Why is prostitution illegal?

Prostitution is illegal? Damn! Where did I put that Groucho Marx plastic nose, tache, and spectacles thing?
 
ponderingturtle said:
the people you are quoteing don't. They blame poverty, but it is unlikely that prostitution is the only road out of poverty, and if poverty is sufficient coercion, then any company that emploies the poor is forcing their emploies to work for them to exactly the same extent that the prostitutes are forced by poverty.
Click to expand...

So, for you it is the same thing to force someone to work or to force someone into sex?

So if I kidnap your daughter and make her wash my car or I kidnap her and rape her, both things would piss you off the same?
 
Last edited:
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...

Perhaps it's because there is more opportunity to get away with various forms of exploitation if there are no cameras filming the event?
 
Abooga: I think everyone here pretty much is against forcing someone to do something against their will. I am, and you are, right?

Do you think that prostitution is inherently unethical, or immoral, or otherwise wrong?

What are you trying to get at? Maybe it will make this conversation a bit easier if you tell us where you draw the line. Please tell us your thoughts on these matters.
 
Abooga said:
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?
Click to expand...

I've already answered you, but you are either missing it, or deliberately ignoring it.

Why?

Not giving you the fuel you need for your blazing Wrongfire, am I?
 
slingblade said:
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?
Click to expand...

Interesting you dodge the question I asked by equating a brothel mainly to stores which sell potentially harmful items to be removed from their premises. What harm could a brothel do to children in a school? Clients go in, get serviced, then leave.

In principle I wouldn't have a problem with an OTB office next to a school.

I'm thinking the real reason some (perhaps even most?) people would object to a brothel next to a school is because they believe sex should be more than just physical gratification - a service to be bought or sold - and they don't want their kids growing up believing that is all it is.
 
jimtron said:
Abooga: I think everyone here pretty much is against forcing someone to do something against their will. I am, and you are, right?

Do you think that prostitution is inherently unethical, or immoral, or otherwise wrong?

What are you trying to get at? Maybe it will make this conversation a bit easier if you tell us where you draw the line. Please tell us your thoughts on these matters.
Click to expand...

What I´m trying to show is that it is not the same thing to force someone to do something like work, or forcing someone to have sex.

In our imperfect societies abuses do accur, people can be, for whatever reasons forced (to different degrees, the most extreme of them resembling slavery) to work.

However, if prostitution is legal, this extreme becomes even more extreme, people could be "forced" into sexual slavery. Which I am trying to argue is something qualitatively different to other forms of slavery.

(Incidentally this reminds me of a case in Germany or Austria when they legalised prostitution and brothels, and women on the dole were being told to work there unless they wanted to lose the dole money... weird, hey? I´ll try to find a link to that later)

...

I´m not saying prostitution it is inherently wrong, if it is done freely. But since this might not always be the case, I am trying to show that there could be reasons to make prostitution illegal.

Am I so bad at explaining things? Does nobody understand my point?

For example, the laws (at least over here) don´t allow a worker in a dangerous work environment to take off the protection measures (helmet etc.) EVEN IF HE WANTS TO. So it´s not ALL a matter of personal choice. Similarly a state could make prostitution illegal the reason being protection of its most vulnerable citizens.

I understand Slingblade´s (I think) point, that the existence of some abuses doesn´t mean the whole proffesion is disqualified. But that would mean many illegal things would have to be legalised, like heroin, crack... So I don´t think your point has much force in this discussion. Unless you´re a libertarian...

...

Now I´m off to my motorcycle exam. I´ll check this thread in a few hours. Wish me luck!
 
"I understand Slingblade´s (I think) point, that the existence of some abuses doesn´t mean the whole proffesion is disqualified. But that would mean many illegal things would have to be legalised, like heroin, crack... So I don´t think your point has much force in this discussion. Unless you´re a libertarian..."

One has nothing to do with the other. Sex is not inherrently dangerous. Heroin is deadly, in sufficient dosage.
Incidently I would support legalising both prostitution and drugs, removing both the criminal element and the stigma attached thereto.
Things out in the open are much easier to monitor and control, and there is far less chance of exploitation
Removing the 80% (made up pse don't ask for proof) of harmless sex, mary jane users etc, allows authorities to concentrate on the nasty stuff like paedophilia etc.
 
