Regardless... what you and others are asking for is to legalize the sale of sex..so saying this debate is not a matter of what is or isn't appropriate for merchandising is not the least bit true.


Wait, wait wait...exactly how are you suggesting that legalizing prostitution gives women the right to how they perform sex for money? You aren't asking this on the behalf of women that much is VERY clear..so please enough of the attempt to lead us in a parade down main street for your cause. What you..as a man propose to do is give the government the right to how sex is performed for money. They will demand testing, licensing, insurance, taxes and all the rest of the junk they can think of when they start legalising things and any woman who chooses to not adhere to these rules when she sells sex will be committing a crime of one kind or another. You wish the government to control, define, regulate and govern sex for money..not individual women.
The rest of your argument here is so over the top I would have to be high to even be capable of imaging how it relates to reality.


I agree that is why I don't support making it illegal.


There is in fact black labor other than just prostitution. I lived in a country where it was fairly common practice for people to illegally import women into their home to cook, clean and care for their children and that happens here in the US to women and men..and no your wrong not just young boys. Many of those..men and women... who work on farms collecting our food or cooking in our restaurants or cleaning up our buildings are in one form or another enslaved and are working illegally. So really you didn't need to invent this ridiculous housekeeping is illegal scenario as there are plenty or real ones to choose from.
This has nothing to do with my argument at all...as I do not favour making prostitution illegal.


Again this is basically the same claim another made in here that legalization would best eliminate the problems...yet there is nothing to support this belief.


I will reply to others when I have more time

If I may,

I believe allowing abortions is a definate "no, no" so the only way we can assure a working society that discourages single motherhood, we must take time to legislate with criminal penalties for both fornication and disallow divorce.

That is if I understand the argument correctly that things that are found to be morally wrong should have criminal penalties.

That is exactly the reasoning isn't it droop?

The poeple that favor making "sins" illegal are rarely consistant in thier applications

I mean, overeating has a far greater cost to our society, does far more harm, than prostitution- so we really should start arresting fat poeple too, right, once again, making they "nay's" same arguments? Otherwise aren't we condoning being fat, actually glorifying being fat?

Do other people get the clap, AIDS, or pregnant from someone else's obesity?

Does obesity put a person at risk for falling in with criminals or being placed into the "flesh trade"?

Do jealous husbands or wives fly into rages when their spouse is in the company of a fat person?

This is a specious argument meant to trivialize the effects of prostitution--why not bring up smoking cigarettes or driving while under the influence instead, as there are negative effects to others with both of these practices?

I would favor decriminalization of prostitution, but in no way would I approve the legalization of prostitution. As has already been brought up in this thread, the legal sex trade in the Netherlands and in Nevada has not stopped the shady, unreported practices in either place. People are still dying from sexually transmitted diseases.

This is not to say that people don't cause their own problems. But there are other people not figured into the equation--the families of those (predominantly) men who pay to exchange bodily fluids with a working girl or boy.

Not trying to pick on you PE, but I am curious. Someone can get a VD from adultery or a blood transfusion. There is a risk of falling in with criminals if they gamble, enter into a vending machine or trash collection business. Someones spouse can fly into a rage because the other went to a strip club, purchased a Playboy, or dressed (in their opinion) too provocatively.

Who you favor removing the legal status from all of these things because of these issues? All of the situations you suggest could come into being from a host of legal activities. As a result, I don't see how this supports continuing to prevent adults from choosing to directly trade money for sex, rather then the traditional indirect way it is done.

And, BTW, yes a husband or wife could fly into a rage if their spouse is in the company of a fat person, of the opposite sex if they happen to be the jealous type. A person being good looking or ugly, thin or heavy, etc, etc means little to thoses who can't find it within themselves to trust their partner.

There are tests that are performed on units of blood before a person ever receives a transfusion. Tell me, which do you think is more common, receiving VD from a blood transfusion or a prostitute?

Plus, you don't know who just had relations with the prostitute. Sexually transmitted diseases come from the customers; that's how prostitutes get them.
Presumably, a person should not get a sexually transmitted disease in a committed, monogamous relationship. There are advantages to fidelity.

As with your other examples, trash collection, vending machines, and gambling, which of any of these poses as much of a risk of contracting an STD, getting pregnant, or being killed by a jealous spouse as much as prostitution?



Let me turn the tables on you: If LEGAL activities can get you into so much trouble, why do something that is patently illegal for some momentary gratification? Do we need to add to these legal activities prostitution, which is inherently risky? If we know that we can get sick from toxic waste, do we deliberately move into a house much closer to the dump?

