Do you think that prostitution should be legalized?

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

I don't think it should personally for reasons others have said
Then again there are nations such as the Netherlands where it's legal and is regulated...

 

[Nutella]

Legalizing Marijuana and LGBT Marriage is one thing, prostitution is something I will not stand for. Selling your body isn't something that should be legalized. True, it's your body, but who's going to pay for your hospital bill, or when you die? What if you contract a disease, not necessarily a STD, could be anything really, and you live in insufferable pain?

Is ignorance like this inherited from birth, or...?

Seriously, let's look at it very simplistically. Gay marriage doesn't harm anybody. Prostitution doesn't harm anybody if appropriate health measures are in place (meaning, if it becomes legalised, I would think safeguards would be taken). Marijuana, even when legalised, harms you physiologically and psychologically (though, not to the extent as the "harder drugs").

Quite the conundrum!

Taxing prostitution is ridiculous. The government plays absolutely no part in it, and in no universe is there a logical reply to "How can you tax a person's body?".

Plenty of jobs already do, as scarf mentioned~ nice try, though. The government plays no part in prostitution? From a jocular standpoint, I would laugh at you for this statement.

That does not make it moral, in fact all the professions you just mentioned are immorally taxed.

From your perspective, but this is an opinion chat, after all. Imposing one's morals on another is a beautiful thing.

 

[Massacre.]

Besides the STD thing, I don't get why prostitution is illegal. Sure, it's a helpless way of getting money, and if they didn't use protection, then imagine how many babies they'd have and with the possibility of STDs, What's wrong with it? Look at how the world has turned to the "sex as recreation" style. So, why> All hookers just want money. Which is hard to get, btw.

 

[IceSage]

Believe it or not, prostitution is not all about standing on a street corner and waiting for guys to pick you up. It happens in many other forms.

There are also people who live the lifestyle of a prostitute but really aren't... And you'd never know it, since that person's sexual background is none of your business unless it will imply harm.

You take the same risk of exposing yourself to STDs meeting someone casually as you would if you were hiring a prostitute.

Either way, the way it's setup now... Is that nobody will ever tell you if they have an STD. The people who do it honestly want money, or will continue to do it regardless. Aside from the whole pimping thing, there's no real "boss" you can report a prostitute to... It's something freelance.

I believe prostitution should be legalized and regulated. Currently, it goes on all the time in the form of high-class, discreet "escort" services. Regular STD checks on both sides should be required at all times.

I'd rather go into a "business" where I can pay to another consensual adult, knowing that it's safe... rather than some stranger on a corner.

Either way, it has it's risks... and it's advantages... Just like everything else in life.

 

[Dawn]

I don't think they should.

Prostitution has been casualized by the media and by peers for goodness knows how long. We now apparently don't think it's a very bad thing. Well, prostitution hasn't changed. It's still a horrible industry that does unspeakable things to people. I could go on a rant about some of the more awful things that industry does to people. Yet.. my "Probably not called for on a Pokemon forum" lights are going off, so I'm just going to... not do that. Legalizing it will not stop criminals from feeling okay breaking the law. Those criminals need to be arrested, not given leg room in some fantastical hope that they'll suddenly feel okay with their lives and turn into upstanding citizens.

Furthermore, at the risk of seeming extremely harsh, people who go out doing the nasty with prostitutes should accept these risks before doing so and quite frankly, I don't feel any sympathy for them when they can get an STD. They should've exercised more control. They should've made better choices. All they have to blame is themselves.

The people that pay these criminal organizations are undeserving of your sympathy. It's their darn fault through and through for doing something so /stupid/ and avoidable. If anything, you should be concerned about the prostitutes. Unlike the people that go to them, they are not often a clear case. Trafficking is more or less what made prostitution as huge as it is, not the other way around. Trafficking is also a huge, POWERFUL industry that our legal forces do not have the ability to control. Believe me, they try. Think about the implications of that.

I'll make one thing clear. If we legalized prostitution, trafficking /would/ find a way to live on.

 

[Masqueraine]

I want to say yes, because anything run by the government is going to be safer and more beneficial towards our country than something run on a black market. But at some point we have to decide what is better left illegal due to morality, and what we legalize due to convenience or demand.

 

[twocows]

I don't think they should.