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...

Because pornography is art. They are being paid to have a performance, not get their rocks off.
 
Abooga said:
So, for you it is the same thing to force someone to work or to force someone into sex?
Click to expand...

You are forcing someone to work, it is just sex work. The only reason you can even say that there is any force is that it pays so much better than say waitressing or other jobs open to those with limited education.
So if I kidnap your daughter and make her wash my car or I kidnap her and rape her, both things would piss you off the same?
Click to expand...

You are again confusing things. The force being applied is very much based on how much money these people want to earn for how hard they work.

So this is a truely ridiculus strawman.
 
fagin said:
"I understand Slingblade´s (I think) point, that the existence of some abuses doesn´t mean the whole proffesion is disqualified. But that would mean many illegal things would have to be legalised, like heroin, crack... So I don´t think your point has much force in this discussion. Unless you´re a libertarian..."

One has nothing to do with the other. Sex is not inherrently dangerous. Heroin is deadly, in sufficient dosage.
Incidently I would support legalising both prostitution and drugs, removing both the criminal element and the stigma attached thereto.
Things out in the open are much easier to monitor and control, and there is far less chance of exploitation
Removing the 80% (made up pse don't ask for proof) of harmless sex, mary jane users etc, allows authorities to concentrate on the nasty stuff like paedophilia etc.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on all that, except that heroin (at least in its pure form, morphine) is deadly. It is not. I know several people who have tried it, and lived, and didn´t even get hooked. And according to Slingblade, the existence of these "responsible users" would mean that heroine (or morphine) would have to be legalised, wouldn´t it?

(now I see that you said "in sufficient dosage". Yes, like anything else, water, salt, sugar, anything. But you don´t mean that do you?)

Of course sex is not inherently dangerous. What I´m saying is that if society allows for the commercialization of sex, perhaps THAT could be dangerous. Or at least not very coherent with the rest of societal laws.

Oh, and what I said about Germany and compelling women to work in brothels not to lose benefits seems to be false. Apparently it was based on an article that speculated on the possibility that it could happen, which snowballed. http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp
 
ponderingturtle said:
Abooga:
So, for you it is the same thing to force someone to work or to force someone into sex?

Ponderingturtle:
You are forcing someone to work, it is just sex work. The only reason you can even say that there is any force is that it pays so much better than say waitressing or other jobs open to those with limited education.

Abooga:
So if I kidnap your daughter and make her wash my car or I kidnap her and rape her, both things would piss you off the same?

Ponderingturtle:
You are again confusing things. The force being applied is very much based on how much money these people want to earn for how hard they work.

So this is a truely ridiculus strawman.
Click to expand...


Your position seems to be that sex is like any other work. So where´s the strawman? If someone kidnaps my daughter and forces her to sow fields, or they kidnap her and force her to serve food in a bar, I wouldn´t be angrier one way or the other. Now, if instead they forced her to work as a prostitute it would be quite a different thing.

There is a difference. See it now?

So tell me, if I kidnap your daughter and make her wash my car or I kidnap her and rape her, both things would piss you off the same?

You haven´t given me a straight answer yet.
 
Last edited:
Abooga said:
Your position seems to be that sex is like any other work. So where´s the strawman? If someone kidnaps my daughter and forces her to sow fields, or they kidnap her and force her to serve food in a bar, I wouldn´t be angrier one way or the other. Now, if instead they forced her to work as a prostitute it would be quite a different thing.
Click to expand...

My take is that sex work is like other kinds of work. Now when you use force to make someone do something that they do not choose to do that changes things.

The effects on having sex against your will and having to wash a car against your will are not the same, but it is the against your will part that is important.
There is a difference. See it now?
Click to expand...

No because it is a stupid strawman, and a horrible false equivocation.

If it was between my daughter working in a carwash or brothel because for some reason I was unable to help her get an education that would permit her to get a better job than at a car wash, then it becomes comparable.

And I think in that situation I might well prefer the brothel as a job while going to school. With out it, I would worry about long term employment prospects(I don't see there being as much of a market for 40-50 year old prostitutes as opposed to 40-50 year old engineers for example)
 
Abooga, I think you've got your work cut out for you in this thread.;)

How did your motorcycle exam go?
 
If you kidnap my daughter and force her to do anything, you have broken the law and pissed me off.

The morality of prostitution is vague. Some people confuse it with infidelity, probably because prostitutes or their clients are often cheating on their spouse/partner. I don't see how prostitution is immoral in the absence of force or infidelity.

I think the State has an interest in maintaining families. The illegality of prostitution (and adultery, sodomy, etc.) is based on this interest.
 
ponderingturtle said:
My take is that sex work is like other kinds of work. Now when you use force to make someone do something that they do not choose to do that changes things.

The effects on having sex against your will and having to wash a car against your will are not the same, but it is the against your will part that is important.

No because it is a stupid strawman, and a horrible false equivocation.

If it was between my daughter working in a carwash or brothel because for some reason I was unable to help her get an education that would permit her to get a better job than at a car wash, then it becomes comparable.

And I think in that situation I might well prefer the brothel as a job while going to school. With out it, I would worry about long term employment prospects(I don't see there being as much of a market for 40-50 year old prostitutes as opposed to 40-50 year old engineers for example)
Click to expand...

I still don´t really see the strawman.

(And I don´t think most people would prefer their daughters to work in a brothel... you must be a very special kind of dad...)

You say: "The effects on having sex against your will and having to wash a car against your will are not the same, but it is the against your will part that is important."

So you don´t see the really big difference I see between the two. Both are (apparently) equally wrong because it´s "against your will" ?... How odd.

I´ll try again. Ignore my persistence if you get bored, but it´s just that I just can´t believe nobody notices the contradictions I see.

From a different angle:

sexual-harassment laws exist because it is not the same thing to harass someone, f.e. to do some ordinary job or to do sex work. For some of you there might no distinction, but the existence of specific sexual harassment laws prove that for society there is a difference between the two types of work.

Agree?
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Abooga, I think you've got your work cut out for you in this thread.;)

How did your motorcycle exam go?
Click to expand...

I failed miserably. I´ll see how it goes next week...

Regarding the topic and the things I´ve been trying to explain, do you understand what I´m trying to say? Am I not making any sense?

(What was that about cutting out? a joke? I didn´t get it ...)
 
Last edited:
I don't want to see my daughter wait tables or flip hamburgers. It doesn't mean I'd want to see either made illegal.
 
Abooga said:
I still don´t really see the strawman.

(And I don´t think most people would prefer their daughters to work in a brothel... you must be a very special kind of dad...)

You say: "The effects on having sex against your will and having to wash a car against your will are not the same, but it is the against your will part that is important."

So you don´t see the really big difference I see between the two. Both are (apparently) equally wrong because it´s "against your will" ?... How odd.
Click to expand...

So any wealthy guy who gets lots of action because of his money is raping women left and right in your world? There is really no difference between Hugh Heifner and a serial rapist?
I´ll try again. Ignore my persistence if you get bored, but it´s just that I just can´t believe nobody notices the contradictions I see.

From a different angle:

sexual-harassment laws exist because it is not the same thing to harass someone, f.e. to do some ordinary job or to do sex work. For some of you there might no distinction, but the existence of specific sexual harassment laws prove that for society there is a difference between the two types of work.

Agree?
Click to expand...

No. Most sexual harassment issues are about long term employment, if you come onto your plumber and offer a higher tip for cleaning your pipes and not just fixing your faucet, that would be much closer to what you are talking about.

Waitresses get hit on by customers all the time, but how often are the customers charged with sexual harrassment? A boss or other employie who did the same likely would.
 
Prostitution should be legal for the same reason as drugs. Making it illegal causes more problems than it solves (and is pointlessly anti-liberty because of this). Maybe prostitution is a horrible thing but it STILL HAPPENS anyway, so why not give these women the full protection of the law? I'm just a practical person that wants to lower suffering in the world, making more stuff illegal just doesn't help at all. I think there were some earlier threads where some good idea were talked about in terms of STD testing cards etc.

Abooga, you come off as having an agenda and not looking at the big picture.

Ivor, I'm all for brothels beside school because I expect them to pretty much be a parking lot and a somewhat low-key building with few windows. I think brothels are pointless for the most part anyway though, why bother really? Websites seems much more sensible to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom