And who will be paying for the testing? Taxpayers of course! How would you feel to know that your money, instead of going to education, infastructure or health, is going to test to see if the prostitutes in your city are infected with STD's?!

Hell, i'm sure some anti-Iraq war types would prefer to see it go to the war rather then to prostitutes

GA, every taxpayer has to deal with some of their taxes going to causes that they don't support or agree with.



Well this is one "anti-Iraq war type" who would have no problem keeping working women safe through my taxes.

I'm kind of tired of the "moral high horse" on this thread. I don't think anyone, even those for legalization, who's posted would go as far as to say that prostitutes aren't disgusting. But the simple fact is, every profession has risks. While many have a romanticized idea of sex, I think they should try to understand those who don't. If there are women who are completely comfortable with accepting money to have sex with someone, that does not automatically mean that they are some immoral, disgusting harlot. I wouldn't be a prostitute, but that's only because I have my own issues with having sex with anyone. But if it were to become legal, and my daughter wanted to become one, would I discourage her? No. Would I disapprove? No. It's sex.

I have a t-shirt that I bought from Hustler that reads "relax, it's just sex!" And I truly believe that message. Dogs do it, rabbits do it, and if humans feel like paying for it so be it. I see nothing immoral or disgusting about two people having sex, or one of them paying the other to have sex. I'd venture to say garbage collectors are exposed to more than prostitutes.

Then again, maybe I'm just jaded...

Actually that is incorrect GoAmerica, in Nevada's system of brothels, 100% of the cost is incurred by the business establishment as an operating expense.

The business must pay license fees, taxes and it must pay to get its "employees" tested regularly. All the law makers did is make the laws and I'm sure they dedicate a minimal budget to enforcing them. However I'm quite certain that the budget is exponentially smaller than what the Vice department of most police departments spend on rounding up prostitutes, sending them to trial and jailing them.

Once again, no one is suggesting we subsidize this industry or otherwise condone it. By making it legal some additional burdens are put upon the people that choose to work in that world.

Wow I think I will write two posts just so I know people will read this post. I really feel like I am a on a merry-go-round. I'm spinning... Liberals arguing against it, conservative for it, not the way i thought it would be...lol Like they say you can not just group people. Anyways, my point...

I am turned around because I agree with P.E. and lederuvdapac, that prostitutes in many cases are desolate poor souls forced to become street walkers because one or two bad decisions in life. They are victims of capitalism, and even if we made prostitution legal there would be people that are forced to work in brothels, not by force, but by necessity. There would still be women that work on the southside of some city, that is rundown. The system wouldn't be perfect.
However, what I can't for the life of me understand is why you would argue about the hardships, and portray prostitutes as victims in you arguments(which I agree)... then turn around and further victimize them, by throwing them in jail!!! "Oh you're broke, just trying to feed your family with your skill-less self?? Oh, I'm so sorry... here's your court date and fine." Are you kidding me? Are you guys just playing the "victim" card to further your side because your argument of morality is to ambiguous, or are you genuinely concerned and don't realize we are only adding to that victimization by keeping it illegal??

That doesn't have to be the case though, check out this review of a book called Brothel.



She continues...


Interestingly enough I dug up an article that describes an interesting proposal that will go on the ballot in November in Berkeley. Apparently Berkeley is putting an initiative on the ballot to legalize prostitution. It would be purely symbolic, but as usual California leads the way, man I love the Bay Area

It is entirely possible that we who are against prostitution are not against the prostitutes themselves, and we aren't out to throw them into jail, but the practice of prostitution is not a positive addition to our society (for the reasons previously stated). Therefore we do not want it legalized so the government can become yet another pimp for the working girls and not actually address the larger issue of the continued exploitation of women and children.

I do not want to punish the victims of a corrupt institution. I do not want the government giving the legal go-ahead to the industry, either.

This is my point of view; hope this clears it up a bit for you.

From an effectiveness standpoint, I don't think anything we can do can rid the world of prostitution.

It seems to me that we should continue to work on the 'causes' of prostitution, or rather the causes of people prostituting themselves: drug addiction, mental illness, physical & emotional abuse, etc.

Likewise, it seems to me that legal prostitutes have a much better standard of living than most illegal prostitutes. (I will admit that I have little firsthand knowledge here, just guessing from the number of street prostitutes i've bandaged up on the streets of DC).

So, they're here to stay, and if they're illegal, they get beat up a lot, or pay an exhorbant portion of their income for protection.

It also seems to me that this is definitely a case where 'labor' is and should be the primary profiter from 'production'. I say let them unionize. The other overhead costs would be nothing compared to the profit margin the girls would have. When they're legal, they can pay normal rental / ownership rates, as well as depend on legal recourse for security and collections.

And neither were alcohol, pornography and strip clubs.
But, in fact that's exactly what's happening prostitutes are being put in jail because their trade is illegal. You folks have said that "prostitution is a woman's last option." So what happens after she's been arrested and can no longer go back to her last option?

CP

As has been said numerous times before this testing could be easily funded through licensing and processing fees.



There are 10,000s of Americans working in McDonalds (which many consider demeaning) out of necessity. 1000s more work in garbage collection, sewage treatment, etc. All of these careers are considered (wrongly) demeaning by most of American Society. Should they be criminalized as well?

Are they really prostitutes out of necessity? Why not strip, sign on with one of the millions of voyeur web sites out there and live rent and board free with a camera watching your every move?, try to get into adult movies? It seems to me that people would do not think the sex trade is wrong have many options besides prostitution.