Prostitution has been casualized by the media and by peers for goodness knows how long. We now apparently don't think it's a very bad thing. Well, prostitution hasn't changed. It's still a horrible industry that does unspeakable things to people. I could go on a rant about some of the more awful things that industry does to people. Yet.. my "Probably not called for on a Pokemon forum" lights are going off, so I'm just going to... not do that. Legalizing it will not stop criminals from feeling okay breaking the law. Those criminals need to be arrested, not given leg room in some fantastical hope that they'll suddenly feel okay with their lives and turn into upstanding citizens.

If you mean the women involved, they usually turn to it because they have no other way of getting money. Legalizing it would not change that, it would just impose a set of health standards and make sure the women are treated properly. It's a step in the right direction, but if you want to work at the root of the problem, I'd recommend you become a social worker, because most of the women involved are pushed there through circumstances beyond their control. There's a reason they've turned to prostitution despite the risk of bodily harm and potential for criminal prosecution.

Furthermore, at the risk of seeming extremely harsh, people who go out doing the nasty with prostitutes should accept these risks before doing so and quite frankly, I don't feel any sympathy for them when they can get an STD. They should've exercised more control. They should've made better choices. All they have to blame is themselves.

I don't think they're looking for nor care about your sympathy, and nobody's asking you to fund their mistakes. However, if it was legalized and health standards were imposed, STD rates would almost certainly go down among both the women involved and those using their services.

The people that pay these criminal organizations are undeserving of your sympathy.

Like during prohibition, they are criminal because the practice is illegal. Take away the asinine laws prohibiting people to fairly exchange things that should rightfully be theirs to exchange and you will find that they will no longer be run by crime lords and pimps and instead by the women themselves (or potentially by a single matron who used to be a prostitute).

It's their darn fault through and through for doing something so /stupid/ and avoidable.

What's their fault? Getting an STD? They know the risks and they took them anyway, I don't think they're out looking for sympathy. Again, nobody's asking you to fund their mistakes.

If anything, you should be concerned about the prostitutes. Unlike the people that go to them, they are not often a clear case. Trafficking is more or less what made prostitution as huge as it is, not the other way around. Trafficking is also a huge, POWERFUL industry that our legal forces do not have the ability to control. Believe me, they try. Think about the implications of that.

If consensual prostitution was made legal, law forces would be able to divert a ton of their manpower toward trafficking. Much like if marijuana was made legal, law forces would be able to divert a ton of their manpower toward more dangerous drugs.

I'll make one thing clear. If we legalized prostitution, trafficking /would/ find a way to live on.

Of course it would. Imagine if consensual sex in general was prohibited. Instances of rape would almost certainly go up. Now if sex is legalized, would rape suddenly go away? Of course not, but I guarantee it would decrease dramatically.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Guys, let's not assume that all prostitutes are women. There are male, and even transsexual prostitutes that would be affected by legalization, as well.

 

[Dawn]

If you mean the women involved, they usually turn to it because they have no other way of getting money. Legalizing it would not change that, it would just impose a set of health standards and make sure the women are treated properly. It's a step in the right direction, but if you want to work at the root of the problem, I'd recommend you become a social worker, because most of the women involved are pushed there through circumstances beyond their control. There's a reason they've turned to prostitution despite the risk of bodily harm and potential for criminal prosecution.

I don't think it's particularly appropriate to narrow down any one reason why people become prostitutes. There are many significant reasons to choose from there. Plenty of them are a lot of worse then someone wanting more money.

I don't think they're looking for nor care about your sympathy, and nobody's asking you to fund their mistakes. However, if it was legalized and health standards were imposed, STD rates would almost certainly go down among both the women involved and those using their services.

The point was that if they don't deserve sympathy they probably don't deserve the law protecting them either.

Like during prohibition, they are criminal because the practice is illegal. Take away the asinine laws prohibiting people to fairly exchange things that should rightfully be theirs to exchange and you will find that they will no longer be run by crime lords and pimps and instead by the women themselves (or potentially by a single matron who used to be a prostitute).

There is /nothing/ asinine about morality. It deserves your respect.

What's their fault? Getting an STD? They know the risks and they took them anyway, I don't think they're out looking for sympathy. Again, nobody's asking you to fund their mistakes.

Yeah they're just asking me to help them avoid some of the consequences for their actions. Kind of a big deal.