(Edit: I hope you don't mind if I don't hang around this thread too much. I got sucked into participating in it, but I don't like banging my head against the wall that much! )

PE- bringing up AIDS as a reason for making prostitution illegal actually makes MY argument

http://www.walnet.org/csis/papers/bastow-aidslaw.html

Early studies suggest that Canadian female prostitutes are no more likely to be infected with HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases than other women, unless they are also intravenous drug users.[4] (W Darrow. Prostitution, Intravenous Drug Use and HIV-1 in the United States. In M Plant, supra, note 1.) Studies also show that in their sexual relations, sex-trade workers use condoms more consistently than other populations similar in age, race, and sex. [5] Further, with respect to female hookers, the fact that the transmission of HIV from female to male is so difficult would suggest that the sex trade is unlikely to be a source of the spread of HIV/AIDS. Early studies of men who use female prostitutes confirm this; they did not reveal a single case in which a client was infected by a prostitute. [6] It is far more likely, particularly in the current legal context, which excludes sex-trade workers from the protection of the law, that prostitutes are at risk from their clients.

And this:
Research has indicated that punitive measures to control the sex trade -- such as increased criminal penalties, mandatory testing, and electronic monitoring -- will further erode prostitutes' ability to negotiate safe sex and further alienate them from public health initiatives. As a result, HIV risks will be increased rather than reduced. [3] Nevertheless, governments continue to pursue these policies.

So the harm issue goes right out the window again

And of course- the old child hooker myth as well:

Finally, of all the arrests for prostitution in Canada in 1992, only three percent were of youths under 18. [9]

And of course this:

The criminalization of sex for money means that hookers who are subject to abuse from their customers are less able to report their abusers

Seems to me the real harm to the public comes from the laws- not the hookers!

That is interesting data but not compelling enough for me to stick around. Please see the editing I did on the previous post. In any case, AIDS is not a reason for making prostitution illegal; it was illegal before there was ever a known case of AIDS and syphillis was the disease du jour.

The fact is, we have a bunch of laws that are not "one size fits all." We can always find the exception to the rule, and it seems the law is more interested in its own perpetuation and aggrandizement than in justice; e.g., see the thread on the two little old ladies who can now be arrested for medicinal use of marijuana. In addition, we have a skewed view of what "justice" really is. I have heard our President talk about So-And-So being "brought to justice," and by that he means the guy got killed. Then we have Supreme Court Justices who might brilliantly interpret the laws on the books and that is supposed to be justice, but it has nothing to do with the right or fair thing being done for the people; e.g., laws perpetuating slavery or segregation.

Sometimes the worst thing you can do is give someone what s/he wants. You yourself brought up obesity--that stems from inactivity and injudicious eating habits, but nobody puts a gun to someone else's head and says "eat this."
Likewise, nobody forces a john to frequent a brothel.

In a society where what I want when I want it is the rule of the day, excesses take place and people suffer the consequences of these excesses. Now perhaps waving a bottle of bourbon in front of a drunk convicted of DUI is not illegal, but it is unethical. In a society where the liquor store owner cares only that the bottle of bourbon is sold and not of the consequences to the weak soul who buys it, there are some ramifications that even the wisest among us may not foresee.

I guess it all boils down to this: Am I my brother's keeper? And if that sounds offensive, how about this: Do I warn a stranger about the oncoming train?

(Edited to add: If a poster here believes that legalization of prostitution means that the prostitute will receive health benefits to prevent or treat the occupational hazard diseases, s/he need only look at the current legitimate businesses where health benefits are continually being cut or the premiums are getting too high for the employees to pay them.)

Yes, but the proliferation of STDs has far less to do with prostitution and far more to do with the fact that normal adults having consensual sex are very uniformed about STDs and sex in general. I can't speak for how things are in Europe but it is absolutely horrifying how little teenagers and young adults in this country know about sex.

I also want to bring one of the posts I made in the other prostitution thread up for discussion here specifically related to this topic. You can find the orginal here.


Now take a close look at what this information is telling you. Prostitution, which is a regulated activity in Nevada, is actually in a lot of respects safer than the casual sex that most adults have. The customers are required to wear condoms, the prostitutes are regularly tested and treated for STDs. Please do tell me where you are going to find that in any singles bar in America. Furthermore in these same brothels the prostitutes are protected from some of the very negative aspects of prostitution such as abuse by both pimps and johns.

So, as Nevada proves it is very possible for prostitution to be much safer as a legal and regulated activity than the alternative. Of course there will still be those that operate outside of the law, but if you are a John and looking for sex are you going to go with a brothel which is inherently safer or take your chances with the black market? My money is on the black market being very small.

Now here's something else to consider, prostitution isn't called the oldest profession in the world for nothing. It has been around forever despite much more vigorous attempts to rid the world of it. If the practice can make it through the ultra-religious (meaning you face death for being a sinner or a heretic) parts of our history you really have to be deluded to think that the possibility of jail time or a fine is going to deter anyone from the profession or from buying sex.

Furthermore, what is really the difference between prostitution (illegal) and these legal activities?
- getting a good lap dance from a stripper
- paying a pornstar to make a movie
- paying $50 a plate at a restaurant and buying a few good bottles of wine for your date with the expectation of sex later that night

I personally think that the greater benefit to society here is to make the practice as safe as possible for those that choose to engage in in rather than continue to embark on the futile quest to get rid of the practice. It has been around for thousands of years, it will be around for thousands more.

Who here can seriously say that if prostitution were made legal tomorrow you'd go out and do it? I bet the number would be extremely small and I'm betting the people who'd say yes would probably engage in it whether it was legal or not.

Does that mean you'd want your daughter working in the sex industry? Of course not. But what is stopping her from doing that right now? Nothing except for your parenting abilities. It is your job to teach and influence your children. The idea that making something legal is equivalent to condoning it is patently ridiculous. Smoking cigarettes is legal - does that mean the government wants you to smoke? No. Also as prohibition should have taught everyone, when you make an activity illegal it just makes it that much more popular.

My, my - who would've thought that the simple equation of marriage to prostitution would've got so many pairs of panties twisted into so many Dutch mariner's bowlines? But one must wonder whether all this outrage is over the comparison itself or merely the terminology. If I had simply referred to the marriage "contract", would there have been so much "omigod! omigod! omigod! how can you say marriage treats sex as a commodity - marriage is all about love and partnership and rose-scented, frilly pink things! who would sully such a divine institution with the mention of - of naughty bits!!!" hysteria?

Sure, "marriage is a contract which, like prostitution, involves the exchange of sexual companionship for a certain level of support" sounds a lot better than "housewives are whores" - but, in essence, they mean the same thing. This is not the thread to debate the nature, purpose, origins, or history of marriage, but it need only be pointed out that the confusion of marriage and love is a relatively recent - in the grand scheme of human history, very recent - construct. It has always been - foremost - a financial arrangement, with the husband "supporting" the wife. This was discussed to an extent in the History of Marriage as an Institution thread and need not be belabored here. A typical example example from that thread, though:Somehow, this was not met with "omigod!omigod!omigod!" But when we speak, even now, a century after "emancipation", of someone "marrying well" or "making a good marriage" or "marrying up" or even "marrying beneath oneself" are we talking about the quality of love in the relationship? I think not.

And those attempting to argue that sex is not the central part of the deal are, frankly, delusional. Would any of you who are married have got married if sex weren't involved? If we took this ludicrous "marriage is all about hearts and flowers" argument to its extreme and said that, in order to demonstrate that a marriage is based on commitment and cooperation rather than sex, all couples must abstain from sexual congress for the first year of marriage, do you think this sacred institution would last five minutes? The popular sign attached to the cars of newlyweds - "She got hers today, he'll get his tonight" is not a joke - except in its bluntness.

Indeed, both the church and the state recognize the essential role of sex in this contract. One of the chief - and most frequent - legal justifications for divorce is "infidelity", i.e., one partner having sex with someone who is not contractually obliged to have sex with them. And the church can officially annul a marriage that has not been "consummated". All those "one flesh" vows are meaningless unless the deal is sealed with a roll in the hay.

And I doubt there's a single husband or wife here who is not all too familiar with the extent to which sex within marriage is used as a system of reward and punishment - the diamond earrings paid for with oral sex, the drunk arriving late being met with "you're not getting any for a week!" - and the whole notion of "sleeping on the couch" as a resolution to arguments has nothing to do with the relative discomfort of the furniture involved, it's all about denial of the "rights" of the "marriage bed". And what are shotgun weddings all about? One "has to get married" to legitimize having had sex. And, I might add, the notion of "rape" within marriage would have been unfathomable to just about any married couple prior to the last few decades. Sex has always been seen as one of the "rights" of the husband, consensual or not.

Marriage, through the ages, has been about two things: money and sex - no, money for sex. The trappings of "love" that bring tears to the eyes of women in flowered hats while someone's cousin badly renders "Forever and For Always" weren't a part of the mix until the last hundred years or so.

But by comparing marriage to prostitution, I am not trying to "demean" or "degrade" marriage - that would require buying into the stigma attached to prostitution, which I don't. Prostitution is not only the oldest profession, it is one of the most popular, one of the most lucrative, and and provides an extremely valuable service. I am merely trying to point out a double standard of astronomical proportions. Saying that marriage is a contractual arrangement in which the comforts of the bedroom are exchanged for material support is not demeaning or degrading in the least - it's simply a matter of fact. The only difference between marriage and prostitution is in longevity of the contract - and that one is recognized by the state and the other isn't.

So, again - I don't think the reaction was in the comparison, but in the fact that I used the "p" word. For some, there is such a stigma attached to the sex industry that to apply its terminology to anything else is worse than cannibalizing babies - even when the comparison is perfectly apt.



Maybe you'd like to tell me which part isn't clear?


Why, yes - yes, I did. Obviously there are often other factors involved - love, friendship, mutual investents - but those things are not exclusive to relationships defined by marriage (and, in fact, are sometimes absent from marriage altogether). What is exclusive to marriage (and prostitution) in terms of relationships is the contract.


Of course I can see the distinction. A marriage costs more and (usually) lasts longer.


Really? How? Sex between consenting adults can also be a matter of recreation. It can be a way of relieving stress. It can be a way of getting to know people. It can be a way of getting to know oneself. It can be excellent therapy. It can be a way of breaking up the dull routine into which a long-term relationship has fallen. It can be way of experimenting and trying new things. It can be fun. Just because you attach some greater significance to sex than you do to, I don't know, fishing or golfing or playing chess, doesn't mean that I have to. Nor does it mean that "society" loses a damned thing - except your personal attitude toward sex and money ("ew").


Oh? How is lying to our children a "win"? Enjoying one's body and experiencing the pleasure it is capable of providing is a great ways of valuing and respecting it. It could be argued that it is one of the best ways. And if we are to indoctrinate our children with the notion that the body should not be used as "a commodity", then we must surely tell them that the body should not be exploited by profession sportsmen or performing artists or craftsmen or laborers. Don't use your hands in your job, kids - that makes your body a commodity! Or is it okay to use every part of the body as a commodity - our eyes, our ears, our arms and legs, our backs - except those of which you personally disapprove ("ew")?


Agreed. Society also loses when we do not teach our children that there is no shame in working hard, period - including in the sex industry. Apparently society only "loses" when we fail to be ashamed of things of which you personally disapprove ("ew").


Agreed - and that would include striving to be the best even in professions of which you personally disapprove ("ew").


Balderdash. Society wouldn't lose a damned thing were marriage abolished. Indeed, it could stand to gain much - though that's the stuff of another debate. But by furthering the notion that work inside the home and child-rearing should be unpaid or should be dependant on the whim of a "breadwinner" is part of the systematic degradation of women - and I'm surprised you subscribe to it. That we are now applying similar degradation to some men in some marriages doesn't make it any less exploitative. We should be teaching our children that work - all work - is of value (even being a housewife or a prostitute) and should be recognized and rewarded as such - and not at the whim of some spouse, especially when that whim is contingent upon what has already been commodified for aeons - sex. I am not going to teach my kids that "a woman's place is in the home". I'm not even going to teach them that "a woman's place - or, maybe, sometimes, for the sake of political correctness, a man's place - is in the home". That gets my "ew".


They don't? Okay, when you come up with one of those arguments, let me know.


It's a bit too late to worry about that definition. Newsflash:

SEX IS A COMMODITY
And It Always Has Been

The legalization of prostitution (which was legal for, oh, approximately one hundred and thirty thousand years and has been illegal for about ninety - in some places) would have no impact whatsoever on the fact that sex was, is, and always will be a commodity, with or without the trappings of marriage, whether you personally like it or not ("ew"). It is a simple, immutable fact of life - and should be part of every child's education. Legalizing this commodity in relation to prostitution in addition to marriage and domestic partnerships simply recognizes it as another part of the market - which it always has been anyway.

But legalization does not necessarily imply legitimization. There are many things that a lot of people find dangerous, dubious, or distasteful - smoking, drinking, gambling, lap dancing, fireworks, riding motocycles, driving SUVs, making and consuming pornography, buying AK-47s, bungee jumping, promiscuity, making fun of people with bad toupees - all of which are legal, at least in some places. Does that mean that parents can no longer instill their feelings about these things in their children because "the government has legitimized them"? Only if they're appallingly bad parents.


Agreed. And the last values I'd want to instill - the last messages I'd want to send to our children - is that some people can be imprisoned for providing a service which harms no one (any more than many other legal services) and some people can be imprisoned for availing of that service, that some work is valuable and other work is not, that when we use our bodies for physical labor it is fine unless it's labor that some people just don't like - and that it is also fine for the personal prejudices of those people, bereft of any ethical foundation, to dictate what work is "good" and what work is "bad", that it is okay to judge people even when they do no harm and are simply working to support themselves and their loved ones, that it is okay to deny certain people the right to earn an income, that it is fine to support the black economy by criminalizing work that we know will be done whether we personally disapprove of it or not, that it is fine make acts of consent criminal. If that's the world you want to create for our children, I don't want any part of it - not for a second.



In essence, yes, that's what I'm asserting. Of course there are other factors - such as exerting patriarchal sway over another human being, domination and submission, exercise of will, and so on. But the social contract of marriage, traditionally, is sex for support.


For those roles? For one partner generating income and the other being kept? No. Well, voluntary cooperation is part of the contract, but love and companionship have nothing to do with it. Are you asserting that love and companionship cannot exist without one party keeping the other? That two working parents or a man or woman who are fairly compensated for housework and childcare eliminate the possibility of love and companionship? That love and companionship can only eist when one partner has economic diminion over the other? If so, you have very peculiar notions regarding love and companionship, in my opinion.


Yes, that would be entirely fair - and should go without saying.


Gah - addressing carlitoswhey put me over the quote limit. Continued below:

All you can say is that everyone's moral compass should point in your direction. Fair enough - once you become dictator of the world, maybe they will. Until then, some parents will love and support their children regardless of their choices. Some parents will not condemn their children for doing what makes them happy and provides them with a reasonable income. And some people will not try to exert their will over everyone else on the planet. Others will be content to point moral fingers and throw first stones. I trust you are without sin.


I'm not demeaning marriage. You're demeaning prostitution. If men or women want to demean themselves by taking vows of sex slavery, that's their choice and they are free to make it - so long as it is their choice. If men or women want to take control of sex for money situations by setting their own parameters and earning a decent living from it, that should also be their choice.


I'm not sure how one can get more personal than telling someone that, because they love and respect their kids, they have the worst imaginable parenting skills - but thanks for sparing me whatever further slanders you had in mind. I hope you don't imagine this means I owe you one.


As CruisingRam said, if it feels good, and is between consenting adults, by all means do it. Do it repeatedly. Maybe you don't really, really resent other people having a good time, but it certainly looks that way.


You have yet to demonstrate any harm to society as a result of legal prostitution. There has been much to demonstrate that the prohibition of the sex industry creates substantial harm. You need to work on your argument a bit.


Ah - your argument at last! "My morality's better than yours." Well, sorry - I can't debate people's highly personal beliefs. If you ever come up with something substantial, with something to back it up apart from some kind of judgement that has no basis in any known ethical system or world religion apart from the word of Allah, I'll be more than willing to discuss it. "It's immoral because I say so" isn't exactly debateable.



That's not the argument to which Erasmussimo was referring. He was talking about my response to the "somebody gets hurt" argument, mostly directed to VDemosthenes. It can be found here, if you'd like to keep up.



Degraded, yes; stigmatized, no. In both cases, the patriarchy wins. Men can have their dutiful little slaves at home and their sneaky little bits on the side under the cloak of the black market. And, hey - if they want to take out their frustrations with the wife on some impoverished street-walker, they can do so with impunity - she has no protection and no means of redress. Win-win!


Absolutely. If that rearing and cooking and cleaning and servicing has no guaranteed wage, no benefits, no paid vacation, and is entirely dependent on the male, absolutely.


The wife in this "traditional" scenario is entirely dependent on the husband. Like you said, he earns the income, he controls the money. He can allocate or withhold as much or as little as he likes. The wife is at the mercy of his will. Okay, she could stop doing the cooking and cleaning and could withhold the sexual favors - and he could desert her. The legal sex worker would be in charge of his or her own income. It's all a matter of who controls the money.


Sorry, cannibalism is not comparable to any other meat. It can lead to prion diseases like kuru and Creutzfeld Jacob disease which affect the brain and result in dementia, paralysis, and death - whether the flesh is raw or cooked. It is a taboo based on direct bodily harm. It is not an "ew" issue or a morality issue. It is a health issue. It is not comparable to prostitution on any level whatsoever.

And, again, I've hit my quote limit. *sigh* Last installment of this below:

You are very much mistaken. What I, as a predominately gay man, am interested in is giving sex workers the right to earn their income without fear of arrest and imprisonment, giving their clients the right to avail of their services without fear of arrest and imprisonment, allowing both sex workers and their clients to engage in business without fear of contracting or spreading HIV and other STDs, freeing sex workers from pimps and allowing them to set their own standards in terms of pricing, working hours, and services offered, and taking the entire profession off the black market. The "cause" for which I am parading down Main Street is the elimination of an otherwise innocent criminal class and the setting of basic worker and consumer standards for a vast and currently unregulated industry.

Of course this will mean government definition and regulation, just as the government defines and regulates food service, taxi service, or bar service - and it will involve sex workers paying income tax. But I am certainly not advocating that the government be any more of an imposition than they are in any other service industry.

I have known people working in the sex industry for about thirty years, from the time I was dating a porno actor in New York in the mid-seventies through the years of grappling with my son's heroin addiction and the streetwalking he did to support the habit until about six months ago when I helped a friend set up his profile for an online escort service. I currently know four people who earn their principal income from the industry and have almost always had friends (male and female) involved in prostitution - from fairly high-class escorts to fairly desperate addicts. I've also known quite a few people who have paid for their services. It is the interests of both the workers and their clients - as well as the interests of society at large - that concern me. And, yes, legalizing prostitution would give women (and men) the right to how they perform sex for money: how, when, how often, and for how much - so long as they met the regulatory standards in relation to health. All I would expect the government to do is issue licenses and collect taxes. I'm not quite sure what else you're suggesting is part of my "parade".


There's nothing to refute it either. But there are similar models - like the prohibition of alcohol. Did the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment completely eliminate home brewing? No. But did it take the production and distribution of alcohol out of the hands of organized crime and reinstitute basic health standards in terms of its production? Did it return tax revenue to the government? Did it decriminalize all those who consumed it during prohibition? Did it reduce crime and prison populations overall? Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

And what was the state of the union prior to the criminalization of prostitution? Was nineteenth century America overrun with brothels? Were there epidemics of STDs? Was there a huge trade in sex slaves? Did the fact that prostitution was perfectly legitimate destroy the American family? Did it throw us into a hellish moral decline? Were the first hundred and twenty-five years of US history a cesspit of degradation and wanton orgies with child whores running bare-breasted through the streets frightening the horses? Not that I've ever heard about.

Were prostitution legal once again, would it be easier to identify those who were underage? Yes - they would not be licensed. Would it be easier to identify illegal aliens? Yes - they would not be licensed. Would it make it vastly more difficult to traffic in illegal sex workers? Yes - they would not be licensed. Would it enable clients to know whether they were dealing with the carrier of an STD or an otherwise illegal worker? Yes - they would not be licensed. Would it create enormous (and legitimate) competition for those attempting to traffic in underage sex workers or black market sex slaves? Absolutely. Would organized crime drop the sex trade as they did the illegal alcohol trade following prohibition? Probably - and, if not, they would at least make sure that they were conforming to the set standards (as they currently do with their forays into the pornography industry). Would it generate revenue for the government to regulate the industry? Absolutely - every registered worker would be paying taxes - as would any business offering referral services or providing rooms and so on.

Now, what are the arguments against any of the above? We should leave the entire industry in the black economy why? We should abrogate additional government revenue why? We should ignore the safe sex practices mandated by legalized sex work why? We should allow carriers of STDs and addicts to continue providing services undetected (and untreated) why? We should leave sex workers at the mercy of organized crime and abusive pimps why? We should maintain a huge criminal class rather than eliminating it why? We should keep adding otherwise innocent workers to our prison system and increase recidivism why? We should make it inordinately difficult to find sex slaves, underage prostitutes, and those who traffic in them why? We should tell American citizens what they can or cannot do with their own bodies... why?


Because... "ew"?

Well, I was posting before Wertz but he beat me 3 to 1, so this is from before that.

Bucket


I dont believe this to be true or why are there so many (in fact millions) of strip clubs, Asian massage parlors, escort agencies, internet escorts and streetwalkers making a good living in all the major and most minor cities in America?

Anyone who thinks this is a small business, about 'destitute women and drunken middle aged men' should go to their yellow pages and look up 'Escort'. An ad in the yellow pages costs upwards of $5,000 a year.
One should actually take a good look around their city. Im suprised that women seem to have a blind side when it comes to driving around their city and not actually 'seeing' the sex trade that is going on right before their eyes and not wondering how the thing is so prolific if it is considered " wholly immoral". Of course women are not 'tuned' to this, but men are.
Its like this- if everyone is against it, why is the industry booming?

It is NOT considered wholly immoral amongst most men, it is considered wholly secretive and clandestine. They dont want to be found out, they dont want it in their neighborhood and they will certainely make large public statements against it , but thats not the truth of what is going on.

Let me explain in detail:
The sex industry is one of the biggest business's in the US. It, as a collective employs more people and has more customers than almost any other singular commodity besides basic needs like housing, energy, food, clothing and banking.
Its not some dirty little backstreet thing, its right in front of you if you only look a little.

Google: escorts, your city, whatever it may be. You shall get between hundreds and thousands of hits, depending on city size.
The internet network is extremely vast and loosley connected country-wide, but mostly cut into regional segments. These are not destitute sad little hookers with nowhere to go, most are not on drugs, most are educated in safe sex, sexual pleasure and sexual kinks and want more than anything to protect their clients and themselves from consequences of the exchange. Half at least are professional and discreet. Most are making a damn good living, so who is it that is accessing their services?
The wholly moral majority. Even bi-curious married women and couples avail themselves of escorts nowdays. People are curious and interested in sex and puritanism in america has increased the taboo aspect, making things more exciting. Economically many people are well off enough to explore their fantasies, and pay to do it with women who know the subject.
Men have a much better grasp of sex as recreation than women, 'sport sex' it is called. They consider paying for it does not constitute an affair, without emotional attachment it is not really cheating. Prostitutes have a saying which goes, 'you are not paying me for sex, you are paying me to leave". (without the hassles of any sort of committment)

So, the facts are that a great majority of people do not need the governments sanction of prostitution to decide for themselves if it is a service they will partake in. They are doing it in droves, illegal or not. What IS happening is that the prostitutes are punished for providing if they are caught. The public can then turn a blind eye as if they know nothing of the matter. They can keep their secrets and watch as the provider goes to jail, but the internal networks will buzz across country about the bust, making everyone aware to lie low in a certain city for awhile.
Traveling businessmen and local clients research escorts online and make dates days or months ahead of time with a certain provider, based on her reviews from other clients which are accessed on the net with ease. As with most things 'internet', this is unstoppable. I dont believe decriminalization could possibly make it bigger. Competition regulates supply. If you are not professional, not good at your job you dont make it.

Whether people realize or like it- or not, prostitution has become a real profession much like any other, commonly accepted, mostly by internet but it was long before with madames. Cleanliness, professionalism, dress, punctuality and sexually diverse education is a factor as well as attractiveness, body fitness, overall personality, worldliness and intellectual education and ability to entertain, as well as chemistry, but its still a short term contract of one or a few hours. The client buys discretion. Porn stars tour the country escorting for profit too. Massage parlors operate at lower standards but a working girl still has to be good, or she is toast.
That is the reality today. Most prostitutes have chosen their profession, for short or long term for many reasons which are not the commonly held belief of destitution or drugs.

I think it should be decriminalized in order not to punish those who are providing a service much like any other. Massage therapy with 'finish', tantric ritual consultants (who teach hands on), sexual dysfunction consultants, sex therapists , sex spas, bath houses, kama sutra consultants and the entire porn industry including films (which supposedly 80% of american households have some type in their homes), all are if only a milli-step away from what the prostitution industry is today, physical pleasure and gratification for a fee. Often older men want to learn how to please a woman and know what they have been missing. Courtesanship can be an art form. Always has been. Streetwalkers are the least quanity in the business.

I think what bothers most people is the infidelity aspect and perhaps not being able to control who does what to whom and when, they cant trust their partner (with good reasons sometimes) besides the 'disgust' factor which stems from lack of knowledge and religious moralism. But people should take a good look around before imagining that they are the majority.
Its certainly not the prostitutes fault that demand exceeds supply in this country, and if most providers in the industry are seeing two clients a day only, that is millions of men, each day, everyday across the country.

Who is the wholly moral here? Besides the men outnumbering the women perhaps conservatively- 8 clients-1 provider weekly (aghast! but true), its also a lot of women. Teachers, nurses, secretaries, retailers, bartenders, etc. besides the fulltime sex worker. Ladies, you have no clue whats really going on in this great 'moral' nation of ours. That does not even count the straight men who are soliciting boys and men. (purposely leaving gay men out of it)

I dont believe in legalization because of everything that has been said here, especially the slippery slope of government control of peoples bodies and what they can and cannot do with them and government sanctioned prostitution would just be too much for us to bear.
As it is prostitution is only a misdemeanor anyway, worth about a $500 fine, but it goes on ones record. That can really hurt someone if they want to leave the business for another job, which truly most providers desire at some point.
By getting a record a womans possibilities of getting another job and out of the business are greatly reduced, so the end does not justify the means at all. It uses valuable police time, taxpayer money and ruins the future for a woman that most people would like to see in a different position anyway, and she may too. No positive result on any count for punishing her.

I understand fully that many people think prostitution is a nasty dirty thing that should not be morally sanctioned by society, but I think those people dont understand the nature of the beast how completely it is already sanctioned by a HUGE percentage of society. A small amount of research would clear up this misconception but I also understand that opening up Pandoras box is not within most peoples interest who are against the entire issue as a whole. Better not to know and keep believing the lie of some sexually 'moral' america.

Well actually I had thought that the reason we can't produce package and eat cats or dogs was based on the fact we considered it cruel...or another word we could use here would be immoral I also had mentioned earlier that we can't eat rhino or tiger meat either but I believe that is because these animals..through our society's laws..are protected. Again it is because we place more value to these things in our culture than we do say..ants.. which I am allowed to have totally mass murdered in my home if I choose to.
Needless I could not disagree with you more..exactly what is the definer we use to decide which parties may be totally and utterly violated and treated cruelly and which can not?
Also don't we contradict this "basic concept" of application all the time..like when we execute people against their will or imprison them or deny them credit or custody of children etc. Or keeping with the animal cruelty theme...dogs and cats are valued and not eaten and their rights as victims of violence are recognized but we don't allow them reproductive rights.
That is just it..the most essential piece of your argument is we should define things in our society or govern our society consistently..but being morals, norms and culture or the most basic element of society human nature itself is hardly consistent that is imo impossible.





Eating cow brains is still legal.
The only reason the thought of me eating you when you die would be injurious to you would be because you morally believe this is wrong. Yet you could possibly think this was a wonderful idea or some ancient family tradition that you wished to have take place too. It would all depend on your own personal morals..but it would not matter because society has defined or as you say imposed what we are and are not all allowed to do with dead people. I couldn't set you ablaze and give you a proper viking burial either..nor could I take you to a taxidermist so I could display you in my living room..though I could my cat or dog.

I think you are being a little nitpicky with the words here...what a surprise. I had meant any legal form of medical procedure or alteration. Our society does not define or impose or accept the idea that removing an arm as normal or beneficial in any way unlike they do removing the foreskin of a penis.


Well as a man I had thought that you would know that our society does view or react differently to circumcised penises then they do to non circumcised penises. In fact being that my family is not originally from America and that my brother was the only actually born in the US my mother..as a result of her defining society or culture.. chose to not circumcise him and she says the doctor tried to talk her into it because he felt it would be detrimental to my bother to not be conformed to societal norms. Also I believe the only reason a tattoo would be injurious to a child later in life would be because tattoos carry a certain stigma ..one that is not entirely good..in our society. So again this injury you speak of would be from a result of being placed opposed to society's morals.

But I didn't ask for my 7 yr old to smoke the cigarettes or drink the beer..all I asked was if she could purchase them..and then transport them home to me. Or are you saying these items are so detrimental in and of themselves that even just the possession of them causes health problems. It's tobacco and alcohol not uranium.


This is actually really difficult to explain briefly how I feel on the definement of child vs. adult in our society ..I am afraid I would really derail the argument. Yet I will say I do morally feel children have special considerations and I support these being taken into consideration when governing our society. I don't feel I am alone in this way of thinking I think many people base this on morality. I think there is very little we consider in society or our government amorally.


Are you editing my post or debating it? Industrialization is just the verb form of the word industry. I think this word suits my point just fine and I really shouldn't have to take any responsibility for your own grammatical prejudices. I would call someone marginal when describing I felt they were unworthy but I would use the word marginalized when explaining that they are being..an action here since it is a verb..made unworthy. The words are meant to mean different things...but these are just different states of their root or original meaning...not entirely different meanings. Why are we having this debate?


Oh thanks again for the tips on how I should use words or phrases. You are not going to bill me for all this consulting are you?
Perhaps some men don't want to physically coerce women to have sex..and find the monetary means of doing so easier and more pleasant? Rape is fairly common tho. I can tell you there is not one woman that I am aware of that hasn't had a man forcibly attempt and even successful achieve coercing them into having sex or some kind of sexual action without the use of money.
If you believe that sex is a commodity and always has been then I fail to understand how you can claim that as a commodity demand is not it's biggest influence in the market.

First off, I empathize with you on the quotes. Just this little post took some serious editing...


The phrase is "love the sinner, hate the sin" Wertz. It's why I said I pray you'd find some direction. Children need direction, disclipline, moral guidance and yes you should love them when they stray, but that doesn't mean supporting their misdeeds. As you loved them when you corrected their behavior when they were toddlers, you should love them as you strive to correct their behavior as adolescents. They don't need a pal, they need a parent.

Just to amplify on this - I happen to think that marijuana should be legal, or at least decriminalized. I think that hard drugs should be medicalized. Are you saying that I should encourage my child and support his decision to be a pot dealer? How about a heroin dealer, if he only sells to 'consenting adults?' (Of course, we have to trust that an adolescent can discern who is a consenting adult) "It makes him happy and provides a reasonable income" so I guess in your eyes, I'd be a great parent?


It's not immoral "because I say so." Believing in a moral or a "value" is de facto saying that it is superior to others. If you value monogamy, you are saying it is superior to polygamy. If you value diversity, you are saying that diversity is superior to monoculturism (or whatever non-diversity is). If you say that your belief in acceptance of all things, "if it feels good, do it," etc. then surely your argument with me on these issues would be more complex than Wertz' morality and values are better than carlito's.

I'm saying that the judeo-christian value set is superior to any other value set. I'm not saying that there aren't good atheists and buddhists and bad people who claim to be jews and christians. I'm saying that our country is a better place if we adhere to the judeo-christian value system. 10 commandments, that sort of thing. And that value system places a premium on male-female manogamy and a family structure that is trivialized by things that denigrate that structure, notably casual sex and prostitution.

My values tell me that there is such a thing as right and wrong and some cultures are indeed superior. If you find that intolerant, ask yourself why you thinking that your values are superior is any different?

"I'm saying that the judeo-christian value set is superior to any other value set."

So do you pick and choose which of those superior Judeo-Christian values you wish to follow as superior, or just the ones that don't have the "ew" factor involved?

Noah was given drink and seduced by his daughters- ew- yet, he was not condemed for it, and niether were they- a Judeo Christian value?

Polygamy is not only allowed in Judeo-Christian values- sometimes it is demanded. Genocide is a Judeo-Christian Value, Slavery is a Judeo-Christian Value, stoning your son for not obeying you is a Judeo-Christian value- and the most important for Americans- Monarchy is a Judeo-Christian value- no were in any bible is freedom from our rulers part of the equation- instead, the bible teaches the believers to submit to the rulers, and the slave to return to the master.

And, as someone pointed out- prostitution has it's place in Judeo-Christian values-

So exactly which Judeo-Christian values that are so superior do you follw?

Or do you just pick and choose which are the "superior" ones- and what makes you the high arbiter of which of these values are "superior"?

1.) Should prostitution be made legal in the United States? Why or why not?

Yes, but not without sufficient regulation to protect the public health and to ensure nonexploitive relationships between sex workers and their employers.

The advantages are many. Police and court resources will be freed to better deal with real crimes (crimes that have victims); the sex industry will be brought under taxation; the health of sex workers will be easier to regulate. Further, that sex is in sufficient demand to give rise to a sex industry is sufficient evidence that commercial sex is wanted by many persons; equally, that a supply of sex workers has arisen is sufficient evidence that sex work is a pursuit wanted by many persons; the clear conclusion is that there is a liberty interest in this demand meeting this supply.

2.) Who does it harm and how?

The appropriate question is not whether commercial sex does harm, but whether these particular harms can or should be ameliorated by continued criminalization, and further, whether many of these harms result more from criminalization than from commercial sex itself (for example, the exploitation of sex workers is facilitated by sex work being criminal).

3.) Are there any possible benefits to legalizing prostitution? If so, what are they?

I already answered this.