Why is prostitution illegal?

Ivor the Engineer said:
Assuming prostitution was leagalised:

Where should brothels be located?

Where, when and how should prostitutes or their employers be allowed to advertise their services?
Click to expand...
One should be located at a chicken ranch in La Grange, Texas.

A how how how!

DR
 
Would anyone posting in the thread object to a brothel being set up next to a school?

Why/Why not?
 
jimtron said:
I'm against putting a brother next to a school. It should be inside the school.
Click to expand...

You haven't been to any high schools recently, have you?


On a slightly more serious note, prostitution should be legalized.
 
Personally, I'm in full agreement with slingblade.

The following is based solely on my opinion.

It just bothers me when people say that prostitution brings on human trafficking and therefore must be stopped. That's like saying that the drug companies make people drug pushers and therefore, all drugs should be illegal. Or even because there are illegal bookies, all gambling should be stopped.

If someone is using a profession, no matter what it is, for illegal means, then that's the fault of the people doing the illegal thing: not the profession.

Also, I make adult movies (behind the camera) and I have been accused of prostitution The "logic" is this: Since people buy films of people having sex for sexual pleasure; the people who made the film are being prostitutes. It's an incredible twisting of the definition (and the reality) just to satisfy someone's ideals. The idea that prostitution = harassment or rape is the same kind of twisted logic to me.

Also, I've been through this arguement that "if someone is doing prostitution because the have to out of poverty" thing. My arguement is that even if everyone was rich beyond their dreams, there'd still be prostitution. That arguement just doesn't hold water, in my humble opinion.

Just my two little pennies to be thrown into the fire.... :)

By the way, isn't Andrea Dworkin the crackpot who tried to tell everyone that watching porn produced "erototoxins"??????

edited to add...sorry my mistake... that was a whole other crackpot: Judith A. Reisman.... :)
 
Last edited:
Jonnyclueless said:
Why is prostitution illegal?
Any opinions?
Click to expand...


Because wives can't stand the competition, especially after birthing and nursing a couple of kids.

I wonder if both religion ("Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery!") and anti-prostitution laws were actually enacted by middle-aged wives trying to rein in their husband's behavior and keep their husband's paychecks within the household budget.

Yeah ... I haven't blamed women for anything in a while ... it must be their turn!

;)
 
Last edited:
It just bothers me when people say that prostitution brings on human trafficking and therefore must be stopped. That's like saying that the drug companies make people drug pushers and therefore, all drugs should be illegal. Or even because there are illegal bookies, all gambling should be stopped.
Click to expand...
Right. You can have prostitution without trafficking (see: Nevada). There are many exploited workers who aren't prostitutes (fruit pickers, garment workers, etc.). The problems people are pointing out are not inherent to sex work.

It reminds me a bit of people like Grover Norquist who want to virtually obliterate government. Government isn't the problem; corruption, waste, ineptitude (etc.) are the problems. Government is supposed to be by, for, and of us--we are the government. So we should fight against corruption and waste and ineptitude in our government, not throw the baby out with the bath water.
 
Last edited:
Michelle Lyon said:
In the US, prostitution is legal in some states. It's governed at the state level, not the federal level.
Click to expand...

Only in two: Nevada and Rhode Island. But Rhode Island only permits people to exchange money for sex; it does not allow street-corner solicitation or brothels. Those are still illegal there.

I don't live in one of those states, so I don't know how it's taxed or regulated. I imagine (my own morality aside), prostitutes would be regulated much like any other independent contractor, or pimps/madams like most other enterpreneurs. Someone else might also know whether prostitutes have legal rights, such as worker's compensation or maternity leave, in states where it's legalized, and if there's an age restriction enforced like they do with pornography.
Click to expand...

In Nevada, the age restriction is 21 in most counties that allow it, but there are two in which the age limit is 18.

As far as the labor laws, the workers are independent contractors, so the labor laws that apply to certain construction workers and so forth, would apply to them. That would mean, probably, no unemployment compensation, as they are contracted workers, self-employed as it were.

On other matters posted above, nobody should ever be forced into sex acts that they did not consent to. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, in the US there is no sympathy whatsoever for prostitutes in the court system. The general myth is that he/she chose to put themselves in that situation to begin with, but that's not always true. They chose sex, they didn't choose rape. Just because a client pays them does not give that client the right to rape them.
Click to expand...

That's true. A client can commit rape, even after he's paid for his session, if he violates the free will of the worker. If, for instance, the client asks for X and Z, but the worker doesn't agree to do Z, and the client holds her down and forces her to anyway, that is rape. Even if he tosses a few extra bucks at her to "cover it," it is still rape.

On exploitation, literally it is not the same thing as rape, but metaphorically, it is. Exploitation is using someone's pre-existing bad situation to your own advantage. For example, if someone needs a job very badly because they have kids to feed, and you hire them for $0.50 per hour to work in your fields despite the US minimum wage being $8 per hour, knowing they will take whatever small amount you offer them because it's better than what they currently have or can otherwise make without being a US citizen, and so you will make a profit not having to pay the $8 to someone who is, isn't that rape?
Click to expand...

This is according to my friend, and to the two women I met when she came out to visit one time.

There are all kinds of women at the houses. Yes, some come from poor backgrounds, and some have histories of drug/alcohol/sexual abuse. Illegal drugs, by the way, are just as illegal inside the house as out, and you can be kicked out if you're caught with them. You can be quietly blacklisted, too, if you're a repeat offender.

You can find women like that where you work, too. Are they being exploited if they're doing a job they don't like, because the need for income "forces" them to it?

But there are also women who are smart, beautiful, funny, hard-working, sober, and so on, like the two I met, and my friend. They do the work because they like it and it pays very well. They don't have to do many shifts a year to maintain an adequate lifestyle, and they come and go as they please, although there are "seasons" in the biz, like Christmas, when the money's good and the boss will ask them to schedule. But most jobs do that at Christmastime.

No one is forced to work at a brothel. The fact that the money can be many times what you'd earn at Burger King does not "force" them to take the work, any more than women are "forced" to work at Geico instead of State Farm because Geico pays better.
 
What I can't understand is why pornography is legal, which is basically the same thing. However, for some reason prostitution is not. It's ok to pay to watch and film two people you both paid to have sex. It should be legal then if the prostitute paid the client 1$ and filmed it. Makes no sense to me. :boggled:
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Would anyone posting in the thread object to a brothel being set up next to a school?

Why/Why not?
Click to expand...

A gun shop?

A liquor store?

An OTB office?

An adult bookstore?

A tobacconists?

Right next door to PS 109?

Because there are some things that are best left to adults. We make that distinction all the time. Some things can potentially draw questionable clientele, by their very nature. Most people who frequent a gun store, for instance, are perfectly law-abiding. Some few aren't. We know that. We would not necessarily want guns and ammo sitting right next door to the school.

Why don't we usually approve of a shop selling vibrators, whips, lubricants, and inflatable companions right next door to a school?

And why ask such a silly question when five seconds' thought will allow you to think of 4 or 5 other legal things you wouldn't necessarily want next door to a school, either?
 
Solus said:
What I can't understand is why pornography is legal, which is basically the same thing. ...
Click to expand...
.
Not really. It IS better to have that wiggling flesh pressing on your sweaty flesh while doing the nasty, versus just using the video/8x10 glossy route.
Trafficking is criminal, but consenual paid sex, I do that.
 
Solus said:
What I can't understand is why pornography is legal, which is basically the same thing. However, for some reason prostitution is not. It's ok to pay to watch and film two people you both paid to have sex. It should be legal then if the prostitute paid the client 1$ and filmed it. Makes no sense to me. :boggled:
Click to expand...

There's at least one thread about that here, somewhere. It makes no sense to me: two adults can privately get together and exchange sex for money: illegal. On the other hand, you can hire 20 people to have wild, depraved sex of all kinds (as long as their all of age), film it, and sell it on DVD and on the Internet: legal. In both cases, you're paying people to have sex. One is usually much more private than the other, yet that's the one that's illegal. I don't get it.
 
jimtron said:
There's at least one thread about that here, somewhere. It makes no sense to me: two adults can privately get together and exchange sex for money: illegal. On the other hand, you can hire 20 people to have wild, depraved sex of all kinds (as long as their all of age), film it, and sell it on DVD and on the Internet: legal. In both cases, you're paying people to have sex. One is usually much more private than the other, yet that's the one that's illegal. I don't get it.
Click to expand...
Happens a lot, 1st amendment. For instance, a woman for the topfree movement bared her breasts publicly at an announced event. She got arrested, went to SCOTUS. SCOTUS said that because it was in direct protest of a law, it constituted free speech, and you can't outlaw free speech.

Oddly, giving them the right to bare their breasts, as long as it was a protest, but otherwise preserving the public indecency laws.

I happen to know this because the entire case tickles my funnybone something harsh.
 
GreyICE said:
Happens a lot, 1st amendment. For instance, a woman for the topfree movement bared her breasts publicly at an announced event. She got arrested, went to SCOTUS. SCOTUS said that because it was in direct protest of a law, it constituted free speech, and you can't outlaw free speech.

Oddly, giving them the right to bare their breasts, as long as it was a protest, but otherwise preserving the public indecency laws.

I happen to know this because the entire case tickles my funnybone something harsh.
Click to expand...

The SC Justices like boobs!!!!!! But not John Ashcroft apparently...

I bet they wouldn't let a gay man get away with baring anything...
 
Abooga said:
If your wife´s boss offered her a raise for doing her a BJ, what would you think of that?
Click to expand...

If my wife were a prostitute, it wouldn't seem out of place (though the ethics would still be questionable). Otherwise, it wouldn't be a part of her job description, it would be a violation of workplace ethics and most likely make her uncomfortable enough so as to consitute sexual harrassment.
 
jimtron said:
The SC Justices like boobs!!!!!! But not John Ashcroft apparently...

I bet they wouldn't let a gay man get away with baring anything...
Click to expand...

I don't know if this is sarcasm, but they do. Hence why the leather parades go off at the scheduled times, SCOTUS thinks free speech = free speech, not obscenity.

They've really been somewhat consistent in applying their standards, which is shocking given the variety of cases they see.
 
Mobyseven said:
If my wife were a prostitute, it wouldn't seem out of place (though the ethics would still be questionable). Otherwise, it wouldn't be a part of her job description, it would be a violation of workplace ethics and most likely make her uncomfortable enough so as to consitute sexual harrassment.
Click to expand...

Let´s assume she´s not a prostitute. So then it would be a violation of workplace ethics.

What if instead, what she gets offered is a change in her job description, from secretary to "secretary with perks" (as someone called it).

Would that be different? Notice that it is essentially the same thing, offered to have sex for a raise. Just worded differently, but offered with the same insistence as the "normal" harassment, and can make her equally uncomfortable.

But if prostitution is legal, "secretary with perks" is just another job description, so technically it´s not harassment, is it?
 
Abooga:
Were your surgeon wife asked to do sex or mop the floor, would you object to those two things the same way?

joobz said:
Yes and no. Can you explain why you think sexual harrassment laws would become meaningless if we permit prostitution?
Click to expand...

Yes or no?

I am trying to explain. I must be very bad at explaining things...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom