Prostitution: should it be illegal?

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Hello, I'm new here. Looks like a great forum.

Anyways, I'd prefer to start off with prostitution laws.

I think that it should be legal as long as there is no compulsion involved. Both being a "john" and being a prostitute are victimless crimes. Making these illegal means legislature of morality and should not be tolerated in a secular country.

What are your ideas?

Here are a few advantages of legal prostitution.

(a). STD prevention. A government-controlled agency will require STD checkups for prostitutes and deny them their licences should they test positive.

(b). Potentially huge source of taxes.

(c). Decriminalization. Prostitutes won't need to hide in dirty crime-ridden ghettos.

(d). Less woman abuse. Forced prostitution will disappear. Everyone will prefer legal prostitutes that have protection from the government.

[SimplyAtheistic]

It should definetely be made legal. Its an issue of the courts forcing their moral values on us. I can't believe the law is still in effect actually..
Jake

[Adrammalech]

To say that prosititution is a victimless crime is not getting the whole picture. Yeah, there are no victims if they are between single consenting adults, but what about the married/attached guy/gal who goes in. When (not if) the wife/husband or in some cases a girl/boyfriend finds out that's going to cause a lot of emotional pain, (indeed some that can result in physical pain and of course in extreme cases suicide.) but emotional pain is still pain, and to be able to allow a system that says to Joe/Sue Blow that "Hey you can get laid anytime you want legally" some would equate that with a moral absolution from it being a wrong act. Victimless crime my arse. Not to mention that entire industry that will by and large promote the increasing objectification of women as merely toys to be played with.

[SimplyAtheistic]

Originally posted by Adrammalech
To say that prosititution is a victimless crime is not getting the whole picture. Yeah, there are no victims if they are between single consenting adults, but what about the married/attached guy/gal who goes in. When (not if) the wife/husband or in some cases a girl/boyfriend finds out that's going to cause a lot of emotional pain, (indeed some that can result in physical pain and of course in extreme cases suicide.) but emotional pain is still pain, and to be able to allow a system that says to Joe/Sue Blow that "Hey you can get laid anytime you want legally" some would equate that with a moral absolution from it being a wrong act. Victimless crime my arse. Not to mention that entire industry that will by and large promote the increasing objectification of women as merely toys to be played with.


The potential emotional pain would be caused by the client, and thus is preventable and besides the fact. Emotional pain can be caused by men going to strip clubs without telling their wives, should we make those illegal too? The court's morals should not be pressed upon us. And the industry would make the act of sex an object, not the women. And it would be the person's own fault to treat them as such. Waitresses don't become objects that are soley there to serve just because they are a waitress.
Jake

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Originally posted by Adrammalech
To say that prosititution is a victimless crime is not getting the whole picture. Yeah, there are no victims if they are between single consenting adults, but what about the married/attached guy/gal who goes in. When (not if) the wife/husband or in some cases a girl/boyfriend finds out that's going to cause a lot of emotional pain, (indeed some that can result in physical pain and of course in extreme cases suicide.) but emotional pain is still pain, and to be able to allow a system that says to Joe/Sue Blow that "Hey you can get laid anytime you want legally" some would equate that with a moral absolution from it being a wrong act. Victimless crime my arse. Not to mention that entire industry that will by and large promote the increasing objectification of women as merely toys to be played with.

First of all, a secular democratic state should not legilslate morality. Therefore, discussions about moral degradation do not belong in the legal field. An "immoral" person can be ex-communicated from a Church, disowned by the family BUT not persecuted by the state.

As far as someone being hurt as a result of prostitution (like a husband finding out), this reasoning does not hold water. If we are to criminalize acts that "might" cause emotional pain, we are in a lot of trouble! Here are a few instances that can cause emotional pain (and "solutions" following from your logic).

1. A child choosing a major in college that parents don't agree with (require universities to demand consent of student's parents before enlisting the student into a major).

2. A child chooses a spouse that parents don't like (require parental consent for marriages)

3. A suicide attempt is known to destroy families (criminalize suicide attempts)

4. Drinking can ruin families (outlaw alcohol)

[Adrammalech]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
First of all, a secular democratic state should not legilslate morality. Therefore, discussions about moral degradation do not belong in the legal field. An "immoral" person can be ex-communicated from a Church, disowned by the family BUT not persecuted by the state.



Morality isn't the sole province of religion, otherwise it seems that you are saying that atheists/agnostics/humanists cannot derive a moral structure

It is the duty of a secular democratic state to legislate morality. That's why we have laws against lying, stealing, murdering, and all that other stuff. The duty of the secular state is to outlaw the actions that have the greatest negative impact on society and to be able to weigh which actions have that great enough impact. Outlawing alcohol increased crime and other of what society places as more heinous and dare I say, immoral actions like murder.

Now on prostitution. The reasons I listed were just some of the consequences against legalization. I hate how people harp on and on about victimless crimes, because every action has a consequence and more often than not a bad on. And while I'm not about to legislate against actions that have merely bad consequences, I am willing to legislate those of greater
magnitude.

The negative effects. First good luck with that little disease free plan. If I recall correctly you can have HIV for up to six months after exposure and have it not show up on a test, all the while still infecting others. Also if you happened to legislate condem use to prevent STDs, I remind that even with a condem, STDs can still be spread. In addition it just adds another popular vector for other opportunistic diseases to take advantage of. Also I have a very very dim view of governmental regulation in this country, I see any regulation attempt that is set up will ultimately fail, like for instance all the industry "self-regulation" that we have.

Maybe one day when the society matures a little and if public health and treatment comes to the point of defeating disease, then I could see it happen, I am not totally opposed to this, but I don't see that day being today, not by a long shot.

[Jacey]

Originally posted by Adrammalech
The negative effects. First good luck with that little disease free plan. If I recall correctly you can have HIV for up to six months after exposure and have it not show up on a test, all the while still infecting others. Also if you happened to legislate condem use to prevent STDs, I remind that even with a condem, STDs can still be spread. In addition it just adds another popular vector for other opportunistic diseases to take advantage of. Also I have a very very dim view of governmental regulation in this country, I see any regulation attempt that is set up will ultimately fail, like for instance all the industry "self-regulation" that we have.

In Nevada, where prostitution is legal in some areas, there isn't a single case of STD transmission, from client to courtesan, or vice versa.

[Vylo]

First of all, a secular democratic state should not legilslate morality.

Then should murder be legal? Robbery? I think you may be trying to redefine exactly what a moral is. It is the job of the government to legislate OUR morality, not their own personal morality. Just because a few right wing judges disagree with prostitution is not enough reason to outlaw it. The 2 largest reasons prostitution is looked down upon are the spread of diseases, and infedility. But let's look at this; infedility is the responsibility of the client. One who is single has committed no offence in this area. Also, I haven't heard of adultery to be explicitly illegal, though it can be used in divorce cases. Diseases result from lack of supervision, which is partial due to the fact that prostitution is illegal in the first place.

I fail to see the harm in legalizing and more closely monitoring (in respect to STDs) prostitution. I think it may even do some good. If your spouse is unfaithful, he/she will cheat on you, regardless of the means and methods.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

[quote]
Then should murder be legal? Robbery?
[/qoute]

Two people already brought this up. Murder and robbery should not be legal because these crimes have victims. It is said in any Western constitution that life and property are not to be violated. The two mentioned crimes do violate them.

With prostitution you CAN argue from a psychological/spiritual point of view that there are victims (like "johns" considering women as toys or breaking down of families etc). However, this is not a fact but merely a possibility, a guess. Some prostitute maybe forced into profession by financial need, some may be just outright lazy. Some clients may be married, some may be single...You see, prostitution is too wide of an issue to have a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

I am sure that most prejudice against prostitution really comes from Abrahamic religions that have made sex into a moral matter. This especially applies to Christianity, which in most interpretations attaches a stigma of dirtiness to sex. This is NOT the case in Oriental cultures, however. In these societies, a man's sexuality is considered a need similar to food or going to a toilet-- that is, not moral or immoral. (True, this doesn't apply to women). Thus, in countries like Japan brothels have always existed and proposals to close them down would be viewed just as ridiculuous as closing down all restaraunts and public restrooms.

[Vylo]

[quote] Two people already brought this up. Murder and robbery should not be legal because these crimes have victims. It is said in any Western constitution that life and property are not to be violated. The two mentioned crimes do violate them.
[quote]

Putting those laws in the constitution is legislating morality, whether they have victims or not.

[sergeyvladimirovich]

Originally posted by Vylo
[quote] Two people already brought this up. Murder and robbery should not be legal because these crimes have victims. It is said in any Western constitution that life and property are not to be violated. The two mentioned crimes do violate them.
[quote]

Putting those laws in the constitution is legislating morality, whether they have victims or not.

I think we have different understandings of "morality". It seems to me that in your view every single imaginable law legislates morality. A law that prohibits something you assume as a "moral" law because it prohibits it due to its perceived badness (which is a moral notion). You are right in the general sense of the word.

My premise is, however, "live and let live". When an act does not interfere with somebody's ability to live, it should not be made illegal. When regulations on top of that are introduced (like sodomy laws or anti-prostitution laws), I see them as government coercing and the individual to hold its views and prosecute the individual for not holding them. It is this that I refer to as "legislating morality".

True, I have made this assumption and made it the cornerstone of my reasoning. This assumption, however, is quite a product of Western society.

[Vylo]

I see what you are saying, you do not want others legislating their own personal morality upon the masses, and I can agree with that. It would be the equivilant of the government outlawing all non-kosher foods, because of possible effects of preservatives upon people. While their desire may be rooted in morality and have a viable use in a secular society, they have no right to blantantly oppose the quite opposite morality of the masses.

[Shake]

Originally posted by Adrammalech
To say that prosititution is a victimless crime is not getting the whole picture. Yeah, there are no victims if they are between single consenting adults, but what about the married/attached guy/gal who goes in. When (not if) the wife/husband or in some cases a girl/boyfriend finds out that's going to cause a lot of emotional pain, (indeed some that can result in physical pain and of course in extreme cases suicide.) but emotional pain is still pain, and to be able to allow a system that says to Joe/Sue Blow that "Hey you can get laid anytime you want legally" some would equate that with a moral absolution from it being a wrong act. Victimless crime my arse. Not to mention that entire industry that will by and large promote the increasing objectification of women as merely toys to be played with. I'm afraid the adultery/infidelity argument against legalizing prostitution is rather weak. If either party in a marriage feels they need to go outside the marriage for sex, then there's something wrong with the marriage. Further, more often than not, the disaffected party will simply find someone else and start having an affair rather than running the legal risks associated with going to a prostitute.

For example, let's say John and Mary are a married couple. John's becoming less interested in Mary, and decides to go hook up with Jane, a little hottie that he works with who he knows has the hots for him. He's not paying for sex with Jane, and in this example Mary is the victim, since her husband John, is cheating on her. John thought about going to a prostitute, but since he already knew he had a good chance with Jane, he saved money and a (an at least perceived) lower risk of disease.

So, while I agree that it's not necessarily always victimless, in the way of infidelity, I don't see where that really matters whether it's legal or not. If either John or Mary were seriously considering infidelity, they should be looking at their marriage, and should probably seek counselling.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich

(d). Less woman abuse. Forced prostitution will disappear. Everyone will prefer legal prostitutes that have protection from the government.

I don't believe it would disappear. However, it would make it a lot easier to prosecute and it should reduce the quantity of it.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Adrammalech
To say that prosititution is a victimless crime is not getting the whole picture. Yeah, there are no victims if they are between single consenting adults, but what about the married/attached guy/gal who goes in. When (not if) the wife/husband or in some cases a girl/boyfriend finds out that's going to cause a lot of emotional pain, (indeed some that can result in physical pain and of course in extreme cases suicide.) but emotional pain is still pain, and to be able to allow a system that says to Joe/Sue Blow that "Hey you can get laid anytime you want legally" some would equate that with a moral absolution from it being a wrong act. Victimless crime my arse. Not to mention that entire industry that will by and large promote the increasing objectification of women as merely toys to be played with.

And he couldn't go to the bar instead? I don't see that it's a valid reason.

You don't enforce fidelity by removing opportunity--that's simply not feasible.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Adrammalech
It is the duty of a secular democratic state to legislate morality. That's why we have laws against lying, stealing, murdering, and all that other stuff. The duty of the secular state is to outlaw the actions that have the greatest negative impact on society and to be able to weigh which actions have that great enough impact.

No. The duty of the state is to protect us from others. Lying, stealing, murder etc all involve someone being harmed against their will.
Prostitution does not. Both parties consented to the act, there's no involuntary participant.

Now on prostitution. The reasons I listed were just some of the consequences against legalization.

And they don't happen now?!

I hate how people harp on and on about victimless crimes, because every action has a consequence and more often than not a bad on.

If you're going strictly on a basis of harm done then you certainly should outlaw tobacco. Since it's legal I don't see that the state has any grounds to ban any consensual activity with a lower level of harm. Thus prostitution and drugs should be legal.

The negative effects. First good luck with that little disease free plan. If I recall correctly you can have HIV for up to six months after exposure and have it not show up on a test, all the while still infecting others.

HIV rate amongst legal prostitutes in the US: 0. STD's passed from prostitute to customer since condoms were mandated: 0.

Note, also, that there is a more expensive test that will detect it only a week after infection.

Also if you happened to legislate condem use to prevent STDs, I remind that even with a condem, STDs can still be spread.

Can be, but the odds are awfully low. Consider:

You drive down to the singles bar and pick up someone for the night. They are not a member of any risk groups for HIV but they have not been tested.
What is the most dangerous thing you did? Drive.
Brothels are normally in out of the way places---more driving. The girls are frequently tested and well trained in the use of condoms. The scales are tilted far more towards driving being the greatest risk.


Besides, if you're going to outlaw this form of HIV risk why don't you outlaw the other common legal HIV risk: practicing medicine.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Jacey
In Nevada, where prostitution is legal in some areas, there isn't a single case of STD transmission, from client to courtesan, or vice versa.

Disagree--there have been STD cases detected in the courtesans. Whether they occured on duty or not there's obviously no way of knowing. There have been no cases of transmission to clients, though.

[Jamie_L]

Victimless crime is kind of a vague term. It can be made to mean different things. Prostitution shouldn't be illegal because it is a voluntary activity between the acting parties, and no one gets hurt during the commission of the act.

The thing about prostitution is that none of the parties involved in the "crime" are getting hurt as a direct result of the "crime", no one involved is doing anything without consenting to it, and no one involved is taking risks that they aren't aware of.

Worrying about the risk of emotional impacts that are two, three, or more steps removed from the act itself is not a useful function of government and law. If that were the case, we'd outlaw all kinds of behavior. Rock-climbing presents a risk of death, and death can cause great hardship to those left behind. Infidelity is not illegal - why should one specific kind of activity, which doesn't even necessarily involve infidelity, be illegal because of the risk of encouraging infidelity? Maybe allowing twenty-something women to where tight shirts to work should also be illegal, because that probably encourages infidelity too.

It is not illegal to pay someone to massage you - a purely physical act that you pay for because it is pleasurable. Why should the law be different simply because different parts of the body are being used to create the pleasure?

There are risks associated with prostitution, but there are risks associated with all kinds of behavior, from driving to operating a chainsaw. It is generally not the job of the government to keep people from taking risks voluntarily. It can be a valid function of government to make sure citizens are aware of certain risks. If prostitution were legal, I would not have a problem with the government running education campaigns to inform people about the risks involved.

But generally, prostitution is like having casual sex. There are risks associated with casual sex. But nobody gets hurt by the sex itself, and no one is put at significant risk, except the people having the sex, and they do so voluntarily. So casual sex isn't outlawed. I don't see why paying for it changes the legal equation.

Jamie

[meritocrat]

Originally posted by Adrammalech
To say that prosititution is a victimless crime is not getting the whole picture. Yeah, there are no victims if they are between single consenting adults, but what about the married/attached guy/gal who goes in. When (not if) the wife/husband or in some cases a girl/boyfriend finds out that's going to cause a lot of emotional pain, (indeed some that can result in physical pain and of course in extreme cases suicide.) but emotional pain is still pain, and to be able to allow a system that says to Joe/Sue Blow that "Hey you can get laid anytime you want legally" some would equate that with a moral absolution from it being a wrong act. Victimless crime my arse. Not to mention that entire industry that will by and large promote the increasing objectification of women as merely toys to be played with.

Prostitution is a victimless crime because no one rights are being infringed by it.

Yes, I think it should be fully legalised.

[meritocrat]

Originally posted by Adrammalech


It is the duty of a secular democratic state to legislate morality. That's why we have laws against lying, stealing, murdering, and all that other stuff. The duty of the secular state is to outlaw the actions that have the greatest negative impact on society and to be able to weigh which actions have that great enough impact. Outlawing alcohol increased crime and other of what society places as more heinous and dare I say, immoral actions like murder.

Since when have their been laws against lying? And how are we defining morality here? Do you mean right or wrong or the decline of Judeo-Christian ethics?





Now on prostitution. The reasons I listed were just some of the consequences against legalization. I hate how people harp on and on about victimless crimes, because every action has a consequence and more often than not a bad on. And while I'm not about to legislate against actions that have merely bad consequences, I am willing to legislate those of greater
magnitude.


But prostitution violates no one's established rights in society. That is why it is victimless. Crimes like murder, rape or theft DO violate a person's rights.
The negative effects. First good luck with that little disease free plan. If I recall correctly you can have HIV for up to six months after exposure and have it not show up on a test, all the while still infecting others. Also if you happened to legislate condem use to prevent STDs, I remind that even with a condem, STDs can still be spread. In addition it just adds another popular vector for other opportunistic diseases to take advantage of. Also I have a very very dim view of governmental regulation in this country, I see any regulation attempt that is set up will ultimately fail, like for instance all the industry "self-regulation" that we have.

Maybe one day when the society matures a little and if public health and treatment comes to the point of defeating disease, then I could see it happen, I am not totally opposed to this, but I don't see that day being today, not by a long shot. [/B]

Diseases are spread by casual sex too. Why not outlaw that?

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Jamie_L
Victimless crime is kind of a vague term. It can be made to mean different things. Prostitution shouldn't be illegal because it is a voluntary activity between the acting parties, and no one gets hurt during the commission of the act.

Actually, victimless crime is quite clear when people don't try to muddy the waters.

Ask all the participants if they knew what they were doing and if they consider themselves a victim.

So long as the answers are yes and no then you certainly have a victimless crime.

It is not illegal to pay someone to massage you - a purely physical act that you pay for because it is pleasurable. Why should the law be different simply because different parts of the body are being used to create the pleasure?

Yeah, I think this is the ultimate example of the hypocracy of prostitution laws. Full-service massage is a form of prostitution. What difference does it make if the masseuse does that one little bit or not?

So casual sex isn't outlawed. I don't see why paying for it changes the legal equation.

Yeah--it's legal to take her out to dinner with the expectation she will spend the night, but to make the offer formally is illegal.

[RevDahlia]

There's also the matter of pornography -- why is it legal to be paid for sex on camera, but not to be paid for sex in private? It makes no sense to me, and certainly derails the legislation-of-morality argument.

By all means, prostitution should be legalized. A lot of the pain and degradation prostitutes endure are inflicted by their pimps, to whom the prostitutes must pay most or all of their earnings in exchange for "protection". If a prostitute is allowed to keep the majority of her money, then she is free to leave the business if she chooses. Street pros don't have that option.

[Cutter]

meritocrat - Perjury is the obvious example of a form of lying being illegal.

Most, if not all, types of fraud and related crimes could also be considered a form of lying.

[meritocrat]

OK yes that's true. I was just being pedantic.

[Cutter]

Fair enough. :)

And to get back on topic, I don't think prostitution should be illegal either.

And like a few others have mentioned, I just can't fathom why pornography is legal in the US but prostitution (mostly) isn't. It just doesn't make any damn sense! :confused:

[XGuilt]

I wish to take serious issue with 'Adrammalech' on this subject, as this particular response evidences one of the most prevalent distortions of moral 'reasoning' that has always existed in most people's minds: the notion that humans should make their moral and ethical decisions - not on the basis of objective personal choice (as consenting adults), but on the basis of consideration for the (chosen) 'emotional pain' - and consequent manipulation with it, of others. However such an altruistic notion may appeal to the sensibilities of those who are emotionally 'needy', weak or insecure, the fact is that it is non-viable in human interaction. While I do not subscribe to the majority of existing psychiatric theories, there is one psychiatric (emotional) tenet that is irrefutable: other people cannot 'hurt' you; only YOU can allow yourself to be hurt... by your own choices, based upon your own values and standards - and ongoing state of mental health. One person's definition of 'pain' cannot hold a mortgage on the choices and behavior of other people. If that were actually possible, we all would be slaves to the (often vasillating and tenuous) emotional health of everybody else we encounter in life. This sort of enslavement, when applied even to those to whom we make intimate commitments in life, smacks of a co-dependency that is almost nauseating. Just because we engage in such commitments during our life experience, it does not mean we relinquish our existence (or rights) as individuals. If someone, within such an intimate commitment, promises complete 'fidelity', that is one thing - and such a person remains morally and ethically bound unless and until the terms of the commitment are changed by both parties to it. However, not all intimiate commitments specify complete fidelity; rather, it is ASSUMED because of archaic historical tradition - and because the individuals involved are too cowardly to discuss specifics when it comes to issues of true, abjectly mandatory compatibility.

The only entity who still asserts that prostitution is 'immoral' is organized religion - the same entity that pronounced it 'immoral' in the first place... for its own motives and to fulfill its own stated agenda. Neither the State nor the Church has any rational right to make moral choices for consenting adults in a free society (i.e., to legislate morality). What one's spouses, mates or other intimate associates consider 'moral' or 'immoral' must come from the terms of the STATED and fully understood commitment two individuals choose to make. What is tragic in this process, however, is to observe how incredibly common it is that no such (specific) understanding occurs, and for 2 major excuses: 1) the traditional assumptions about the so-called 'morality' of marital fidelity continue to this day, and 2) most people are 'in heat' during the formative time of their relationship and they do not wish to rock the boat by learning just how INcompatible they may really be with each other.

Rationally and reasonably speaking, prostitution IS truly a 'victimless crime' when it is engaged in by consenting adults. It is an entirely personal choice by someone who has an irrefutable right to make such a choice - and unless someone in an intimate commitment SPECIFICALLY agrees to complete 'fidelity' for the duration of that commitment, there can be no rational assumption that he/she has relinquished his/her free choice to be intimate with others. Only with such a specific promise can there exist any notion of 'betrayal' if a mate strays. A contract is a contract and, as is too often the case, most people don't read the fine print OR they prefer the blind faith of unstated assumption (to preserve their emotional insecurities).

[Claudia]

By all means, prostitution should be legalized. A lot of the pain and degradation prostitutes endure are inflicted by their pimps, to whom the prostitutes must pay most or all of their earnings in exchange for "protection". If a prostitute is allowed to keep the majority of her money, then she is free to leave the business if she chooses. Street pros don't have that option.
As I live in a country where prostitution is legal, I can say that there is a huge difference between legal prostitution and regulated prostitution. Here, it does not prevent prostitutes to have pimps or to be street prostitutes (even if pimps are illegal while prostitution is not).

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Claudia
As I live in a country where prostitution is legal, I can say that there is a huge difference between legal prostitution and regulated prostitution. Here, it does not prevent prostitutes to have pimps or to be street prostitutes (even if pimps are illegal while prostitution is not).

Well, here in the areas with legal prostitution there isn't street prostitution. I don't know about pimps but their ability to control is at least limited.

[enfant terrible]

Originally posted by sergeyvladimirovich
I am sure that most prejudice against prostitution really comes from Abrahamic religions that have made sex into a moral matter.

Yes, and the most ironic thing about it is that Abraham was prostituting his wife (Genesis 12:11-16, Genesis 20:1-2). Moreover, it seems that she was spreading STDs to clients (Genesis 12:17).

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by Cutter
Perjury is the obvious example of a form of lying being illegal.
This is not, however, a moral law. It is a specific case of obstruction of justice.
Most, if not all, types of fraud and related crimes could also be considered a form of lying.
And these are prohibited by commercial laws, intended to ensure fairness in the free market. Again, no particular moral component.

[jayh]

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Well, here in the areas with legal prostitution there isn't street prostitution. I don't know about pimps but their ability to control is at least limited.

Abuse of prostitutes by pimps is MADE POSSIBLE by the illegality of prostitution. A waitress or other employed woman has the legal right to challenge and even sue an abusive boss, a prostitute is powerless.

Regarding the victimless standard, there are many activities in which the secret activity of one spouse can detrimental to the marriage... visiting casinos, racetracks, engaging in behavior that risks loss of a job, dangerous sports.... .

Here in NJ they have gone to great lengths way beyond any possible STD risk, such that it is considered prostitution to pay someone to simply watch you masturbate.

[Jack Kamm]

I agree with what George Carlin said about prostitution: "Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?".

The strongest argument against legalizing prostition, I feel, is STDs. However, several people on this thread have said that where prostitution has been legalized, the spread STDs have dropped. Sources? This could be a very strong argument I could use against people who bring up the problem of STDs.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Jack Kamm
I agree with what George Carlin said about prostitution: "Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?".

The strongest argument against legalizing prostition, I feel, is STDs. However, several people on this thread have said that where prostitution has been legalized, the spread STDs have dropped. Sources? This could be a very strong argument I could use against people who bring up the problem of STDs.

Well, the local paper has run stats more than once. The number of girls infected since condoms were made mandatory is quite low (and how many of those infections occured off duty?), to date no customer has been infected in the post-condom era.

[Jack Kamm]

Well, the local paper has run stats more than once. The number of girls infected since condoms were made mandatory is quite low (and how many of those infections occured off duty?), to date no customer has been infected in the post-condom era.

I believe you, and reason supports the idea that the spread of STDs should fall with legalized but regulated prostitution (especially with Nevada's extremely strict regulations). But are there any reports that document the fact that no customer has been infected in the post-condom era, and that number of girls infected since condoms were made mandatory is low?

Telling people I heard this from someone on an atheist messageboard might not be very convincing.

[Gothic_J]

I think it should be legal. what you do with your body is your business.

some would argue what they do is forced upon them - no other job and the like - but I think males doing hard labor could argue the same - little education, rough home situation, whatever, and they have to use their body to get money. does one like lifting things for 8 hrs? prolly not. but its money in the bank.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Jack Kamm
I believe you, and reason supports the idea that the spread of STDs should fall with legalized but regulated prostitution (especially with Nevada's extremely strict regulations). But are there any reports that document the fact that no customer has been infected in the post-condom era, and that number of girls infected since condoms were made mandatory is low?

Telling people I heard this from someone on an atheist messageboard might not be very convincing.

Well, here's an article saying no HIV cases: Las Vegas Review Journal (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1998/Mar-05-Thu-1998/news/7072574.html)

Note that the article says "since 1987" but that's just their anti-prostitution slant. There wasn't testing before then!

And

here's (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2000/Dec-14-Thu-2000/news/15014316.html) a better hit.

Cowne said the notorious sex industry in Nevada is no reason to expect higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases in the state.

"There's hardly any disease in the legal brothels," he said. "These are well-informed professionals who wouldn't be in business if there was disease. Most of the disease is in our teen-agers and young adults."

I've seen a much better article on this but I'm not coming up with it, perhaps it was before they started putting their stuff on the web.

Searching wider with google:

http://www.non-trivial.com/f_std.htm

Look down near the bottom, the section labelled "Prostitution".

This (http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2003/MERC-Mar-06-Thu-2003/20809370.html) is an alternative paper but what little I've seen of it is ok.

And
here (http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tm-pornjan12.story) is one from the LA times.

So far the only contradictory "information" I came across was preaching on a Christian forum--hardly a reliable source!

[Jack Kamm]

Thanks! I'll be sure to save those websites for future reference. :)

[pariah]

Originally posted by Adrammalech
To say that prosititution is a victimless crime is not getting the whole picture. Yeah, there are no victims if they are between single consenting adults, but what about the married/attached guy/gal who goes in. When (not if) the wife/husband or in some cases a girl/boyfriend finds out that's going to cause a lot of emotional pain, (indeed some that can result in physical pain and of course in extreme cases suicide.) but emotional pain is still pain, and to be able to allow a system that says to Joe/Sue Blow that "Hey you can get laid anytime you want legally" some would equate that with a moral absolution from it being a wrong act. Victimless crime my arse. Not to mention that entire industry that will by and large promote the increasing objectification of women as merely toys to be played with.

The last time I checked, adultery wasn't a crime. Neither was cheating on a girlfriend. Oh, and guess what--a married man/woman can commit adultery without prostitutes. They do it all the time.

What do you mean objectify women? So what? The women who become prostitutes have dignity--they are just willing to sell theirs. Most people would for a price. Don't beleive me? Two words: reality TV.

It is the duty of a secular democratic state to legislate morality. That's why we have laws against lying, stealing, murdering, and all that other stuff. The duty of the secular state is to outlaw the actions that have the greatest negative impact on society and to be able to weigh which actions have that great enough impact. Outlawing alcohol increased crime and other of what society places as more heinous and dare I say, immoral actions like murder.

No. The government of a secular state should create laws in order to protect the individuals rights (which are defined by the government). It has nothing to do with morality. You have the right to be immoral if you want, so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others.

Now on prostitution. The reasons I listed were just some of the consequences against legalization. I hate how people harp on and on about victimless crimes, because every action has a consequence and more often than not a bad on. And while I'm not about to legislate against actions that have merely bad consequences, I am willing to legislate those of greater
magnitude.

As someone else said, it is victimless because it does not infringe on the rights of others. USA law is based on social contract, namely that of john locke. If you want to make a good case, you could at least try to name a _right_ that it infringed on.

The negative effects. First good luck with that little disease free plan. If I recall correctly you can have HIV for up to six months after exposure and have it not show up on a test, all the while still infecting others. Also if you happened to legislate condem use to prevent STDs, I remind that even with a condem, STDs can still be spread. In addition it just adds another popular vector for other opportunistic diseases to take advantage of. Also I have a very very dim view of governmental regulation in this country, I see any regulation attempt that is set up will ultimately fail, like for instance all the industry "self-regulation" that we have.

Acceptable risk. No one is forcing them to have sex with the prostitutes. As long as they are aware of the risks of STD's then I see no problem.

[Derec]

Originally posted by pariahSS
What do you mean objectify women? So what? The women who become prostitutes have dignity--they are just willing to sell theirs. Most people would for a price. Don't beleive me? Two words: reality TV.


I do not think a woman/man that provides sexual services necessarily sell their dignity.
If I found out a female friend of mine was a callgirl on the side I would not think less or her as a person.

UMoC

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Actually, the argument that prostitutes "sell their dignity" and similar arguments are entirely question-begging.

They assume exactly what is at issue -- that there is something wrong with being a prostitute. Without this assumption, the claim to a loss of dignity is unsupported.

[pariah]

youre right, but when someone states that its a loss of dignity for women in pornography and prostitution, its a good way to ask "so what?".

i have no less respect for a person b/c they are a prostitute either..