If consensual prostitution was made legal, law forces would be able to divert a ton of their manpower toward trafficking. Much like if marijuana was made legal, law forces would be able to divert a ton of their manpower toward more dangerous drugs.

Yeah... this whole comparing prostitution laws to drug laws thing. It's not the same thing, I don't think that comparison should be being made. That same argument can be applied to like, any anti-morality argument ever. So unless we're ready to start accusing morality of being wrong, I think we just need to stop using that argument out of context.

Of course it would. Imagine if consensual sex in general was prohibited. Instances of rape would almost certainly go up. Now if sex is legalized, would rape suddenly go away? Of course not, but I guarantee it would decrease dramatically.

...There's really no reason to believe people wouldn't just say yes and do consensual sex illegally, which wouldn't be rape in the first place, so yeah. The two things you're comparing are pretty darn different, even if you /do/ ignore that.

 

[twocows]

I don't think it's particularly appropriate to narrow down any one reason why people become prostitutes. There are many significant reasons to choose from there. Plenty of them are a lot of worse then someone wanting more money.

I can't think of any motive that deserves to be outlawed. If they're doing it for money, it shouldn't be outlawed. If they're not doing it for money and for some other reason, it shouldn't be outlawed.

The point was that if they don't deserve sympathy they probably don't deserve the law protecting them either.

Why? The law is meant to keep order in society and should be loosely correlated to some form of morality.

There is /nothing/ asinine about morality. It deserves your respect.

Why should it be wrong for two people to exchange what is rightfully theirs to exchange? Sex is legal, so why is buying sex illegal? That makes no sense.

Yeah they're just asking me to help them avoid some of the consequences for their actions. Kind of a big deal.

STDs are the consequences for their actions. There's no reason for the law to be involved.

Yeah... this whole comparing prostitution laws to drug laws thing. It's not the same thing, I don't think that comparison should be being made. That same argument can be applied to like, any anti-morality argument ever. So unless we're ready to start accusing morality of being wrong, I think we just need to stop using that argument out of context.

It wasn't meant to justify the shift on its own. Given the other arguments I've put forth, if we take that prostitution on its own isn't immoral (which I believe it isn't), there are other things that are actually malicious that we should be focusing on. The same is true with the "war on drugs" targeting marijuana. If you argue that marijuana on its own is somehow immoral, that justification wouldn't work, but if you take it as true that there is little wrong with someone using it within their own home, it's a perfectly legitimate argument.

And I'm certainly accusing your version of morality to be wrong as I see it, at least if you're arguing that it is immoral for two people to exchange that which belongs to them.

...There's really no reason to believe people wouldn't just say yes and do consensual sex illegally, which wouldn't be rape in the first place, so yeah. The two things you're comparing are pretty darn different, even if you /do/ ignore that.

If the penalty for rape and consensual sex is the same, what's stopping the less moral-thinking members of society from picking the former over the latter? Of course instances of rape would go up. Societies have laws because not everyone is a morally upright person. If everyone was a good person, we wouldn't need laws.

 

[Rainy Day]

There is /nothing/ asinine about morality. It deserves your respect.

The truth is, dear person, there's no reason for anyone to accept your view of morality. Unless you can offer some sort of objective reason why you're right, nobody has to agree with you and indeed, any argument you make can be refuted simply by someone saying: "I disagree".

 

[Dawn]

The truth is, dear person, there's no reason for anyone to accept your view of morality. Unless you can offer some sort of objective reason why you're right, nobody has to agree with you and indeed, any argument you make can be refuted simply by someone saying: "I disagree".

Disagreeing is not refuting. That word seriously doesn't work there. On that note, that's a stick-figure argument defending moral degeneration.

P.S. That hurt my toes.

And I'm certainly accusing your version of morality to be wrong as I see it, at least if you're arguing that it is immoral for two people to exchange that which belongs to them.

Oh yeah? Then how is it wrong for us to have standards as part of the law? Why is it okay for you to disrespect our established morality? Our "versions" of morality are not equals on this battlefield. "My" view is currently why we have that law. I have it because I was taught by my authorities figures to respect those morals. Emphasis on the implications that it's not my view alone. We tried to put standards on sex and quite frankly, they weren't meant to be removed just because a bunch of us decided we didn't need standards. Me, I want standards. I want to know we aren't a bunch of shameless extreme-liberals that refuse to let the government set any sort of basic standards outside of what harms others.

Furthermore, the prostitution business is currently chock full of... awful people doing awful things. If you want to legalize prostitution without destroying it, you're going to have to legalize "Pimps", and you're going to have to legalize human trafficking. You know why mentioning human trafficking isn't redundant? Because y'know what's a kind of human trafficking? Child trafficking. Do you have any idea how sickeningly big a business child trafficking is? Y'know what else is part of human trafficking? Slavery.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Human trafficking is a HUGE problem all across the world right now that many many people are passionate about combating. I can give the evidence to prove it, if you need me to.

 

[Rainy Day]

Disagreeing is not refuting. That word seriously doesn't work there. On that note, that's a stick-figure argument defending moral degeneration.

P.S. That hurt my toes.

Well if personal moral claims are valid arguments then I make the claim that prostitution is not immoral. Therefore, prostitution is not immoral.

Also, what exactly is a stick-figure argument? You mean a strawman?

Oh yeah? Then how is it wrong for us to have standards as part of the law? Why is it okay for you to disrespect our established morality? Our "versions" of morality are not equals on this battlefield. "My" view is currently why we have that law. I have it because I was taught by my authorities figures to respect those morals. Emphasis on the implications that it's not my view alone. We tried to put standards on sex and quite frankly, they weren't meant to be removed just because a bunch of us decided we didn't need standards.

This is just ridiculous. You are aware that there are groups of people who disagree with your moral standards, right? Not only that, but simply because you're not alone in your belief doesn't mean you're right. What you're committing is an argumentum ad populum, which is in fact one of the most basic logical fallacies.

Me, I want standards. I want to know we aren't a bunch of shameless extreme-liberals that refuse to let the government set any sort of basic standards outside of what harms others.

And... why is not letting the government restrict more social freedoms than are necessary to protect others bad?

Furthermore, the prostitution business is currently chock full of... awful people doing awful things. If you want to legalize prostitution without destroying it, you're going to have to legalize "Pimps", and you're going to have to legalize human trafficking. You know why mentioning human trafficking isn't redundant? Because y'know what's a kind of human trafficking? Child trafficking. Do you have any idea how sickeningly big a business child trafficking is? Y'know what else is part of human trafficking? Slavery.

Well, sure. Some prostitution does is not consensual and some of it involves children. Are you also aware that some of the decisions of the U.S. democratic system have involved imprisoning hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens without cause and forcing tens of thousands of native Americans to migrate, resulting in the deaths of a minimum of four-thousand people? Down with democracy then! It must be a horrible tyrannical institution that can never do anything good!

Find me an institution that has never had any of its constituents do anything wrong.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Human trafficking is a HUGE problem all across the world right now that many many people are passionate about combating. I can give the evidence to prove it, if you need me to.

Which is why instead of allowing it to go on underground, we should regulate it.

 

[Oryx]

Oh yeah? Then how is it wrong for us to have standards as part of the law? Why is it okay for you to disrespect our established morality? Our "versions" of morality are not equals on this battlefield. "My" view is currently why we have that law. I have it because I was taught by my authorities figures to respect those morals. Emphasis on the implications that it's not my view alone. We tried to put standards on sex and quite frankly, they weren't meant to be removed just because a bunch of us decided we didn't need standards. Me, I want standards. I want to know we aren't a bunch of shameless extreme-liberals that refuse to let the government set any sort of basic standards outside of what harms others.

What you're saying is that because that's the way the laws are now morally, that's what's right. What we're saying is that the law should be changed because those morals shouldn't be the basis of our laws anymore, considering how subjective they are. You pointing to the law and saying "the law is right because the law is there" isn't an argument, and you don't really have an argument for why it's morally right to ban prostitution other than "the law is there so people must agree with me".

You want standards? Don't hire prostitutes.

Furthermore, the prostitution business is currently chock full of... awful people doing awful things.

Legalizing it would minimize that, as the government wouldn't be tasked with arresting every single prostitute. They could focus on the ones that don't have a license to do it, and narrow down their search for the "awful things" to make it much faster.

If you want to legalize prostitution without destroying it, you're going to have to legalize "Pimps", and you're going to have to legalize human trafficking. You know why mentioning human trafficking isn't redundant? Because y'know what's a kind of human trafficking? Child trafficking. Do you have any idea how sickeningly big a business child trafficking is? Y'know what else is part of human trafficking? Slavery.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Human trafficking is a HUGE problem all across the world right now that many many people are passionate about combating. I can give the evidence to prove it, if you need me to.

Um...what? You really went off on a tangent here, right about at the first "y'know". Absolutely no one in here wants child trafficking or slavery, and I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by stating that trafficking is a huge problem.

What you're failing to understand is that right now, many prostitutes may be a victim of human trafficking and afraid to even go to the police. While they may get immunity from the law against prostitution, they don't necessarily know that. It's easy for someone dealing in that to tell the prostitute that the police won't help her, just arrest her for being a prostitute, etc. Many people that are victims of human trafficking probably are afraid to come forward because of the laws now in place. There's no protection for them, like there could be if laws were in place regulating it.

The legitimate ones, the ones that are prostitutes willingly for whatever reason, will be safer on the job with regulations. The ones being forced into it will then be the focus of the police; not on women who are there willingly. Therefore, the police force would be less spread around focusing on crimes where no one is actually hurt, and spend their time where it matters the most.

 

[Dawn]

@Rainy: See, accusing me of an argumentum and populum when I just pointed out that that many people have these morals is a fallacy in and of itself. Mentioning the majority opinion is /hardly/ a claim that it being the majority means it's right. That was not the point at all. You're putting words in my mouth there.

A lot of what you say against my arguments applies to your own. Your arguments honestly sound paraphrased and out of context. Something to think about. You're also throwing false accusations at me. The message you're sending me is that you aren't willing to let me take the position of defending the morals that are already accepted as the basis for these laws, and are trying to force me to debate as if this were not the case. I don't think that's very fair of you.

The fact that you compared the human trafficking organization to the USA Government is... abhorrent! The severity and quantity of the wrongs Human Trafficking has committed are so much bigger that comparison is not even remotely accurate.

https://www.sctnow.org/contentpages.aspx?parentnavigationid=5827&viewcontentpageguid=29d295d1-5818-4e7a-bde1-f61690fa44a8

Look at the above link, which contains a dozen statistics. That's underaged human trafficking alone. Lack of manpower is /not/ what is stopping us from effectively fighting human trafficking. Legalizing prostitution will /not/ help us eliminate human trafficking. In fact, it would make it harder. Generally, the victims /will not tell/, so if we can't even arrest and try to get the information out, which is hard enough as it is, we're pretty much screwed.

What you're saying is that because that's the way the laws are now morally, that's what's right. What we're saying is that the law should be changed because those morals shouldn't be the basis of our laws anymore, considering how subjective they are. You pointing to the law and saying "the law is right because the law is there" isn't an argument, and you don't really have an argument for why it's morally right to ban prostitution other than "the law is there so people must agree with me".

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that a lot of people disagree with you, and I don't think we should cater to a minority opinion on morals that isn't even trying to uphold any sort of standards, but is rather trying to take them away.

For the record, prostitution is human trafficking. They're not separate.

Legalizing it would minimize that, as the government wouldn't be tasked with arresting every single prostitute. They could focus on the ones that don't have a license to do it, and narrow down their search for the "awful things" to make it much faster.

Oh, so we need a license now? So, how exactly do you get a license? Does it take a test? Training? Do I even want to know what course they're being trained on? Joking aside, a license is redundant if it takes no skill to get it. In addition, people would just make fake licenses even if you did find a way to prevent the people that "shouldn't have them" from having them.

Also,
"Lack of manpower is /not/ what is stopping us from effectively fighting human trafficking. Legalizing prostitution will /not/ help us eliminate human trafficking. In fact, it would make it harder. Generally, the victims /will not tell/, so if we can't even arrest and try to get the information out, which is hard enough as it is, we're pretty much screwed."

There's no protection for them

That's actually not true at all. There is in fact protection for them. The ring leaders have much more awful ways of making sure they don't go to the police for help. =| Lies. Manipulation. Abuse. Emphasis on all three.

P.S. Do you realize that going on a tangent means abruptly changing the subject? I... didn't do that.

