Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Prostitution should be legal: the statistics prove it

By dh003i in Politics
Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 01:32:22 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags) 		Politics

Abstract: Here is my view on why prostitution should be legal, supported by statistical evidence. I also make some brief proposals as to how it should be legalized. Please tell my your opinion by taking the poll and responding to this article.

I. Introduction:


Prostitution should be legal. It is a very simple issue: the actual act, a prostitute and her customer agreeing on an exchange of money for sex, violates no one's rights, and does not directly or demonstrateably necessarily harm anyone else. Thus, it should be legal. However, some people do not seem to have clarity on the issue, and want to bring in lots of personal opinions and hogwash about how prostitution promote drug-use, violence, STDs, etc. In fact, it is anti-prostitution laws which promote all of these things. I hope that these statistics -- taken from the Prostitutes Education Network -- and my interpretation of them can show that. For clarity, summaries of each point will be in bold, facts paraphrased from the website will be in italics, and my personal comments will be in plain text.


II. Data and Interpretation:


A. Anti-prostitution laws don't work, and thus should be abolished. Arrest figures range over 100,000, and over 1 million people in the US have worked as prostitutes, or about 0.5% of the US. Anti-prostitution laws don't work, and thus should be abolished. The frequency of prostitution is not affected by anti-prostitution laws: they mereley drive prostitution underground, creating a much more dangerous situation for prostitutes, their customers, and society.

B. Prostitution is not a women-only issue. 77.8% of arrests are women, 22.2% men. In larger cities, 20-30% of prostitutes are male. The feminist arguments against prostitution claiming that prostitution is "violence against women" need to be re-examined, considering that a considerable percentage of prostitutes are men. It is even inappropriate to call "prostitution violence against prostitutes," as it is not prostitution itself which is violent. It is the circumstances around prostitution -- all of them caused, perpetuated, and encouraged by the illegalization and stigmitization of prostitution -- which are violent.

C. The enforcement of anti-prostitution laws is inequitable, and discriminate against prostitutes. Prostitutes account for 90% of the arrests, their clients for only 10%. The enforcement of anti-prostitution laws is predjudiced against prostitutes, and in fact punishes and violates those that the supporters of anti-prostitution laws (some feminists and Conservatives) claim anti-prostitution laws protect. Were the law equitable, 50% of those arrested under anti-prostitution laws would be the clients. But cops aren't interested in pursuing the clients: clients often have money, and can defend themselves. Furthermore, it is easier to rape, assault, abuse, and otherwise violate the rights of a prostitute. This doesn't mean that all cops are rapists, but some are, and some take advantage of the precarious situation prostitutes are in.

D. The enforcement of anti-prostitution laws further victimize the most victimized prostitutes. 85-90% of those arrested are street prostitutues, who account for 20% of prostitutes. As the statistics show, street-prostitutes are most likely to be subject to violence, abuse, and drug-use. The enforcement of anti-prostitution laws further victimizes these most-victimized and violated of prostitutes.

E. The enforcement of anti-prostitution laws is racist. Despite accounting for the minority of prostitutes, non-caucasians account for the vast majority of prostitutes sentenced to jail. Anti-prostitution laws act as a vehicle for racism, as this statistic indicates.

F. Drug-abuse is variable, and most common among street-prostitutes. Drug abuse ranges from 0-84%, depending on the population, and is most common among street-prostitutes, 50% of whom are drug-users. As was stated, drug-use is variable depending on the population, just like among any other group. The highest incidences of drug-use are among street-prostitutes, probably because they are subject to the most frequent contact with nefarious drug-dealers, and because they are the most likely to work for a pimp who controls them by rationing drugs to them. This is perpetuated and encouraged by anti-prostitution laws. Anti-prostitution laws force more prostitutes roam the streets, searching for clientelle (as they can't advertise from a brothel), and also discourage prostitutes from working in a house as that is a fixed and easy target for police-raids. Legalizing prostitution would ameliorate this situation, resulting in lower incidences of drug abuse.

G. Prostitutes are not a major source of STD-spread. Only 3-5% of STDs are prostitution-related, compared to 30-35% which is teen-related. Despite the bunk propogated by zealous anti-prostitution advocates, prostitutes are not a major source of STD-spread, and (indeed) this suggests that they are not particularly vulnerable to STDs. This is probably because prostitutes are highly aware of safe-sex, as it is a necessity in their business, and always use condoms and other devices to make sex safer. If only the Christian Coalition nutcases would allow our teenagers to be educated just as well in contraceptives and safe sex.

H. Anti-prostitution laws and their enforcement tolerate, endorse, and perpetuate violence against and violation of prostitutes. Clients account for 60% of the abuse against street-prostitutes, police for 20%, and partners for 20%. One study found that 80% of prostitutes have been sexually assaulted, some raped as many as 8-10 times/yea or more. Only 7% seek help, and only 4% report it to the police. Prostitutes are unlikely to report violent crimes committed against them and also unlikely to seek help. Prostitutes know that they will be arrested for prostitution if they report crimes against them; know that neither the cops, prosecutors, judges, juries, nor even their own lawyers will believe them, thus don't report crimes against them. Our anti-prostitution laws -- which both perpetuate and are perpetuated by social stigma against prostitution -- are responsible for the acceptance of crimes committed against prostitutes and the devaluation of prostitutes as persons. Because clients, cops, and partners know this, they feel safe in stealing from, assaulting, sexaully assaulting, torturing, raping, and even killing prostitutes. Thanks to anti-prostitution laws, there is no crime safer in the US than a crime committed against a prostitute. As the legal system, cops, prosecutors, judges, jurrors, and society at large effectively regards prostitutes as non-persons -- less than slaves -- any crime against a prostitute is almost certainly ignored, tolerated, and even encouraged. This devaluation of prostitutes as non-persons -- analagous to the Proles in Orwell's 1984 -- is encouraged and promoted by anti-prostitution laws.

I. Anti-prostitution laws and their enforcement further violates those already violated. 35-85% of prositutes are survivors of childhood incidences of sexual assault/molesation by their relatives (forced incest) or others. As this statistic indicates, most prostitutes are the survivors of childhood incest, molestation, and/or sexual assault. Our legal system -- and anti-prostitution laws in particular -- re-victimize prostitutes by imprisoning them and encouraging violence against them. Our legal system, the politicians who support anti-prostitution laws, and society at large are just as responsible for the victimization and rights-violation of prostitutes as are their parents who raped them. This re-victimization can be alleviated by abolishing anti-prostitution laws, thus not imprisoning prostitutes, and not encouraging crimes against them.

J. House-prostitutes have good self-esteem. 97% of house-prostitutes like themselves more after than before becoming prostitutes. The statistics propogated by so-called feminists groups "concerned about prostitutes" indicating that all prostitutes have poor self-esteem are incorrect. Most house (as opposed to street) prostitutes have a better self-perception of themselves after becoming prostitutes. This again shows why we should legalize prostitution (and allow brothels), as it would encourage house-prostitution over street-prostitution.

K. Prostitutes are no more likely to entertain suicidal thoughts than other women. 59% of prostitutes have thought of committing suicide, compared to 61% of non-prostitutes. This suggests that prostitutes are no more suicidal than non-prostitutes, debunking the theories put forth by some feminists.

L. The enforcement of anti-prostitution laws necessarily violates prostitutes' rights. All arrests of prostitutes involve intrapment, invasion of privacy, and/or the use of discriminatory laws/tactics. Yet more violations of prostitutes' rights by the cops and our legal system. Because prostitutes are fearful of the police, and unlikely to get good legal advice, they will often plea guilty, not knowing that the evidence procured against them was inadmissable. Often, they will be pressured into such by cops, who will deny them their lawyers or deceptively suggest that contacting lawyers implies guilt, and using other strong-arm tactics to prevent prostitutes from getting adequate legal representation and knowing their rights.

M. Anti-prostitution laws are unduely expensive, and should thus be abolished: that money should be spent pursuing those who commit crimes against prostitutes. It costs $2,000/case to arrest, court, and incarcerate a prostitute. Cities spend from $1 million to $23 million dollars, for an average of $7.5 million dollars, on prostitution-control. Despite the expenses made trying to prevent prostitution, it hasn't been prevented, but only driven underground to places where prostitutes are in the greatest danger of having their rights violated by pimps, clients, and cops. Instead of spending an average of $7.5 million trying to prevent prostitution and arresting prostitutes, cities should spend that money preventing crimes/rights-violations against prostitutes, and pursuing/punishing those who commit crimes against prostitutes and/or violate their rights.

To make things clearer, there is an inverse relationship between the number of prostitutes prosecuted/jailed and the number of rapists brought up on charges. It costs $2,000 total to charge, prosecute, and jail a prostitute. It costs $500 dollars for the police to send a rape-kit to a lab for analysis. In real-life, thousands of rape-kits go unanalyzed because the PD can't afford the $500 fee for analysis. That means that for every prostitute that's prosecuted, there are four rapists that get away with rape. What this says is that our politicians care more about jailing prostitutes -- who don't necessarily, by virtue of their profession, harm anyone -- than about jailing violent and dangerous rapists, who will continue to rape. I think this shows that politicians care more about pleasing their morally self-righteous constituents than the violations that prostitutes have to endure.


III. Discussion & Conclusion:


I hope that these statistics have convincingly made my point. Anti-prostitution laws serve only to further victimize prostitutes; encouraging, tolerating, excusing, and allowing for violence, crimes, and rights-violations against prostitutes. Anti-prostitution laws make the criminal feel safe in committing crimes against a prostitute. Had Jack The Ripper been killing noble British Women, he would have undoubtedly been caught, but because he was killing prostitutes (considered as non-persons) he was not. Anti-prostitution laws also encourage street prostitution, a form of prostitution in which the prostitutes are more vulnerable to crime and violation, and more exposed to drug-dealers and pimps who seek to take advantage of them. Furthermore, anti-prostitution laws encourage the social stigma associate with prostitutes. They enforce the unacceptable view among society at large that prostitutes are beneath them -- sub-humans, non-persons, proles. The right of a (wo)man to prostitute his or her body needs to be respected as a natural right, consequent of their natural right to control their own body. Abolishing laws denying that prostitutes have the right to control their body in the form of prostituting it is the first step to legitimize the profession of prostitution, and change societal views, such that the prostitute is viewed as a hard-working person just like the rest of us. The money spent violating the rights of prostitutes should be spent pursuing those who commit crimes against prostitutes.

Furthermore, a social revolution in how society views prostitutes and other sex-workers (such as strippers or actors in pornography films) needs to be initiated. Prostitution needs to be seen as a legitimate professional choice, and prostitutes need the rights that all other professionals have. What rights and priviledges they have is not particularly important, so long as they're treated the same as other professionals.

I will not go into extensive details here as to how we legalize prostitution, but simply say that I agree (almost) completely with the World Charter for Prostitutes' Rights. Here are some interesting sites regarding prostitutes' rights:


IV. Responses to a few Critiques:


These are in a C (critique), R (response) format.

C: Would you want your daughter to become a prostitute?
R: I want my daughter to become whatever will make her the happiest; however, people don't always get their dream careers. As with other professions, in prostitution some are happy, some not. Consider the underlying assumption of this question: that any field we don't want our children to go into should be criminalized. The question to ask is, does this profession necessarily violate the rights of others? Also consider if your daughter does become a prostitute. Under the current system, individuals can commit violent crimes against her with little fear of consequence; thus, she will be at grave risk. If prostitution was legal and legitimized, violent crimes against her would be punished and discouraged.

C: Prostitution isn't illegal for statistical reasons.
R: Perhaps it isn't, but it should be legalized for statistical reasons. If a law does more harm than good, it should be eliminated. The moral arguments against prostitution do not stand, because it harms no one and occurs only between consenting adults. The argument that it degrades women in general is falicious, since there are also men prostitutes, and since the actions of one (wo)man reflect only on her/him-self.

Please post your opinions on this matter, be they criticisms of my position or argument, or arguments of your own.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
What do you think?
o Prostitution should be legalized, with a full-disclosure policy (i.e., full disclosure of safe-sex, testing, etc. policies). 56%
o Prostitution should be legalized, with some restrictions. 9%
o Prostitution should be legalized, with some restrictions and restricted to red-district areas. 17%
o Prostitution should be legalized on the supply-side, but not the demand side. 1%
o Leave the laws alone. They're fine. 2%
o Make current laws stricter. 3%
o Don't care. 3%
o Other. 4%

Votes: 328
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o these statistics
o Prostitute s Education Network
o World Charter for Prostitutes' Rights
o CSIS Rights Groups
o Prostitute s' Education Network Bookstore in association with Amazon.com
o Prostitute s' Education Network
o BlackStock ings
o Alysabeth' s Feminist Stripper Site
o Also by dh003i

Display: Sort:
Prostitution should be legal: the statistics prove it | 508 comments (462 topical, 46 editorial, 0 hidden)
What is it (1.00 / 1) (#4)
by vile on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 06:51:12 PM EST

with type cased text today????? ugh. My eyes are already tired.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
Ever considered a career in advertising? (4.14 / 14) (#14)
by Pseudonym on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 07:51:28 PM EST

"I've been researching the facts..."

"Nine out of ten doctors prefer..."

"The statistics prove it!"

While I agree that prostitution should be legal and regulated (disclaimer: where I live, it is legal and regulated), statistics prove whatever you want them to prove, if appropriately spun. See also Darrell Huff's magnum opus, How to Lie With Statistics.<?p>

sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});

I mostly agree with the opinions expressed (4.47 / 19) (#23)
by ogre on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 10:01:58 PM EST

... and I still think this article is a load of bullshit.

You site the percentage of prostitutes who have thought about suicide, not the number who commit suicide. Why?

In many cases you oddly interpret the statistics. For example the explanation of why street walkers become drug users is strange, it seems far more likely to me that prostitutes who use drugs are more likely to become street walkers than that street walkers start to use drugs.

Your stat about how many prostitutes there are ignore where they are. In places like San Francisco where they don't enforce the laws there are lots of prostitutes. In places where they do enforce the laws there are many fewer.

You don't give any numbers for the "statistic" that proves enforcement is racist. Is this because you don't have any or is it because the numbers might suggest a correlation to the higher percentage of minorities among street walkers and the fact that more street walkers are arrested?

Everybody relax, I'm here.

feminists (3.50 / 8) (#30)
by turmeric on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 10:59:55 PM EST

do not all agree on everything. so dont say 'the feminist critique' like there is just one.

more importantly, there are quite a few nasty old pimps and porn-producers are using 'liberation' rhetoric so they can further abuse and oppress their workers. you think microsoft is evil? how about the monopoly structure of the porn industry, the video producers, the distributers, and the retail outlets, the SEC should be smacking those folks down like a mongoose on a cobra.

notice that you didnt mention anything about prostitutes unions, for example. . . and some of the people who own brothels and the people who run prostitution rings want to keep it that way. they do not want OSHA showing up, they dont want to have to pay health insurance. they dont want to pay taxes. they want to keep the prostitutes powerless as possible. so they love all this 'liberation' talk but they dont want to be 'too liberated'.

also, statistic J is wack.

Legality (3.70 / 10) (#32)
by bugmaster on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 11:26:23 PM EST

AFAIK, prostitution is legal in Israel. In fact, an Orthodox Jewish man is required (by the Torah) to visit the prostitute when his wife (or wives) is, ah, unavailable. Prostitutes have a union like everyone else, and they seem happy with the situation. One time they went on strike because of unfair working conditions -- and boy did they get their demands met in a jiffy.

Why can't we have the same kind of system here in the USA ? I mean, if nothing else, the possibility of taxing sex should be enticing to our congresscritters...
>|<*:=

Did it ever occur to you... (2.20 / 10) (#43)
by Skywise on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 01:18:01 AM EST

...to wonder why prostitution is illegal in the first place?

(and no, it's not because of religious nutcases)

First off, it sexualizes all relations.  All relationships of your sexual preference will go through a sexual filter of would they do me for free?  Would they do me if I paid them?  And if not, why not?  Sex now, officially, becomes a tool for moving ahead in the corporation.

Secondly, because there was no way to track family lineage of children, and thereby determine who was a legitimate heir of the estate.

(assuming a female prostitute)
If a man goes to a prostitute, and she bears a child, is he liable?  What if he wants the child, does he have a legal right to it?  Is she liable for damages if she aborts the child against his wishes?  What if she doesn't want to abort and he does?  Does she have to submit to a DNA test so he can verify the child is not his?  Does she have to submit to an abortion if he requires it?

We haven't even legally answered these questions in normal everyday relations.  It's messy.  (Does anybody know how las vegas deals with it?  How about the jewish temple prostitutes?)

Now imagine the reverse...
If a male prostitute gets a woman pregnant because the condom broke, is he liable?  Is he required to support the child if she sees it to term?  Can he force her to bring the child to term?

How about exclusive contracts?  Are those legal? (yeah, they're called "marriage"... ba-dum)
Okay, how about just long term contracts including maid service?  (Oops, that's called...slavery...)

Can you just sell me your daughter/son when he/she's of age?  (oh wait, now we're just regressing...)

Of course prostitution still occurs.  Duh.  So does every other crime.  Is it used to repress prostitutes?  Duh.  But so does every other law on the books...  C'mon, aside from theft and killing, what other laws do we really NEED?

Prostitution stays on the books for the same reason we don't allow the selling of spare body organs.  It immediately dehumanizes everyone into a dollar amount.

History of Prostitution Laws in the US (4.13 / 15) (#44)
by nomoreh1b on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 01:43:52 AM EST

Prostitution used to be legal virtually everywhere in the United States(just like it is now legal in most parts of Europe). The banning of prostitution was lobbied for by the Women's Christian Temperance Union-the same organization that brought about prohibition. Prostitution, booze, and drugs(i.e. marijuana) were all objects of the ire of the WCTU.

The fact that the WCTU could bring about prohibition and the banning of prostitution was tied up with the movement to grant women voting rights-and the fact that immediately after that happened there wasn't really the same political split we now see among women along the Feminist/Christian lines in the US.

Prior to the banning of prostitution, prostitution was a relatively inexpensive service that was widely available. My grandfather was born in the 1890's and used to tell stories of brothels that catered to high school students in the midwest.

The banning of prostitution had the effect largely of raising prices and putting a lot of power into the hands of police that enforce prostitution laws(i.e. most prostitutes have some kind of arrangement with local law enforcement to stay in business). When prostitution was legal, the role of middlemen was much less profound than it is today.

Nevada still has a system of legal prostitution. In Nevada counties have the option to legalize, tax and regulate prostitution. That system could be easily extended to other states.



poll vote: other (4.10 / 10) (#46)
by tiger on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 02:47:20 AM EST

Prostitution should be legal with no restrictions. Why didn’t you offer this choice?

--
Americans :— Say no to male genital mutilation. In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child
-1 (3.00 / 2) (#51)
by SanSeveroPrince on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 07:25:13 AM EST

Mention of legal prostitution without mention of Amsterdam's working legal prostitution model is a crime.

Oh, and spelling mistakes...

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think
be happy: prostitution is entailed by capitalism. (3.66 / 6) (#52)
by Noam Chompsky on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 07:40:19 AM EST

C: Would you want your daughter to become a prostitute?
R: I want my daughter to become whatever will make her the happiest; however, people don't always get their dream careers.

You should fix that, I think, instead of constricting viable economic options in a free market of increasing relative economic inequality: "I don't want to tell you what to do, because that would be coercion, but either you become a well paid Perl programmer like me, or you prostitute yourself to Perl programmers like me." Ha-ha! You liberalists crack me up.

Choose the letter 'f' from the following set: {'a', 'b', 'c', 'd'}. You cannot. Think about what that says about the freedom to choose one's economic destiny. Obviously, we should not make it our policy to penalize people for choosing 'a', 'b', 'c' or 'd' when 'f' is out of the question. But that is not the point. The point is prostitution is a pathological economic condition. If you legitimize this pathology without offering remediation then there is every economic incentive for your daughter to become a prostitute or, if you please, "not always get their dream careers." Hold on, there's more: I claim there'll be no incentive to remediate, you know, if the liberalist elite can wash the blood off its hands in the fountain of liberal market logic. What you're staring down is the situation in the former Soviet bloc where little girls want to become cash prostitutes instead of (e.g.) school teachers, because their mothers are school teachers and look where it's got them--a listing on the Russian Wives for American Dorks website.

Yours are the liberalist's values, and they are fine if you want them. However, they are arbitrary; Man is not entailed by the legal status of prostitution, and there can be no statistical proof for a set of values begging their own questions.

--
Faster, liberalists, Not liberal, and you're values are liberal by dh003i, 12/23/2002 10:47:32 AM EST (none / 0)

Do not legalise (3.28 / 7) (#53)
by LaundroMat on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 08:04:51 AM EST

Over in Belgium, lawmakers are considering legalising prostitution, apparently for one sole reason: tax money.
Oh sure, this complete discussion is larded with niceties such as "protecting the women in the industry", "making it a reputable, honorable profession", "making sure the activities fall into a legal framework, so customers no longer risk anything" etc.

The prositutes themselves are against. Yes, also because maybe they will have to pay more taxes, but primarily because they know that legalising prostitution means that if legal prostitution exist, we'll soon see illegal prostitution too. There's all sorts of things imaginable here; both on the level of unspeakable pervy-ness to the purely economic level (and all that lies between).

What the prostitutes propose is to leave everything such as it is now, and "allow" it in a semi-legal fashion. Justice officials, the police etc only intervene when criminal activities around prostitution occur (drugs, violence, money laundering, ...) but not as a direct reaction to the act of prostitution itself.

I know some people abhor the idea of not being able to pour everything in nice little rules, but sometimes it just saves a lot of energy when you just leave things as they are, and concentrate on the important things.

Prostitution is still illegal here, and this serves the lawmakers very well. Whenever things get out of hand (tits flapping about right in front of retirement home), the law steps in. Otherwise, they leave it be.

Sure, it's a thin line... You have to be careful with arbitrary policemen, judges and what not; and this understanding of allowed-but-illegal must indeed come from both sides.

De jure illegal, de facto very legal. Apart from some moral hardliners, no-one really has a problem with this.
---

"These innocent fun-games of the hallucination generation"

How about (4.20 / 10) (#55)
by lb008d on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 10:39:29 AM EST

fixing people's sexual repression first, and then see what happens to the demand for prostitutes. While I agree that prostitution should be legal, legalizing it only fixes a symptom of a much larger problem.

Can you imagine how different society would be if more people were comfortable with themselves sexually? People need to be taught that sex, in any consensual form, is a natural, moral behavior that nobody should be ashamed of.

"Kuro5hin: politics and pretension, from the $3,000 leather recliners on the hill overlooking the trenches."DarkZero

You left out the most basic argument (3.71 / 7) (#59)
by Sloppy on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 11:04:24 AM EST

IMHO, the most basic reason argument against prostitution is that government is supposed to protect people from their own poor judgement, and anyone who engages in or solicits prostitution is harming themselves. After all, they're unmarried people having sex, so they risk going to Hell. ;-)

That sounds like an absurd argument, but we also have laws against drugs, and even suicide itself.

I don't think you'll have very good luck in convincing The People to legalized specific "victimless crimes" until you change their attitude about what the purpose of government is. If suicide is illegal, then it implies people have an obligation to the state, so the state has the right to regulate their well-being. Thus, the debate will focus on the details of that regulation, and point-by-point of whether some behavior is good or bad. You can't really defend anything when it comes to that, someone will always find some flaw in your data or reasoning. It reminds me of people who try to legalize marijuana by explaining that it's "not that bad" for you -- they've already lost the argument before they've begun.

The basic principle should be defended instead: that we are free, not property of the state. Laws to protect us from ourselves, are an inappropriate use of government's power.
"RSA, 2048, seeks sexy young entropic lover, for several clock cycles of prime passion..."

Hand-waving (3.77 / 9) (#60)
by gzt on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 11:10:14 AM EST

In your response to your critics, you say, "The moral arguments against prostitution do not stand, because it harms no one and occurs only between consenting adults."

What a frightful moral system you have if you believe that implies the moral arguments don't stand.  Your "harms" claim is controversial, too.

Probably wrong: (4.36 / 11) (#66)
by valar on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 12:06:01 PM EST

All arrests of prostitutes involve intrapment, invasion of privacy, and/or the use of discriminatory laws/tactics. a)Entrapment involves a police officer forcing a person to commit a crime, or giving someone the idea to commit a crime. A prostitute already knows he or she is going to commit a crime, that is why he or she is out there. The cops aren't forcing the prostitute to have sex for money. It's not entrapment. What you are thinking of is the use of uncover officers, which is perfectly legal, acceptable practice (though I think it should be made illegal. b)The police are allowed to violate your privacy if they are investigating you. Otherwise, the entire legal system would collapse, because people could just hide inside their houses and the cops couldn't get to them without 'violating their privacy.' c)Discriminatory law is, by definition illegal. There is no such thing. You may think the way a law is enforced is discriminatory, but no law says that this law should be enforced different for different groups of citizens. Tactics I won't argue with.

Evolution (2.33 / 9) (#69)
by boxed on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 12:31:20 PM EST

There is one single killer argument against this, and that is that prostitution fucks up the species ability to survive. This is, in my opinion, the only valid argument for supporting anti-prostitution laws. Sex should not be available outside relationships since this would bypass the very reason why we enjoy sex in the first place. Sex is the most powerful socialization motivation along with love, this is a dual motivation system developed during millions of years and interfering with it is risking the survival of the species.

From a socialistic perspective one also needs to realize that a huge number of people who go into prostitution do so because they desperately need money (either because they're very poor or because they have a drug abuse problem and need the money to support it). Having a society that doesn't force the poorest of it's populace into a certain profession is obviously the solution.

fundamental problem in your understanding of law (3.71 / 7) (#76)
by SocratesGhost on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 01:46:35 PM EST

The formation of the United States was founded heavily upon the proposition that men can decide only among themselves on the best way to be free. This is the basis of most laws: that an individual cannot always determine the right answer, but that when we put our collective heads together, we determine what is best for ourselves in the context of the group. In those cases where people disagree, we must force them to go along. In this way, we force ourselves to be free.

This is pure undilluted Rousseau, one of the intellectual thinkers that the Founders relied on when they were justifying a democratic system.

For example, take speed laws. Few people obey them, but few people will vote to change them. That's because we feel that generally the posted speed limit is about right for the idiot drivers on the road, although not quite fast enough for my self. As a group then, we decide what is best, even though individuals may feel they are not served under the system. And yet, the laws are for those who do speed as well as everyone who obeys it. We make the roads easy to drive and safe and useable by limiting our rights on it. We free ourselves by these limits.

If you meditate on most laws, they accord with this approach. Prostitution is completely coherent under this philosophy. By upholding these laws we are saying that we don't want to let ourselves fall to that level. At a minimum, no matter what else we may be, I will not be a hooker. Being a bum is better. Being in poverty is better. Being dependent on the state is better. It is better to be all of those combined, and so I remove prostitution as a possible option. And as a result, I am free.

-Soc
I drank what?
and here is what disproves everything you wrote (2.47 / 17) (#79)
by anonymous pancake on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 01:52:19 PM EST

In the bible, it says prostitution is evil, end of story.


---
. <---- This is not a period, it is actually a very small drawing of the prophet mohhamed.
  • LOL by dh003i, 12/23/2002 02:18:00 PM EST (3.50 / 2)
    • you forgot by anonymous pancake, 12/23/2002 06:31:31 PM EST (2.00 / 1)
  • Theocracy? by Redemption042, 12/23/2002 02:19:38 PM EST (none / 0)
  • Yeah, well... by koreth, 12/23/2002 03:57:39 PM EST (5.00 / 2)
  • MODERATORS by jolt rush soon, 12/23/2002 04:20:05 PM EST (1.75 / 4)
Refutations (4.20 / 15) (#87)
by Kwil on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 02:39:00 PM EST

A:  This argument applies to all crime.  None of it is perfect, so we should therefore just eliminate the law?

B:  So you're arguing that if it were legal, we'd see that the violence against prostitutes would disappear? Hardly. In addition, if it were legal, it then becomes a viable option for down-on-their-luck asshole boyfriends to force onto their girlfriends. "Hey, it's legal, it's quick cash, get yer ass out there." Legalizing prostitution would not stop pimping, which is what really causes the violence.

C:  Again, this applies to all crime. By it's very definition, the enforcement of a law is discriminatory against those who break the law. We arrest criminals and take away their rights. That it is easier to enforce against those performing prostitution than those soliciting it is an unfortunate reality. It's easier to enforce laws against those committing burglary than fraud as well, yet  this is not an argument to legitimize one form of theft or another.

D:  Again, all criminals. The guys who mug you on the street are far more likely to get arrested than the guys who embezzle from behind a desk. Some would say the enforcement of anti-prostitution laws gives the women it arrests at least a chance of getting away from their pimp and a semi-safe place for a night.

E:  Again, nearly all laws fall under this claim. More blacks get arrested and sent to prison for crack cocaine dealing than whites. Is the law racist? Possibly, but this is a general failing of law and not a specific one of anti-prostitution laws.

F:  Again, all criminals fall under this. Those on the street suffer more than those not. Your point about anti-prostitution laws forcing them to the streets because they cannot advertise can be discounted simply by opening a paper and looking in the personals section, or looking in the yellow pages under "escorts".  Your Area May Vary.

G: No argument, though this specific point was never one of the stronger ones against legalization anyway.

H: The problem here isn't with anti-prostitution laws, it's with poor enforcement of other laws.  There is no evidence that even if prostitution were legal it would lead to better enforcement of rape or anti-violence laws. The prostitute would still generally be a lower class member of society, and as such, recieve less assistance from the police. Is this right? Of course not, but it is how things are, and has nothing to do with anti-prostitution laws.

I: Again, this argument applies to most street-criminals. They are generally a result of a particularly poor upbringing, so enforcing any law on them is just taking advantage of that?

J: I don't know where you live, but around here both are in existance, even though they are both illegal. Please explain how legalizing prostitution in general would serve to change the ratio of street prostitutes to house prostitutes. Once you've done that, explain how only legalizing house prostitution would encourage the uptake of those women who can-not get into an "escort" service now? Since the services exist, and by your reasonings are not only safer, but healthier for the women involved, why isn't every woman a part of one? The answer is because you're not considering the factors that bring a prostitute to the street as opposed to a house. You have not given any evidence indicating that it is the anti-prostitution laws that are among these factors.

K: Somebody else took issue with this statistic - what ratio of "considered" turns to "attempted" between prostitutes and non-prostitutes?  There is also the argument of what segments of the population were considered non-prostitutes when these statistics were gathered. Is it a fair comparison if that non-prostitute segment includes age ranges from 12-90 while the segment of prostitutes only includes age ranges of 12-40?

L: You got these statistics from a "Prostitutes Education Network", hardly an unbiased site, and then use them to claim that all arrests involve entrapment? Might I suggest a bit of bias going into this "statistic" to begin with? Perhaps you should look for sites biased in the other direction, say the local police, to see how many arrests they suggest are entrapment. In addition, you seem to be unaware of what constitutes entrapment (including the spelling, but that's just a nit), and invasion of privacy. Basically, I do not see any proof of legitimacy to this claim at all.

M: While I agree that the money could be better spent, I do not necessarily agree that anti-prostitution laws are unduly expensive. Again, this falls under the same argument as all criminal laws. None have actually stopped the occurence of crime, but does this mean we should just abolish the laws as they are not 100% effective?

Finally, your points tend to assume an all-too-good world, where if only it were legalized, all the bad behavior would stop.

Guess what, pimps won't suddenly cease to exist. The lower classes of society won't suddenly start getting better treatment. Children won't suddenly stop being made into prostitues against their will. The use of drugs among prostitutes (aka the lower class) won't suddenly stop. All prositutes won't all suddenly go into brothels or become house prostitutes. Criminals won't suddenly not have bad parental backgrounds. Prostitutes won't suddenly stop being abused. And assholes won't stop trying to force people to do things they don't want to do.

In essence, I disagree with your assumption that legal prostitution would lead to the discouragment of violent crime against prostitues. And further, I suggest that legalizing prostitution would tend to lead to an increase in forced prostitution.

Your statistical complaints have more merit as an argument against the lower classes in general receiving poor treatment by the authorities than they do against anti-prostitution laws.

In the interim, anti-prostitution laws allow us to control the most egregarious of offences (tittyflapping in front of the old-folks home as someone put it) and make law enforcement simpler and thus more effective against those who we really don't want to be breaking the law (the 13 yr old on the street, as an example. Were it legal, the child could have fake ID or the pimpmanager could claim he didn't know she was underage, etc.)

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
I was good up until point B (3.33 / 6) (#93)
by sludge on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 03:03:34 PM EST

The feminist arguments against prostitution claiming that prostitution is "violence against women" need to be re-examined, considering that a considerable percentage of prostitutes are men. It is even inappropriate to call "prostitution violence against prostitutes," as it is not prostitution itself which is violent. It is the circumstances around prostitution -- all of them caused, perpetuated, and encouraged by the illegalization and stigmitization of prostitution -- which are violent.

Even though you go forward to talk more about violence elsewhere, this sort of statement should never end a series of paragraphs in which you set up arguments and shoot them down.

If prostitution was legalized, prostitutes would still be put in a vast array of varying situations in which they become very vulnerable. In order to be a prostitute, you have to trust your clients to a higher degree than other professions. I fail to see the legalization of prostitution having an entirely positive effect on this. That is, unless you were thinking of the legal backing of a brothel to pursue civil charges against abusive clients. Retroactive protection is not a strong enough incentive to have me vote yes on this poll.
SLUDGE
Hiring in the Vancouver, British Columbia area

Ensuring a "Good Time" (3.00 / 3) (#115)
by psycht on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 04:59:28 PM EST

When something becomes legal and a registered business, they can be held account able to review by critics or public optinon. Being registered then the government would have to set regulation and inspection just like any establishment. Regulating the health and discrimination laws (yes, discrimination) would be difficult enough...

but what about delivering a good product?

If you buy a toy and it is damaged, you can return it for exchange for another. How can quality contol be possisble in this field of business. This isn't like going to a theme park and getting a "thrill" on a roller coaster. No, its more than that. To pardon the pun.. it goes deeper than that. Sure its similar to an experience at a massage parlor, but that isn't sex. Sex is sacred and personal experience on a level higher than that of a spa or massage.

Of course my opinion is different than yours.

On the other hand (3.33 / 6) (#116)
by ComradeFork on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 05:03:01 PM EST

Prostitution is perfectly legal in most of Australia.

More serious in my opinion is what many college students do in order to be able to afford accomodation to go through University.

How to lie with statistics (3.37 / 8) (#124)
by Anon 17933 on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 06:04:07 PM EST

It was mentioned earlier, but it bears repeating: Statistics don't prove anything. Statistics are a slave that serve their master -- you can make them "prove" anything you want. Regardless of what I think of legalization of prostitution, statistics don't really prove anything here.

  • Yes, but... by dh003i, 12/23/2002 07:26:49 PM EST (3.50 / 3)
One thing has always seemed contradictory... (4.00 / 4) (#131)
by geesquared on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 07:19:55 PM EST

This has always seemed odd to me:

It's illegal (in most places in the US) for me to pay someone to have sex with me.

It is legal, however (I believe in most places in the US), for me to pay people to have sex with each other, film them, and sell the result.
Faulty. (4.40 / 10) (#135)
by sean23007 on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 07:28:15 PM EST

It costs $2,000 total to charge, prosecute, and jail a prostitute. It costs $500 dollars for the police to send a rape-kit to a lab for analysis. In real-life, thousands of rape-kits go unanalyzed because the PD can't afford the $500 fee for analysis. That means that for every prostitute that's prosecuted, there are four rapists that get away with rape.

No it doesn't. It means for every one prosecuted prostitute, there are four rape suspects who go uninvestigated. Just because the PD needs to send in a rape-kit does not mean the accused person is a rapist. If that were the care, the kits would be meaningless: just convict the people rather than testing them if the testing cannot come back negative.

Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
  • Not faulty by dh003i, 12/23/2002 07:43:52 PM EST (3.00 / 2)
  • recourse by doctordank, 12/24/2002 09:56:06 AM EST (2.66 / 3)
Misusing figures (4.00 / 3) (#136)
by gidds on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 07:32:47 PM EST

A. Anti-prostitution laws don't work, and thus should be abolished. Arrest figures range over 100,000, and over 1 million people in the US have worked as prostitutes, or about 0.5% of the US.

Your figures only show that anti-prostitution laws don't work completely.  They don't show that they have no effect; personally, I'd be very surprised if they didn't reduce the amount of prostitution by some amount.  Whether that's a good result, and whether the means justify it, are other arguments, of course, but not ones addressed by your figures.

Personally, I'd prefer a society where prostitution wasn't wanted so much, so its legality wasn't a big issue.  But I don't pretend to have much idea how to create that...

Andy/

All very practical, but... (4.00 / 3) (#155)
by hex11a on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 10:02:58 PM EST

... where's the ideology? Laws are allegedly based on ideology: Is it morally acceptable to have prostitution? Also, should you drop a law just because it's hard to enforce, or should you presevere, trying to uphold whatever moral viewpoint you have? Obviously, yes, you have addressed a lot of practical consdirations, and I respect the way that you have dispelled a lot of the complete crap that is spouted on the issue, but personally I feel that it is not ethically acceptable to me (although perhaps not to everyone, I concede) to legalise prostitution, since something legal is something condoned by society, and I for one don't believe that we should condone this behaviour. Hex

all because marriage is a sacrement. (4.16 / 6) (#159)
by ph0rk on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 11:05:06 PM EST


If our culture was not based on a religion where marriage is a sacrement, and where adultury is a sin, then it would be a nonissue.

Prostitution would be legal, most prostituteds would lead safer lives, and quite obviously the money spent on enforcement of anti-prostitution las could be spent elsewhere.  (Never mind that prostitutes could begin to pay proper income tax).

But, because the vast majority of our (the US) lawmakers -do- believe in a religion in which marriage is a sacrement, and do very strongly follow a religion in which adultury is a sin (Including, in christianity at least, any sex out of wedlock, which pretty much divinely screws prostitutes out of a job), It would take quite a revolution for these ideas (and then laws) to change.

We still very much believe in this country that we protect people by 'protecting' them from themselves.  Be it drugs, alcohol, or prostitution.

Sadly, as was the case post prohibition, making these things legal but regulated not only removed much of the related crime, but also improved the quality of product, which eventually benefits consumers (I don't mean better bourbon, I mean less cases of people going blind from moonshine and other contraband liquor).

I say sad, because that very obvious lesson was not learned by our lawmakers.

.
[ f o r k . s c h i z o i d . c o m ]

Prostitution is (semi) legal in Canada. (3.71 / 7) (#168)
by darkonc on Tue Dec 24, 2002 at 12:36:48 AM EST

In Canada, pure prostituion (i.e. bargining sex for money or other considerations) is technically legal, but there are severe restrictions on it's practice.

Soliciting for prostitution in a public place is forbidden (too many women get offended at being asked what they charge by random strangers). Keeping a house of prostitution (technically, "a bawdy house") is illegal (negative effect on real estate values). Living off of the avails (pimping) is also illegal.

This leads to rather interesting setups. Escort agencies, are legal -- as long as they only charge for arranging the escort itself. It's up to the client and the escort to arrange the type and the cost of various "extras". Once in a private place, it's perfectly legal for the 'escort' to let her client know what she'd charge for various 'extra services'. The escort agency can have nothing to do with such 'extracurricular activities'.

I recently noticed that at least one paper in Vancouver has two different 'massage' classified headings -- One is regular, and the other is explicitly non-sexual.
Killing a person is hard. Killing a dream is murder. : : : ($3.75 hosting)

not sure about the racist part (4.25 / 4) (#173)
by Delirium on Tue Dec 24, 2002 at 03:06:04 AM EST

It is well-known that race correlates well in the US with socioeconomic status. Given that you already noted that prostitute arrest rates are much higher amongst prostitutes of low socioeconomic status, this would, barring any further evidence, be the most plausible explanation for a higher arrest rate amongst black and hispanic prostitutes than amongst white prostitutes. It is possible of course that there is a further bias specifically towards race above that which is explained by relative socioeconomic standing, but you do not quote any such normalized statistics in support of your claim.

Nevada was way ahead (4.25 / 4) (#175)
by stpna5 on Tue Dec 24, 2002 at 03:20:27 AM EST

of everyone else in the US as well on this issue. Traveling through many medium-sized cities made this apparent to me. Before the famous Mustang Ranch closed, 'street walkers' were virtually not even on the radar screen in Reno. (That brothel was much closer to downtown via I-80 than comparable establishments near Las Vegas are due to the legal-by-county jurisdiction.) This was quite a phenomenon in a milieu of tourists, travelers and legal, 24-hour gambling and drinking. Not to mention about 20,000 hotel rooms. It made for much safer streets though. In the many years that this prevailed I can attest that visiting Portland, Denver, Omaha, Kansas City and even staid Salt Lake City, it was impossible for even a stranger not to observe the presence of rampant, illicit street prostitution and its manifold criminal side effects; as prevalent as in areas of New York City before its nineties urban-Disneyfication. Not so where legal.

Sex is free... Just like love. Get over it! (1.50 / 10) (#178)
by superangrybrit on Tue Dec 24, 2002 at 04:56:51 AM EST

A. Of course they don't work silly. Prostitutes are not punished enough.
B. Nope. It is everyone's problem.
C. There would not be *any* discrimination is they would promoting prostitution on the Internet and TV.
D. Bullshit. Prostitution is promoting the destruction of the family.
E. See above.
F. Probably true. But it still does not make a wrong right uh? Prostitution's still wrong.
G. See above.
H. Yes and it seems not to be enough! Can you figure out that one?
I. Anti-prostitution laws are not enough.
J. And what does this have to do with the prostitution problem? Good guy prostitutes?
K. Prostitutes are scum. End of story.
L. Criminals had rights. They should have thought real hard before trying to destroy society.
M. False. The consequences of the prostitution industry outweight by far the whole sums of money it costs to push those anti-hooker laws.
For crying out loud... (3.40 / 5) (#181)
by SwampGas on Tue Dec 24, 2002 at 06:25:25 AM EST

We need to get over this "debate" real quick.  Society as a whole went down the toilet long ago...if you're going to let it continue in its downward spiral, then do the following:
  1. Legalize it
  2. Tax it
  3. Require prositutes to undergo the same health inspections that restaurants do on a regular basis...mostly to check for STDs.
The consumer would be happy since s/he knows they're getting a clean prostitute and the government makes money.  Our disgusting society continues with making the greedy gov't and immoral perverts happy.  Yay.

Back to Christmas with the family...

prostitutes, yay! (3.50 / 4) (#184)
by truffle on Tue Dec 24, 2002 at 08:41:46 AM EST

I'm not a prostitute. My best friend is an former prostitute. My ex girlfriend is a former prostitute. I have several other prostitute friends. I've volunteered at a drop in center for prostitutes on the street (for socialization and food). Some of the smartest people I've ever met by the way have been prostitutes and strippers, as opposed to say Kero5hin posters =P I know prostitutes are often underestimated by non prostitutes, written off as dumb women. Prostitution is illegal because it's considered unseemly, and the police and society want to try and control it. I don't think they have any illusions about eradicating it, but the law gives them the police the power to selectively attack prostitutes who they percieve as causing trouble (i.e. pissing off rich folks.) Because prostitutes are not valued in society, there isn't much care out their for their rights, or how they are violated. I support legalization of prostitution for sure! I don't support over governing of prostitution though. Bottom line is that it should be legal to exchange money for sex. Instead of the government developing and enforcing numerous regulations to try and govern prostitution, they should spend that same money on education. Prostitutes actually do a really good job of promoting safe and sane sex, I assure if if prostitution was ever legalized that standards would be developed through a grassroots prostitute-directed organization to ensure safe healthy sex. The government is slow, expensive, and dumb, legalize the damn thing then leave it alone.

meow

something you haven't considered... (2.75 / 8) (#200)
by Ninjak on Tue Dec 24, 2002 at 12:23:35 PM EST

You talk about legalizing the whore/trick relationship as if that were all there was to the prostitution game. Well you overlooked the man standing behind the curtain: What about the pimp/ho relationship?? Should that be legalized??

You can't legalize turning tricks without also legalizing pimping hoes. Doing so will only bring you back to where you started, where the whole business is illegal. Let me explain: Behind almost every whore in the world is a pimp. You may not belive it, but it's true. Legalizing the whore/trick relationship will not empower hoes to leave their pimps, because no one ever becomes a ho for money. Think about it: Why whould you sell your body for a few bills?? It just doesn't make sense. If you could see inside the mind of a whore you'd know she works to please her pimp, who she loves with all her heart and will do anything to satisfy.

And you talk about legalizing prostitution to create more tax revenue?? Please. Tell me, do you think legendary pimps like Iceberg Slim and Too $hort would have just sat by as The Man cut into their scratch?? Legalize hoing and watch what happens. You'll see about a dozen "legal" whores in the whole country, and the rest will remain underground.

If any of you are interested in the pimp game then I suggest you read the book Black Players: The Secret World of Black Pimps. This book is an academic study done by two sociology graduate students at Berkeley for their PhD. One of the authors even goes undercover as a stripper to get information for the book!! As a true player and one of the greatest pimps in the United States of America, I can confirm that most of this book still holds true today, even though it was written in the late 70's.

As Carlin said..... (3.66 / 3) (#215)
by no carrier on Tue Dec 24, 2002 at 02:15:56 PM EST

If selling is legal, and fucking is legal, why isn't selling fucking legal?


I stab people.
  • It is by jefu, 12/24/2002 07:36:46 PM EST (4.66 / 3)
Not the most difficult concept to grasp (3.77 / 9) (#235)
by gbd on Tue Dec 24, 2002 at 06:26:32 PM EST

If prostitution is against your moral/ethical/religious/whatever beliefs, then I have two pieces of advice:
  • Don't become a prostitute and
  • Don't visit prostitutes.
Easy enough, no?

--
Gunter glieben glauchen globen.
For those against legal prostitution: (4.33 / 6) (#265)
by Alethes on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 02:21:59 PM EST

Prostitution is a combination of sex and capitalism.  Which of these do you have a problem with?

Bullshit (3.00 / 4) (#284)
by Chasuk on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 01:33:59 AM EST

I want my daughter to become whatever will make her the happiest

If this is true, then you are an unthinking asshole. Prostitution doesn't make anyone happy except for the customer who has used her as a sperm receptacle. No one enjoys being a human Kleenex.

Yes, I spoke in generalities above. Some prostitutes probably like their work; most pimps almost certainly do. Those exceptions are obvious and don't need belaboring.

Some people are coprophiliacs. They are indistinguishable from non-coprophiliacs, except they might get accused of halitosis more often than the norm. :-)

Seriously, does this mean that when your daughter says "Dadddy, I want you to meet Johnny. I like sucking the shit out of his ass," that you give her a warm hug and say "Whatever makes you happy, Sweetheart. Oh, by the way, do you and Johnny want to come over for dinner?"

I've known a lot of prostitutes. It isn't important how or why. Many of them were happy. However, most of them were also pretty fucked up. They suffered extremely low self-esteem, and were often chain-smokers and alcoholics, or addicted to narcotics. Almost all of the prostitutes that I knew 15 years ago are dead now. Before they died, they looked 60 even if they were only 35.

So your daughter wants to become a prostitute, and you are okay with that, because it is her life, after all. Well, SOMETIMES, if you love someone, you stop them from making decisions that that will fuck up the rest of their lives. If you love them.

No, I don't have the RIGHT to stop an adult from hurting themselves, but I'll live with myself, even if they hate me forever after.

Still, I don't envisage this conversation happening:

"Daddy, you selfish domineering pig! I had the opportunity to be a prostitute when I was a teen (which is when most prostitutes enter the profession), but you ruined it! You denied me my right to be filled with the ejaculate of thousands of anonymous men!"

Yes, prostitution should be legal. A lot of the circumstances described above wouldn't be valid if it were legal; the illegality makes it worse for prostitutes, not better. I'm not addressing the legality or illegality of the profession, but only the absurdity of your statement I want my daughter to become whatever will make her the happiest.

Your statement sounds very enlightened and PC, but it doesn't take ugly reality into account.


Neopets - the best free game on the Internet.

Your math doesn't add up... (4.00 / 2) (#297)
by joemorse on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 12:01:08 PM EST

Were the law equitable, 50% of those arrested under anti-prostitution laws would be the clients.

Um, that fails to take into account things like menage-a-trois. If I hire two (or even three) prostitutes at a time, and all of us get arrested (as would be equitable), then only 33.3333333..% of that arrest was the client.

Better yet, if my wife (fictional, of course...this is k5) and I decide to spice up our life by employing the services of a fine young lady of the night, then your supposition dictates that the prostitute and only one customer should be arrested to maintain equity.

Now, I won't even get into the ramifications of things like five midgets spanking a man covered in thousand island dressing...



Now let's you just drop them pants!
       -Don Job, from Deliverance
Moral relativism (3.85 / 7) (#298)
by awgsilyari on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 12:03:16 PM EST

The drug economy, like prostitution, is violent because it is illegal, and by definition has to take place in dark alleyways, shady dwellings, etc.

I think the base issue behind both prostitution and the drug war (and gambling to some degree) is a clash of moral codes between the government and the general population. The government is trying to enforce a specific moral rule on a population that has no globally accepted moral system.

Most non-psychopathic individuals share some basic moral traits, such as aversions to murder, rape, and pedophilia. However, a great number of people believe that prostitution, if carried out under mutual consent, is morally neutral. An even larger portion believe that drug use is acceptable.

Maybe morality emanates entirely from the human mind. Maybe there is no cosmic "moral code" that exists independently of humanity. Maybe we're making up our own moral code from nothing as we go. It seems that our government systems are doing more harm than good by trying to force a particular moral standpoint on people when a large portion of those people disagree with it. This eventually leads to violent criminal underworlds.

--------
Please direct SPAM to john@neuralnw.com

Comments (4.00 / 1) (#309)
by LilDebbie on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 04:12:42 PM EST

If this is an academic paper you are submitting to k5 on the side, you should find someone to edit it, example:

anti-prostitution laws encourage the social stigma associate with prostitutes. should read: anti-prostitution laws encourage the social stigma associated with prostitutes.

Also, I could be wrong, but I think "prostituting" isn't a word and even if it is, it would read better if you replaced it just with "prostitution," e.g. "prostitution" instead of "prostituting it."

Otherwise, these arguments are not new, but laid out passing well. However, change is not made through rhetoric alone. You must show the powers that be that such a change is in their best interest, otherwise they will not care.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -
How do we define prostitution? (4.25 / 4) (#331)
by Spongebob on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 11:58:33 PM EST

I've come from a country where prostitution is legalized. Aside from pimp violence and the occasional arrest of a celebrity, they pose no real problems. It was quite a surprise for me to find out that in the US prostitution is a crime! Consider the classic definition of prostitution and the possible ramifications to the problem:
  • If I go out with a woman and give her money to have sex with me, is it prostitution? Most will say yes to this.
  • If I go out with a woman and give her a very expensive present (a diamond for example) and she has sex with me, is it prostitution? How can one know the true reason for the sexual act in this case?
  • If I'm famous and rich and a top-model has sex with me to use my fame in her favor, is she a prostitute?
  • If I go out with a friend, loan her money and she has sex with me, but forget to pay me back later, is she a prostitute? :)
Of course some of these are jokes, but if we investigate the criteria of "prostitution" (sex in exchange for money, power, status, whatever), I'd say a lot of people will have an immediate "change in status".

  • you forgot by random832, 01/01/2003 09:15:57 AM EST (none / 0)
On the contrary! (1.50 / 2) (#349)
by jope on Fri Dec 27, 2002 at 10:40:51 AM EST

Everyone knows that s*x is bad and paid s*x is worse. Laws should get stricter, or at least consolidated to follow the great laws the great nation of the US has already in some states. Outlaw *any* s*x that is against the will of God, or the will of those people on earth who know God well enough to know what might be against his will, like George W. and his Fellow World and Moral Savers. No doubt that a**l and o**l s*x, s*x between two men or two women, s*x between ahem more than two people, and s*x with less than two people must be outlawed and punished with the full scorn of the law. S*x between authorized persons (couples married by an accepted religous community who have expressed their wish to procreate in written and signed form) is acceptable only if it happens with the necessary dignity (missionary position and at all times fully under opaque covers and within a locked room). Obsessive s*xual behavior (thinking about or wanting s*x more often than once a week or at an age younger than 21 years) can be cured by frequent praying and practising some sport like gun-shooting or combat training. Luckily, scientists are working on methods that will ultimately make obsolete the exchange of bodily fluids and the uninhibited contact of unspeakable areas of the human body. In the interest of world peace and happyness, those countries that still insist on legalizing subversive acts like prostitution should be warned and unless they comply to give up this terrorist behavior against morality and purity, suffer the full consequences of US anti-terror armed forces.

It is a victimless crime... I should know (4.00 / 11) (#366)
by Lisa of chicago on Fri Dec 27, 2002 at 07:43:48 PM EST

Now before anyone gets all crazy..... I am an escort (www.exquisiteblond.com). I have been for over 2 yrs. I got into it to pay for school. & I LOVE it! Now lets debunk some stereotypes. I come from a great family, no hillbillys, no drugs, no child abuse... I am currently receiving my bachelors in science, & am considering going for graduate studies. So, I'm not stupid either. No one made me do this! I got the bright idea on my own. I also never worked for anyone. I am 100% independent. & I've never been arrested. I have never contracted a STD. Yes, I do get checked every 3 months. 99.9% of the people I meet are extremely educated, well off, well adjusted individuals. They are generally great guys. Not weird & creepy as some would have you believe. Some are even happily married. Most view time spent w/me as a treat, then they trot back off to their lives. I'm not looking to be a home wreaker, like the gal they might meet at a bar, water cooler at work, ect. I don't call, stalk, force, ect. There is no potential romantic entanglement. No tears, no divorce papers because a one night stand got out of control. So who's the victim??? The wife??? Well, some ladies get mad at masturbation. Or they aren't willing to take care of certain desires. What they do get is a happy husband who comes back to them. I'm not trying to say that the wives are at fault. But, sometimes men have certain needs. It doesn't mean they don't love & respect their wives. So perhaps I'm an animated magazine. (I prefer fantasy facilitator). Yes, I do generally have a great rapport with most gentlemen. If I didn't, I wouldn't spend time with them. But, it's on a causual level. Nothing serious. No, it's nothing like the line at the meat counter! There are no tickets & a wait. I generally spend time on a multi-hour basis. Dinner, drinks, ect. I've even become the office party favorite for a gentleman who doesn't wish to come out of the closet to his co-workers. You might even have seen me at a wedding reception near you. I blend in very well. No, I have never worn "pretty woman" clothing. I honestly don't think I'm harming anyone. I'm not stopping traffic on the street, cat calling from a hotel room, or causing any disturbance what-so-ever. If anything, I'm like a great massage, but you leave with a bigger smile. I do wish there was greater sexual freedom in this country. Why is it bad to show a natural desire on TV? Why is the female form taboo? Why is it ok to slaughter everyone in sight on TV? If you ask me, this country has a few things backwards. I'm not saying "show porno after Barney". But, I don't think sex is bad. I do think not educating children about disease, pregnancy, drug use, violence, ect is. I love my country, but sometimes I wonder... Flame away! Lisa :)

the irony of the situation... (4.00 / 1) (#376)
by decmalone on Sat Dec 28, 2002 at 05:48:35 PM EST

Recently I've been thinking about advertising. Sex is used to sell everything from toothbrushes to chewing gum to sports cars. And yet, if you try try to buy sex, you're committing a crime.

My vote: legalise it.

Why legalize? 65 Vancouver women dead or missing (3.50 / 4) (#377)
by sheauga on Sat Dec 28, 2002 at 07:19:52 PM EST

Here's another author who asks that prostitution be legalized:

Evidence of Human Kind. "Sixty-five women missing from Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. Fifteen bodies found, and they're still searching. One man on trial. But what of us?" I particularly liked the following quote:
"Maybe we need to step back and ask: why is sex, in general, so twisted and sad in our culture? Why is it vast numbers of people will leap on the opportunity to exploit the poor and addicted to get it? Scores of women are working the streets of Vancouver right now because of something fundamental in our society -- something that not just allows for this to be the case, but somehow requires it. How can it be that the most revolutionary technological advances -- that is, anything having to do with the Internet -- are essentially fueled by the demand for quick, limitless access to images of something as banal as naked bodies? I'm not saying sex is bad -- precisely the opposite. My question is, why do we, as a culture, want so badly for it to be? Why does it spur us to such zeniths of hypocrisy?"


The shortest argument for: (4.00 / 1) (#381)
by Quila on Mon Dec 30, 2002 at 06:59:40 AM EST

Why should it be illegal to sell something that it's perfectly legal to give away?

it's difficult to legalize immoral behaviour (3.00 / 2) (#389)
by selfish gene on Mon Dec 30, 2002 at 10:03:33 PM EST

Prostitution looks immoral to me, even if it's legalized.

The problem is, it's very difficult to legalize  immoral behaviour even if cold-blooded rational calculations suggest that gains overweight losses, isn't it ?

annoying voice crying in the wilderness... (3.60 / 5) (#400)
by SaintPort on Tue Dec 31, 2002 at 02:15:40 PM EST

There are two reasons we cannot legalize prostitution:
  1. It is already illegal.  So if we legalize it, that sends the message that this is OK behavior.  That would make the nation responsible for its fallen daughters.
  2. It would pull us futher out-of-grace with our Creator and His protection.
The command...

Leviticus 19:29
" 'Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness.

The mercy...

Hosea 4:14
"I will not punish your daughters when they turn to prostitution, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery, because the men themselves consort with harlots and sacrifice with shrine prostitutes- a people without understanding will come to ruin!
The guilt will be shared by the nation.

The 'why'...

1 Corinthians 6:15
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

The point of life is to commune with the Creator, not simply to gratify the sinful nature.


--
Search the Scriptures
Start with some cheap grace...Got Life?

The happiness factor. (3.00 / 2) (#402)
by biggs on Tue Dec 31, 2002 at 02:42:05 PM EST

Prostitution can vary greatly in terms of how rewarding it can be as a career. Take the high-class courtesan. She may have a small group of wealthy powerful men with which to entertain and pleasure. She is likely highly skilled in many different arts (not just sex), can build relationships with her regulars, be the envy of many, be popular and well respected. This is the life of an artist and and entertainer, glamorous, fun, indulgent, and exiting. Beautiful talented women can obtain this life.

Then of course there's the prostitute that couldn't make a living any other way than to sell her body. She probably already suffers from low self-esteem... and the fact that she gets hate-fucked by losers in an ally to make ends meet only makes her more depressed.

I mean I dono, obviously - i mean - in a society where prostitution is illegal it seems like the latter scenario would be in higher demand.

--
"Rockin my 'hell I made it' wetsuit stitch so I can swim in elevators crazy wet through piss" -Cannibal Ox

  • This is Scary by 500miles, 01/25/2003 02:03:56 PM EST (none / 0)
prostitution is a tax on the ugly (5.00 / 1) (#430)
by plinius on Thu Jan 02, 2003 at 06:02:40 AM EST

Let's face it, a good-looking guy does not normally need to use a prostitute. Prostitution is a tax on ugly men who want to feel sexually satisfied.

prostitution punishes women for their beauty (4.00 / 1) (#431)
by plinius on Thu Jan 02, 2003 at 06:08:16 AM EST

I believe that it should be illegal for beautiful women to be prostitutes, but not for average or ugly women. Beauty is a univeral value; like gold, it is generally admired and desired. But because people are created by other people through birth, in a real sense beauty is owned by society, it is an institution. If a society chooses to abuse its own natural resource (beautiful women...or men for that matter) then that society is unhealthy. A well-run society will not make prostitution of beautiful women legal. In fact, if only ugly women were allowed to be prostitutes, it would serve to compel men to have better relations with non-prostitute women, which would be better for society. And yet, to contradict myself I have to say that better relations with wifes and girlfriends is not necessarily better for humanity as a whole, if it means more babies, because the world is rapidly becoming overpopulated: people need to stop having so many babies.

"Victimless crimes" create a conundrum (5.00 / 2) (#432)
by MickLinux on Thu Jan 02, 2003 at 08:06:22 AM EST

First, let me comment:  those statistics you toss around mean nothing.  From what I have seen, prostitution is a moral vice that creates social problems.

Now, given that statement, most pro-prostitution people give the same reply as pro-drug people:  it's a victimless crime.

THAT is something I can work with; and more easily with drugs than with prostitutes, because drugs are out in my society more.

So let me toss the ball over into the "drug" court, instead, as way of dealing with victimless crimes.  

Drugs [as does alcohol and prostitution] enslaves its users, and meanwhile can incapacitate and damage its victims [drugs through organ damage, prostitution through STDs].  You might argue that it is still a victimless crime, that the user is the only victim -- but those people don't live in a vacuum.  Because of drugs, we have to deal with Convenience-store robberies.  Because of sexual immorality, we have to deal with spending lots of money to research, treat, and accomodate STDs.  

So victimless crimes really aren't victimless.  Rather, the cost of the crime is absorbed by society, and hidden -- but very real.

Now, that then leads to the question, "well, should prostitution be illegal?"  And there I have trouble saying exactly yes or no.  Because God also gave us free will, including the ability to choose to hurt, steal from, or murder each other.

But to try to take away that free will also is a "victimless crime" with very real victims.  In the process of doing so, you're going to trample some people who are just in the way, but actually had not been committing crimes.  You're going to create a police state, with very real costs, and one that will descend into a totalitarian, horrible, regime.  So just as with prostitution, if you don't abandon it sooner or later, your society decays...  so too with government force.  If you don't abandon it sooner or later, you're going to destroy your society.

So you really do pose a very real conundrum.  

By your choice to follow your sick desires, you are going to ensure the destruction of your society.  If I have to live in your society, then I am faced with the choice:  whether we make it illegal or not, we take one path into horror or another.  

My response?  

I left.  Really.  The Amish got the right idea.

I don't want to live in your society.

And if you are going to reply "wake up, you have to live in my society or the society of someone like me"... then it is you who is the fundamentalist.

Does that answer your question?

I make a call to grace, for the alternative is more broken than you can imagine.

You make good points. (3.66 / 3) (#443)
by biggs on Thu Jan 02, 2003 at 08:31:16 PM EST

But unfortunately a lot of them are based on assumptions about marriage. Your idea of a marriage is not the same as everyone's. Reactions to extramarital sex are far more diverse than the picture you paint. You and your family's psychology and world view is not universal, and to treat it as such is annoying, closed-minded, and ultimately intollerant, and simply wrong (when you extend it to law such as you have in your posts).

whore: Are you married?
client: Uh, yeah.

Question: does it end here or can she continue to ask questions?

whore: Oh, is this marriage a match made in heaven?
client: oh, actually.. i do love her, but it was mostly a green card marriage...

do you catch the drift? How much understanding of psychology and social awareness must this whore have? At this point she might be confused... Ok he loves her... but wait it was a greencard marriage? Should she ask if he has kids? If he does but they aren't hers biologically should she ask if she has adopted them?

Bottom line is you have a great pure, moral, argument here, but the world isn't as simple as you seem to think. Your points are very valid and interesting, but as always... these complex social issues aren't black and white. The whore doesn't know him and his family, how can she decide based on the simple fact that he's married if anybody is being victimized??

--
"Rockin my 'hell I made it' wetsuit stitch so I can swim in elevators crazy wet through piss" -Cannibal Ox

last time I checked prostitution was legal (3.00 / 1) (#487)
by ToughLove on Tue Jan 21, 2003 at 10:55:41 AM EST

It's called politics and the capitalistic system of slave wages and civil justice, LOL!!

Prostitution should be legal: the statistics prove it | 508 comments (462 topical, 46 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!