Where is the harm? How is society hurt? What is the loss here? I see this though out the thread "prostitution is bad for America", setting aside the concept that we all prostitute ourselves to survive (give of our skills for money), what is this unspoken horrible harm that would come to society of it was legalized?

Shooting too many deer during deer hunting season will land you in jail, too. What harm does shooting one more deer do to humans? Maybe one less deer for the other humans with licenses to hunt, big deal. But it is the law.

Yes, alcohol, pornography and strip clubs were illegal as well. So what positive outcome has it been to society to legalize all of these. It plays hell with property values in those areas of town where these establishments are, I'll tell you. Hardly anybody wants to live around them.

Let's just legalize all of the vices--we'll rationalize it by saying that the government is going to get such tremendous revenues from them. It will be indicative of the values of some people, and we'll just dismiss the opinions of those who oppose them by calling them strait-laced fogeys who don't know how to have a good time.

Interesting thing, though--in all of these industries (yes, the legal ones, too) organized crime is also heavily invested. Why is that?

Is to be made the ultimate justification for foisting these things on society?

The Disney movie Pinocchio comes to mind--Pleasure Island, where naughty boys go to endlessly (they think) indulge themselves in any activity unrelated to responsible behavior. In the end they become beasts, and they are sold into slavery.

What is the best thing about humanity? The capacity for pleasure, or the ability to possess and demonstrate the qualities of devotion, integrity, and compassion? In what way does prostitution promote any of these values, touted to be among the highest to which human beings aspire?

Overland Sailor

Yes, these jobs are considered demeaning. It is where people with, little to no skills go. But I can honestly say that prostitution, porn, and stripping are jobs with much greater negative from society than the trashman. I think most people would consider trash man "honest work". Before you reply a comment to that statement, no I am not in that category of most people. Also remember, i don't think prostitution should be illegal, so no I don't think demeaning jobs should be illegal, either.



Some no, some yes... you say it yourself. Bad choices can lead to bad lives. We live in a society that thinks money is more important than people. That the individual is worth more than the group. some people fall by the wayside and are forced to either sell their stuff or live a life of greater hardship. Why not strip... maybe because they are too old or too ugly and I'm not saying this in jest. If they can't strip they definitely can't be in a porn. Maybe they fell into the game in their early teens and has had a pimp directing them, since. The rules of the street are not the rules of the U.S. If you know what I mean, then you know what i mean, it's hard to explain. Some are twitching addicts, with no other way to get their fix. Some or single moms, that can't see another option. Some are as you are hinting to, people who see it as easy money and have know problem doing it, stripping, or a movie. I have no clue as to say which is which, i won't even pretend to.

Paladin
.

I can understand this. So would you be for totally decriminalizing it from the position of the prostitute and the john??? limit it to a 75 to 100 dollar ticket?? Rather than jail and/or huge fines.

droop224: Possibly. I'm not interested in having draconian measures imposed on anyone. I just don't want it legal.

There are certain topics that are guaranteed to generate a high volume of responses, replies and ruminations. The topic of prostitution is certainly qualifies.

I've stayed out of this thread because my views haven't changed since the last time we had this debate. I favor decriminalization, not the legalization of prostitution. I oppose any kind of sexwork that involves underage or unwilling participants.

The harshest and staunchest foes of female prostitutes are other women who are not prostitutes. Men, who are typically the primary patrons of prostitution, tend to be a bit more progressive on the issue than women in general. Sisterhood may be powerful but not when sex for pay enters the equation. That's unfortunate, but not wholly unexpected.

I can speculate why this is, but what professional sexworkers know is they only represent a threat to a relationship that is already on shaky ground. Hubby doesn't feel like choosing the lotion and last month's Hustler option so instead of taking matters into his own hands, he goes out and finds a professional "stress reliever" to satisfy his carnal desires for an hour or two.

Is it preferable that a man (and men have been largely excluded from this discussion and given a pass while the female sexworkers bear the majority of the blame, shame and scorn) take up with the hottie next door that's half his age or start a torrid and tacky affair with the dumpy, but willing co-worker who is eager to exchange furtive gropes and oral favors in a locked office for possible career advancement?

Neither prostitution nor prostitutes themselves are disgusting per se. What is disgusting is a society where a movie where killing a woman will be rated "PG" while a woman in the midst of sexual ectasy is rated "R." What is disgusting is a society where if a woman gives it away she's a whore. If she charges for it she's a whore AND a homewrecking, disease-ridden, filthy, drug addicted slut with Daddy issues who has no respect for her body or herself.

I can only shake my head. Not because there aren't prostitutes who are homewrecking, disease-ridden, filthy, drug addicted sluts with Daddy issues. There are. I've just never run into any of those types.

The revulsion against prostitutes by some is offset by the fascination with them by others. This indicates to me how captive we are with the concept of sex.

Suzy Steamboat is right. It's just sex. If prostitutes use their body to earn their daily bread, how is that different from the athlete or plumber or steelworker or fireman or customer service representative or anyone else who labors and toils in exchange for money. We're saying, "Well, that kind of physical activity to earn money is wrong, but this one is okay." Why is being a wage slave at Wal-Mart or some minimum wage crap job somehow more honorable because society approves of that kind of slave labor, but a woman who finds out she can make $300 an hour for seven minutes worth of sex is somehow the dumb one.

How exactly does that work?

No, I don't want my daughter to grow up to be a prostitute. I don't want her to grow up to be a Republican either, but if she chooses to be a Republican prostitute (and they do exist), that would be her cross to bear, not mine.

In a world where people are paid vast sums of money to be "independent contractors" and go off to Abu Ghraib and inflict pain, humiliation and brutality upon people, I don't get on my moral high horse about women who give pleasure to others in exchange for money. Heaven knows there's enough money in sadism, so why not sex?

Here, here.

When politicians and police talk about cracking down on prostitution, they are not referring to the type where adults engage in private, consensual prostitution. Women in this end of the business place their ads in the phone book and on the internet and are soliciting upper middle class men who desire discriminating encounters. These women are in prostitution to pay for college, buy a house or maintain a more affluent lifestyle. This is prostitution by choice. They can turn down a date. Decriminalize it. These women are professionals who should get a business license and pay taxes like any other sole proprietor would.

However...desperate poverty, drug addictions and threats of violence leave other women no choice other than prostitution. Sex becomes a means of survival. This sort of prostitution gets the most public attention and is at the center of high profile crackdowns. “Clean up the streets!” is the rallying cry just before elections.

Women engaged in this sort of prostitution are taking extreme measures to survive and are the ones most often exploited. They are more likely not to practice safe sex, have the highest rates of STD’s & AIDS and often victims of violence. They will do it in a car, a back alley or in a flea bag hotel room. They will do it for whatever amount of money they can get. They cannot turn down dates. It is a matter of survival.

Decriminalize it. Threat of law as a deterrence does not work when it is a matter of survival. Programs dealing with women’s health, protective and support services must be completely funded and directed towards women who find themselves in circumstances that might otherwise lead to prostitution. As a society we need to take better care of our women, not throw them in jail.

Funny story about this. My wife and I got married five years ago in Vegas. No, it wasn't a shotgun wedding type of thing, nor were we big fans of the king. (ugh,huh-thank ya', thank ya very much!) We just decided that we didn't want a big church affair and that Vegas was a perfect way to get away from all the wedding stuff that we didn't like. We got married in the early afternoon and then decided to stroll around the strip before heading to a show. As we were walking(still decked out in wedding regalia) numerous women(of ill-repute) were attempting to pass me their cards. I was floored at first, in particular since even when they walked by, they held it behind their backs so you could grab it if the wife wasn't looking.

I would say that we should legalize it. It would take out a lot of the seedier elements about the profession. It would have a more positive effect on those who engage in it. They would be more apt to perhaps take counseling, drug, and job training courses. Health could be monitored quite closely, i'm not familiar with Nevada's laws on prostitution, but from what I hear, the ladies are checked often. You're correct in stating that a lot of good would come out of legalization. A lot of traditional minded folks won't be for it, but then again, forward-thinking ideas have always met a lot of resistance in the past.

A couple things. As I said before, some people here are supposedly arguing against legalisation of prostitution, but are actually just arguing against prostitution in theory. While it makes for an interesting argument, it is also nigh irrelevant to the debate on legalisation: prostitution, legal or illegal, is here to stay, has always been here to stay, and always will be. Nobody has been able to eliminate it, from the most moral (Vatican city) to the most oppressive (Third Reich), dispite best efforts, even draconian efforts, prostitution was always there. So the debate here is how do we best deal with its inevitable presence?

Secondly, I want to throw this out there. When people talk about prostitution on this thread everyone seems to be referring to streetwalkers. I invite you to do a test: open up Google, type in the name of your town, the word 'escort' and his search. Thousands upon thousands of agencies and independents, some charging many thousands of dollars. Were these women forced into the industry through desperation and/or drugs?

Now are escorts a majority of prostitutes? I have no idea, I have never frequebted either and don't really know the industry, but I will tell you that perhaps in SOME cases there is a choice to enter the business, just as there is a choice to become a stripper for example...

I dated a stripper for a few months (commence mockery), she was paying her way through university, terribly sweet girl really. She also made over three times what I did in half the hours/week, and I am a very well paid government executive.

I'm not necessarily defending the industry, nor am I saying its all women who want to be there, when clearly it is not. But its also not black and white the other way...

I tend to agree with Vermillion here:



I have an alternative question to throw out that I think might help focus the debate. What ill effects would legalizing prostitution cause? Here's the point of this question--I don't think the vast majority of people would notice anything at all. As Vermillion states, prostitution will continue, regardless. Any effects I can foresee from legalizing it seem to be for the better--less street-walkers, cleaner industry, money gained from taxation, etc.. Not the least of the benefits would be freeing up police resources to persue more effective activities--after all, it's been illegal for centuries and is still thriving. It all seems like a big waste of time, to me--time that could be better spent on other activities. The only real problem is one of perception--what politician wants to take a strong pro-prostitution stance? Very similar to the legalizing of various drugs issue--its a political non-starter, regardless of how much sense it might make.

Yes we should legalize prostitution. Nobody is harmed by prostitution. Adultery is against the law and people still commit adultery whether or not they can have access to prostitutes. And if the children of a single father/mother don't like what daddy/mommy is doing with a prostitute, then tough - they should live with it - there's nothing irrespectable about prostitution. I am tired of my tax dollars going to search for, arrest, lock up, prosecute, and jail people of prostitution offenses. There are no bad effects of prostitution. In fact there are good effects of prostitution - it could be a source of jobs, a source of revenue taxes for governments, and relieves stress for men and women.

Just because it woudl be legal that dont mean all the little girls are going to want to be one when they grow up. I think the job will still be looked down upon and that will deter women from wanting to do it. Women know that a man may go to a prositute for fun, but when it comes to selecting a partner for a relationship he wont someone that has been had by everyone else. And the women who cant be prostitues are probably call girls(escort girls) who do outside job. I cant see someone paying a woman he does not know 100's of dollars just to sit and talk.

legalising prostition is not the problem here. it is the relationship. if he is willing to cheat with some random woman he will probably get a disease anyway

Jobs possibly more degrading than prostitution:
Shoe salesman
Garbage man
janitor
box maker
male nurse
grave digger
Urine drug test proctor
lawyer
politican (this may be synonomous with prostitute)


Perhaps, out of concern for the people who perform the aforementioned jobs, they should all be considered illegal. I would hate for someone to perform a job other people may look down upon.

I'm curious. Did you miss female nurses off your list, or do you think nursing is somehow more degrading for men than for women?

Also, why is a shoe salesman more degraded than, say, a podiatrist? The pay cheque? Does this mean that expensive call-girls are doing something more noble and life-affirming than streetwalkers?

And what is degrading about a box maker? Are boxes bad or dirty?

I guess I'm trying to fish for your point, here, seeing as you didn't really make it clear.

Edited to add: I've read a little further back in the thread now, so I do see where your post fits in. You can ignore the last question.

However, I'm still curious to know what you have against male nurses that you don't have against females, and what you see the moral difference being between podiatry and shoe sales.

If you've come from a priveliged background (and I don't mean riches, but enough to not have to boil up water in a kettle to have a warm bath), it might be a good idea for you to not get involved with this debate, especially if you are not willing to understand how much some peoples situations differ from yours.

There will always be prostitution, because of the situations a large percentage of the population (or proles, as you may call them) happen to be born into. When my parents immigrated to the uk from algeria (I was 2 years old), we had nothing. I lived in the roughest part in town, surrounded by the usual addicts & prostitues etc. My parents always taught me good morals, to work hard and to acheive...my father studies very hard and spent a lot of time away from us to acheive his pHd, and worked nights in a petrol station and every other hour he could in KFC to provide the very little we could afford. Obviously, staying on the tracks of morality and doing things like the system says we should means we succeeded socially and financially, right? I'm 21 now and we are in slightly better circumstances - my dad is still at KFC but with "Dr" proceeding his name on his name tag. So I know that life isn't black and white, what do I teach my children? Put your faith in the system and then hopefully one day you'll be rich and ignorant enough to vote conservative?

I know how we could get rid of prostitution - how about people from priveliged background get off their high horse and sponsor a prostitute i.e. pay for education, rehab (if necessary), pay for visits to a shrink to undo the psychological damage that comes with living through abuse...I'm sure she'd be so grateful once she is working as a doctor or lawyer that she will pay you back all your money. God bless you.

"Amazigh, the statement of Put your faith in the system and then hopefully one day you'll be rich and ignorant enough to vote conservative? is a blanket statement and not at all constructive. Not to mention that it really adds nothing to the question for debate"

Apologies for this, I didn't mean plain 'conservative', I meant vote for the UK Conservative party (our equivalent to the republican party in a way). But still, you are right and I withdraw that comment.

I guess you aren't aware of the recent case in Orange County, California. Several housewives from affluent families were involved in a "high class" call girl ring. Poverty does not drive prostitution. Demand for sex drives prositution. If people are willing to pay for it, there will be individuals willing to provide it. I will ignore your comments blaming people of privilege which are, frankly, out of place. I think, as I noted earlier, people choose their own means of production. For some, prostitution, is the only form of production they are able to supply. Different people will look at prositution differently and there is nothing inherently criminal about it. Personally, if I were a woman, I would rather be a prostitute than most of the jobs listed on my earlier post (understandably male nurse would not be available if such were the case).

I have no idea if you are even in favor of legalizing prostitution or not. Personally, I have no problem with it. It should be considered a job like any other. It does not need government regulation other than perhaps needing a particular zoning consideration so we don't find prostitutes walking in residential areas and near schools. Set aside a little red light district for them. If you are opposed to it, don't go there. We are not talking about legalizing burglary or murder. We are talking about consentual sex between two adults in which money is exchanged for compensation. How is this immoral? It may be a sin according to the bible, but to quote the good Reverand Lovejoy from everyone's favorite cartoon, "How you ever actually read the bible? Technically, it is a sin to go to the bathroom."

What does being a woman have to do with it? There is a market for male prostitution as well, especially from other men. It can be exceptionally lucrative too. Why would that be comparatively more humiliating? Would you choose prostitution over shoe sales, if you think a woman should? Why not go into prostitution yourself, as a man, if being used as a human spittoon is comparatively less humiliating than being a garbage collector? Are you under the assumption that being a prostitute is somehow less degrading for a woman than a man? Are you under the impression that they would be more likely to enjoy the experience of being used, sexually?

Period. End of Statement. No need for further discussion on this issue.

Why?



Again, Period. End of Statement. No need for further discussion. YOU CANNOT ELIMINATE PROSTITUTION. It has been around since whenever women first had the power to control it, and it will be around until we decide to genetically alter the human mind to stop wanting sex, which would, or course, create its own set of problems. So, there is not an ideological solution to this problem. One might very validly think prostitution is bad, but they will never be able to make it go away. NEVER. So, the only question, then, is what to do about it. You have a segment of the population that thinks it is bad. Suggestions have been made that center on this assumption. Why not question the assumption? What, really, is bad about it? In some societies (Japanese?), it is an honorable profession. It has even been considered so in certain times in Western civilization, and is currently accepted in various Western cultures today (Denmark). I suspect (can someone help me out here?) that, in fact, only in the US is it such a predominant issue. Some of the strict Muslim cultures might be the only other ones that come to mind (hmmm, maybe some of their 'primitive' ideas are then not so very far from some of our own?). There are two main arguments against prostitution: it is morally wrong, and it is degrading to women. Both of these arguments are basically ignoring the simple fact that it is and always will be. There isn't much of a counter to the moral argument. If you feel it is morally wrong, you will always feel that way. As to the degradation issue, though, that is more of a perceptual problem. If society didn't feel it was degrading, then it wouldn't be (as it isn't in other societies). So, legalization would be a starting point in addressing that aspect.

There is a pragmatic aspect to the legalization aspect as well. Given that it will never be eliminated--why waste police resources on it? Police crackdowns are mainly politically motivated. They are conducted often enough to appease those opposed to prostitution that the police are trying to contain the problem. Isn't this really a waste of time? How many prostitutes do you think are ever 'taken off the streets'? It's just a revolving door, in the end not really serving any purpose, other than the aforementioned political one. No other aspect of police work has as little practical consequence.

Why isn't it legalized, then? Well, for the same political reason. How many votes do you think the pro-prostitution ticket will get? Even those partaking will be loathe to actually support it because of the social stigma. It would certainly be political suicide for any conservative--that would be like a liberal running on any anti-environment plank . I guess I could see it working its way, then, into the liberal agenda at some point. I guess this raises an additional question that might be appropriate in this forum:

Would you vote for someone that included legalization in their platform? Whether you would or would not--how important would that be in your voting decision?

Hobbes, I basically agree with the thrust of your post, however I think there are issues associated with prostitution other than what you've named:

1. Prostitution is a vector for STDs include HIV. It is in a society's best interest to prevent outbreaks of diseases. Regulated prostitution seems to reduce this problem rather dramatically.

2. Prostitution is often associated with hardcore drug use. Apart from the moral considerations, injected drugs (such a heroin) are associated with diseases like HIV and hepatitus. Though, regulated prostitution seems to help here as well.

3. Often, prostitution is chosen as an economic enterprise of last resort (sorry don't have data to back this up). While I agree with ibelsd that it can be a lucrative business, it can be considered degrading by the prostitutes themselves. I'm not sure if this is good or bad in a capitalistic sense, but it makes the moral implications rather ambiguous. I get squeemish .

I also agree with Hobbes, for the most part, but I would add that the statement, "There will always be prostitution.." Doesn't really sum it up. There will just as likely always be murder, child abuse, assault, and so on, but there is certainly reason to object to those things.

I don't think that selling oneself for a service should be illegal (unless, of course the service itself is illegal), but there are many points of contention between allowing the prostitute to make a living for him/herself on the street and allowing pimps to set up shop with a booming industry of sex workers wherever they wish. Countries which accept prostitution still recognize it as a non-optimal profession, and enforce zoning to restrict that activity to certain areas only. Women aren’t being trafficked in as sex workers by the thousands because these countries hold such women in high regard, even if they don't formally criminalize the activity. Treatment for sex workers is often far from respectful, as anyone who has gone anywhere near a Turkish brothel would know.

Actually, it is not prostitution that is the vector, it is the casual sex.

So if we are to legislate against practices that spread disease then we should be considering making it illegal to have sex outside of marriage. Of course that law would be even less of a deterrent then the current anti-prostitution laws.

I know, logophage was not suggesting that we should ban prostitution based on the spread of disease and was in fact simply pointing out one of the reasons used by the opposition.

But it made me think (now I need an Ibuprophen).

Prostitution is associated with drug use and disease. So is poverty. I have read countless times how being poor has a direct effect on your health and your life span. Perhaps banning poverty is the real answer. How is another matter. A question for the ages.

Prostitution is a profession. It is a small business. It is people choosing a path to provide for themselves by selling a service others are willing to buy. It is a service, that harms no one but the participants, if it harms anyone at all. So why criminalize it?

How many more violent criminals would be off the street, unable to harm people if the cops assigned to vice were reassigned due too the legalization of prostitution? Would that not be a greater benefit to society then our failed attempts to ban this harmless business thoughout history?

Edited to correct format SNAFU.

I'm sure that it has remained illegal primarily due to puritanical religious attitudes. Specifically what some social commentators have called religion's "War on Pleasure," is to blame for the prohibition against this and other "victimless crimes." I think Mencken summed it up perfectly in the quote at the bottom of my sig.

What's the harm?
That's the justification for almost all sex related legislation debate.
This is the harm: People are moral beings, with a conscience and the ability to choose right from wrong. The minute we abandon that on a societal level we are beginning to remove the very restraints that enable us to live together as community.
Sure, Bob's lonely, he goes into Mary who likes to sell her body as a business venture, seems harmless...where's the harm? Here: Mary has now begun to merchandise herself, she is now worth what Bob wants to pay. Today, Mary is a young good looking girl, in 10-15 years she begins to sag a little here and there, and so does her worth to Bob, who gets an erection jsut thining about young flesh. Mary is beyond ever getting married by now, will end up basically alone having denied the community around her the blessing she could have been as a mother who raised a selfless kid who grew up to be a teacher. Bob, on the other hand, is so used to paying for sex that he has no need for intimacy, will never marry, never reproduce, never coach his son's little league team, never be there for Billy down the street who lost his father in a traffic accident. Bob too lives a lonely senior existence, having contributed nothing to the community around him but the extra income the liquor store got from him and Mary who spent their "hard earned" money drowning out the emptiness of their existence. There's the harm.

Prostitution is a "small business" with a high depreciation rate on the goods being sold.

For those who don't want to have something as trivial as morality get in the way, it probably is a wonderful business opportunity, as long as they keep the depreciation factor in mind and make plans for their own obsolescence.

In any case, they have reduced themselves to the status of sexual commodity. They should not be surprised or dismayed if they end up being treated as a commodity by their customers.

It really comes down to, as a man, I haven't found any offers and pulling a gay trick is not an offer I would be willing to consider. As a woman, the bar is much lower. I have seen pics of some of the prostitutes who must be making some type of money else they wouldn't be out there. Let me tell you, if I looked anything close to half as tore up as some of those women, I couldn't get an offer from a female or a gay guy. Hope that answers your question.

Um, exactly whose morality are you talking about, Paladin? Everyone in the world has morality, but exactly what those morals are are completely, totally subjective. So according to my, and their, morality, it's perfectly okay for a woman to have sex with someone and be paid for it.
And your last paragraph just reeks of hardline conservatism. "They did it, they deserve what they have coming." Do people who pick up my trash every Friday "reduce themselves to garbage collectors?" Should we frown on them because what they do is disgusting to some?
If your morality works for you, fine, but you should keep in mind that it's only your interpretation of it, and that's certainly not a good enough reason to write it into law.

I'd like to personally debunk these theories. As I mentioned way back when in this thread, prostitution is widespread and not what people imagine it to be. There are literally millions of people, both men and women engaging in the practice on a daily basis and I would bet that people all of us know are either buying or selling sex regularily.

1.) For one, unless one is totally irresponsible, such as a fetish for streetwalkers and 'danger', sold sex is protected sex because of understood proclivity. Reliable sex workers are much more inclined to take care of themselves. They do not want to pick up a disease, besides, the client age group is higher. Much more careful than 'free' males and females in bars getting drunk and those who do not understand the consequences, professionals know the risks. If your theory were to be valid we should have health certs for all free males and females entering pick up bars, society health-wise. A bar full of 20's to 30's is a much increased health-detriment situation than any true sex professional who is tested on a regular basis, and by profession takes precautions to the extreme.

2.) Not so, these days. Prostitution is incredibly lucrative on the higher scale. There is no need for drug use as the demeaning aspect has been quite removed (by the internet). Unless a woman is (again) a streetwalker or low end worker, there is a large majority that are college students or even professional women engaging in the business. They use it as a stepping stone, some to make or resume careers, feed children in hard times, buy property or get an investment egg together, a means to an end. The most respectable female with a regular job can be seeing white collar men, and this is a very well developed industry within the male domain. Most CEO's in the country are tuned into erotic escorts on a daily basis, frequently know escorts in an area they travel and are reliable clients. The women are not drug addicts and often dont even drink or have vices, they are business women with goals, own their own homes, have a reason and enjoy the sex as well sometimes.

3.) Exploitation can be rampant , especially in terms of Asia or Mexico, and I will give an expletion of disgust to men who desire to go to these areas for sex-vacations and 'get' women for $30 a night or $100 a week for anything and everything , and I deplore this practice as a male sickness. These women are often sold into slavery and have no way out ever, taking advantage of it is a lack of ethics and an inhumanity that is unexplainable in male selfishness and sick sexual gratification to the detriment of humanity on a realatively large scale. Its a male weakness in light of penile gratification to get 'cheap sex'. But they do it, and its a supply side economic. Some girls in these countries are supporting their entire families on 'gringo' sex money. The male side of the idea is they would starve otherwise, my side is that its Sick and Perverse.

So, take it as you will. Men can be just horny, unsatisfied, ruthless pigs who will supply side, do their business, if they can afford it either ethically pay for a good clean working woman, or go to Mexico for a $30 lay or pick up the nearest streetwalker.
But the men are not always all that bad either. Some are going away to Iraq or Afghanistan and want a nice time beforehand, or their women quit giving them sex a long time ago and their drive did not die when hers did and they stay with her anyway but get their kicks in one hour in an afternoon with a good hearted well paid working woman, not an affair.
There are all kinds, and all kinds of 'working women'...prostitutes, not drug addicts, not exploited, just people trying to make ends meet somehow. Its not any less, but sometimes even more a spirtitual meeting of souls, therapuetic, not perfect nor moral, they have that in common, just ships passing, good or bad , it would be hard to determine in the moment...

Mrs. P, I would agree with your additions, but add the following comments. First, the 'perps' in the situations you mention are doing actual harm to someone, and, when caught, are likely to be taken off the street. This is not the case with prostitution. Second, none of the other things you mention is a multi-billion dollar industry (generalizing here to the entire porn industry, of which I think prostitution is at least related, if not a part of). This, to me, indicates that while these other crimes are something that society, as a whole, does not want, that is not the case with prostitution.

(for the overdramatic statment)
If Bob tries to blame his severe lack of motivation to accomplish anything in life on Mary, then Bob needs to check himself for more serious problems. I dont think casual sex is going to destroy Bob's life, and if Mary is going into prostitution she is probably not planning on getting married. A prostitute will not destroy a man's need for intimacy. If a man goes to a prostitute it is because he wants to have sex w/o the attachments. The scenario you described is very unlikely, and if a woman decides to become a prostitue they are most likely going to do it whether it is illegal or not. The only way I can see someone this affected is if their life revolves around the prostitute and like I said in my first sentence, Bob has other issues he needs to take care of if that is case
If Mary and Bob were not customer and client but were EDITED TO REMOVE ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER buddies do you think it would affect his life the same?

You are making a lot of assumptions. You are assuming that Mary is not going to college with the money she is making, or possibly putting it into CDs, T-bills, IRA, etc... You assume that Bob is motivated only by sex. You also imply that a person is not a positive contributor to their community unless they have children. Are we to believe that single, childless people are a burden on society?

Suppose Bob and Mary volunteer in their community. Suppose Bob is a youth minister for his church, for example. Suppose Mary uses her off-time to answer phones at a crisis-center. You assume that because these people engage in an activity that you find unpalatable, they cannot possibly be good people, or end up leading good lives.

Why do you say that Mary is beyond being married after her youth is gone? My mother and my mother-in-law both re-married after each of them was 50. So, it can happen, believe it or not. You are making a slightly misogynistic implication there.

BTW, as a young infantryman I made it a point to frequent at least one prostitute in each of the five countries I deployed to. I have been married (very happily) for nearly nine of the eleven years since those days, have two beautiful sons, and besides serving my communtiy in uniform, I frequently volunteer at my older son's school. Not all Johns are your atypical 'Bob".

Don't we all make those types of judgements when planning our life. Being a lawyer may be ok for your job, but I wouldn't want to do it. Somone needs to be the guy who drains the septic tank, but it isn't for me or my family. Does that imply I am better than a spetic tank cleaner? Read into it what you want. All I know there will be a lot of crap backing up without someone willing to do a job I don't want.

Exactly my point, SuzySteamboat. Those with low (moral) expectations are seldom disappointed and might not have to try so hard to please themselves. But if you aspire to a higher morality, and it is pretty much in line with the standards of the majority in your community, then you have a realistic expectation of having the laws in your community reflect those moral standards, whether they are considered hardline conservative or moderate.

And I would like to remind you that this thread was started under the category of Principles and Personal Philosophy.

My personal principles are probably more reflective of the 1960's, in a time when we were taught that we reap what we sow.* That does not make those morals any less workable, except perhaps for those raised to watch booty or Howard Stern on television, or those accustomed to seeing themselves and being treated as strictly physical entities with no desire to consider what a soul is or the concept of karma.

If garbage collectors feel bad about themselves for what they do despite the fact that they are making an honest living, then they should probably find another line of work. I personally do not look down upon garbage collectors. They do not take the garbage into their bodies, but load it into the truck. And at the end of the day they wash up and change into clean clothes. Garbage collecting is respectable, it doesn't break up relationships based on trust. Garbage collection is a vital service; sex for money really is not.

But in prostitution, the prostitutes are often looked upon with disdain even (and sometimes especially) by those whom they service. They are a sub-class--paid servants whose function is to provide sexual gratification but who are not considered worthy enough to introduce to one's family. If prostitutes are content to be looked upon and treated that way (e.g., that kind of girl) rather than as equals, fine.

("Working girls" need to also bear in mind that their merchandise is attractive and profitable until a sweeter, younger thing with prowess in bed breezes into town. Ah, free enterprise! The no-strings-attached nature of the "business" means the johns aren't obligated to continue taking their business to the same old, reliable prostitute any more than they feel obligated to be faithful to their wives.)

But if they are looking to receive respect for anything other than their ability to satisfy an urge...
-------------------------------------
*("Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting."--Galatians 6:7,8)

I'm not offended by the notion of morality. I'd hate to live in a place where public fornication or relieving oneself in public were considered morally acceptable behavior. What I'm wary of is when morality cloaks a puritanical and prudish agenda.

Here's a definition of morality I can support: Enjoy and give pleasure, without doing harm to yourself or anyone else---that, I think, is the whole of morality.

I know from her previously stated positions that for Paladin Elspeth her personal sense of morality runs counter to the notion of legalizing prostitution. But the doomsday scenarios of disease-ridden, character-deficit whores luring hapless men with their illicit charms to a hideous doom is complete and utter nonsense.

It's sex. A woman who bed-hops is some kind of slut. But if she bed-hops with her eye on the bottom line, she's a prostitute. A prostitute has sex for money and it's that trading of fleeting physical sensation for dollars and cents that seems to unnerve some of the posters here. I really can't understand why except that I know that most of what people know about prostitution is based on a stereotype. Most of what people know about prostitution is wrong and at least a decade behind the currently evolving model.

And many of today's contemporary prostitutes don't conform to stereotypes:

The most successful prostitutes are invisible, because the sign of a prostitute’s success is her absolute blending with the environment. She’s so shrewd, she never becomes visible. She never gets in trouble. She has command of her life, and her clients. The ones who get into the surveys have drug problems or psychological problems. They’re the ones who were sexually abused. Feminists are using amateurs to condemn a whole profession.

--- Camille Paglia

People don't like to have their beliefs challenged. They're willing to go about as far as Julia Roberts in "Pretty Woman" in how far they can broaden their narrow view about what a prostitute is and is not. But their righteous indignation gives them the dual satisfaction of despising a fellow human being as "inferior" and morally "defective" while asserting their own superior standing in society and moral uprightness.

I don't think prostitutes have hearts of gold or all come from abusive relationships. Some of them do it because they need the money. Some do it beacuse it makes the ends meet better than scrubbing toliets or bringing Table 4 more bread. Some do it because they enjoy the job. Some even do it because they like the sex. Think of why you work and why you will do some things for money but you won't do other things. Prostitutes are wired the same way. They're really just like everybody else. They pay their bills. They buy groceries. They vote Republican. They pick up their kids from school at 2:30 in the afternoon. It's just that one little thing they do that makes them so different from the rest of Whitebread America that get folks so bent out of shape.

Perhaps in a more enlightened future people will stop fronting behind a veneer of "morality" in a feeble attempt to control the libidos of human beings engaged in private, consensual and mutually beneficial activities.

That day is not here yet. On we stumble through the darkness.

Paladin, you're still not getting the point. They're only "low moral expectations" to you. And you don't have to "aspire to a higher morality" to agree with some, or even most of the things of people who do. Muslims follow a "higher morality," and guess what? The Qu'ran says it's okay to beat your wife when she displeases her husband. Is spousal abuse "immoral" to you? Not to them. So tell me, even though they aspire to a "higher morality" does that make their version of morality good?
You say that garbage collectors do not take garbage into their bodies. First of all, you're wrong. If you think the the germs and bacteria from the garbage they handle never gets into thei bodies, you're just wrong. Second of all, even if they did... so. what? Even if you take that view, your position still does not make any rational sense. Third, prostitution does not "doesn't break up relationships based on trust" - infidelity and dishonesty do. What does it matter if John Doe cheated on his partner with a prostitute as opposed to some chick he met in a bar? The prostitute and bar woman still could have slept with the same number of people.

“And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation, he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife: her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish” (Exodus 21:7-10).

Even with the glamorization going on I didn't have much of a problem with this thread until I read this gem. I find it humorous that some in favor of lifting the ban on the premise that degrading and/or honorable work is not a basis for legalizing a profession have the chutzpah to make a judgement call on any line of work.



American men no longer need to travel overseas to use slaves.






And so on and so forth. What in the world made you think that men traveling overseas to rent vaginas, not caring whether that vagina belonged to a slave or free woman in the first place, would keep spending extra money purchasing plane tickets to avoid insulting your sensibilities, Artemise?



I would say the prostitute is perpetually victimized, and the user is as well, to a smaller extent. The idea some male posters connoted that women would bypass more "degrading" lines of work just for a crack at the defining experience of polishing their kielbasas is the stuff of The Man Show. Consider in the U.S.:

■ 96% of prostitutes who began committing prostitution as juveniles were runaways. Most stated they had no other option for making money
■ 2/3 of prostitutes were sexually abused from the ages of 3-16. (The average age of victimization was 10)
■ 2/3 of prostitutes abused in childhood were molested by natural, step-, or foster fathers. 10% were sexually abused by strangers
■ More than 90% of prostitutes lost their virginity through sexual assault
■ 70% of prostitutes believed that being sexually abused as children influenced their decisions to become prostitutes
■ Children who are sexually abused are 27.7 times more likely than non-victims to be arrested for prostitution as adults
■ Men and women who were raped or forced into sexual activity as children or adolescents were four times more likely to work in prostitution compared with non-victims
■ 57% of prostitutes reported having been sexually assaulted as children; 49% reported having been physically assaulted as children

We don't have wars, famine, mass exodus of refugees, lack economic assistance, or political coups within our borders (maybe one circa 2000). I will concede there are women that would rather earn a living selling sex, but a majority of American prostitutes are in their current situation because they think they can't make a living doing anything else. Legalizing prostitution won't address the problems that lead young wo/men into the profession. Another problem is the invitation for heavy government control given the nature of the business that is similar to the porn industry but different in application.



My distrust of government doesn't stop at the federal level. Setting up a safe working environment where women are treated fairly in spite of providing sexual services takes a helluva lot more thought than designating red light districts.

I'd like to add a stipulation to the propositions made by those who support legalizing prostitution. To curb the flow of trafficked sex slaves into the U.S. we shouldn't allow brothels to issue work visas and continue cracking down on unregulated prostitution. These working arrangements should be good enough for ibseld's family and relatives. Opportunities in the sex trade business, if there are any to be had, should be enjoyed by American women first and foremost. Seeing how selling shoes and changing patients' bedsheets are potentially worse than making a living on your back, American fathers can heave a sigh of relief knowing their little girls are providing vital services in the home of the brave.



Suzy, don't insert regressive biblical customs into the debate unless you're prepared to announce the Emancipation Proclamation should never have been signed in another debate. You can justify any position in religious text, from forcing your daughter to marry her rapist and giving birth to his child to stoning homosexuals (Deuteronomy). The bible is sadly the second preferred haven of scoundrels.

That being said Leviticus counters: Do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot so that the land may not fall to harlotry, and the land become full of lewdness.

Excuse me Lesly, do not respond to me unless you know what the hell you're talking about. Paladin Espeth quoted the stupid book first. She is the one who brought biblical quotes into this debate. She is trying to act like the bible has some good moral codes, and I respond with a quote from the bible that basically justifies sexual slavery. It's in your own precious book, so don't blame the messenger. It's not my fault if the bible conflicts itself from one book to the next.

Have a nice day.

Ho hum. I didn't read the last page while I was posting. Sorry about that. She's not acting, though. It does have good moral codes. Along with the Q