 

[Luck]

Furthermore, the prostitution business is currently chock full of... awful people doing awful things. If you want to legalize prostitution without destroying it, you're going to have to legalize "Pimps", and you're going to have to legalize human trafficking. You know why mentioning human trafficking isn't redundant? Because y'know what's a kind of human trafficking? Child trafficking. Do you have any idea how sickeningly big a business child trafficking is? Y'know what else is part of human trafficking? Slavery.

Prostitution wouldn't be human trafficking by definition if it were legalized.

You're quite the observant one on finding out that child trafficking is human trafficking, but that's wholly unrelated. Legalization of prostitution will not lead to legalization of slavery or child trafficking, nor are they the same thing. Also…legalizing pimps? What?

Since you're huge on morals, please tell me what's wrong with consenting adults having sex while being fully aware of the ramifications.

 

[fireflare]

i find, this should just stay as it is, stds and aids nobody wants.
they should have some sort of legal documents identifies them as clean as a whistle.

 

[Oryx]

https://www.sctnow.org/contentpages.aspx?parentnavigationid=5827&viewcontentpageguid=29d295d1-5818-4e7a-bde1-f61690fa44a8

Look at the above link, which contains a dozen statistics. That's underaged human trafficking alone. Lack of manpower is /not/ what is stopping us from effectively fighting human trafficking. Legalizing prostitution will /not/ help us eliminate human trafficking. In fact, it would make it harder. Generally, the victims /will not tell/, so if we can't even arrest and try to get the information out, which is hard enough as it is, we're pretty much screwed.

Those statistics say the same thing that you were saying earlier, when you went off on a tangent, that human trafficking is prevalent. That doesn't prove anything. If the statistics said something like "75% of police officers would quit the police force if they couldn't arrest prostitutes", you might have something. As it is, all that says is "there's a lot of child trafficking", and proves nothing other then...well...there's a lot of child trafficking.

Also, explain how legalizing prostitution would make it harder to punish trafficking in your opinion. I really don't see it. Are the victims less likely to tell if there are legal prostitutes around or something?

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that a lot of people disagree with you, and I don't think we should cater to a minority opinion on morals that isn't even trying to uphold any sort of standards, but is rather trying to take them away.

Just because it's majority doesn't mean it's right. The "standard" we're upholding is the standard of human freedom, the belief that we have the right to do what we wish with our own body. I guess that's not as important to you as the law matching your own personal moral code, but we prefer freedom for people to follow their own moral codes instead of yours.

For the record, prostitution is human trafficking. They're not separate.

Not if it's legalized. Then it's just a trade of services where both party is willing.

Oh, so we need a license now? So, how exactly do you get a license? Does it take a test? Training? Do I even want to know what course they're being trained on? Joking aside, a license is redundant if it takes no skill to get it. In addition, people would just make fake licenses even if you did find a way to prevent the people that "shouldn't have them" from having them.

You can say that about any license, so not sure what you're getting at. Are all licenses useless because fake ones can be made? Maybe permit is the better word, but if the industry was regulated there would have to be a way for prostitutes to be registered.

That's actually not true at all. There is in fact protection for them. The ring leaders have much more awful ways of making sure they don't go to the police for help. =| Lies. Manipulation. Abuse. Emphasis on all three.

You took that out of context. I was saying that they could easily tell the prostitute that there was no protection for them, since they're breaking the law. Apologies if I wasn't clear. Also, that falls under the "lies" category.

P.S. Do you realize that going on a tangent means abruptly changing the subject? I... didn't do that.

The word tangent is related to a tangent line, that meets a curve at one point and then goes off on its own. You met the discussion at the phrase "human trafficking", and instead of making an actual point about it, you just verified that children are in fact human beings, and that owning a human is also considered human trafficking. Thank you for your very rare and unheard-of information, but it had nothing to do with the conversation and no point was made. Therefore, tangent.

 

[Dawn]

Prostitution wouldn't be human trafficking by definition if it were legalized.

You're quite the observant one on finding out that child trafficking is human trafficking, but that's wholly unrelated. Legalization of prostitution will not lead to legalization of slavery or child trafficking, nor are they the same thing. Also…legalizing pimps? What?

Since you're huge on morals, please tell me what's wrong with consenting adults having sex while being fully aware of the ramifications.

There's nothing wrong with it, and that's not illegal either, but we have standards that say they can't /sell/ it.

Also, it's COMPLETELY related. First of all, most of those children are forcefully turned into prostitutes. (I kind of wanted to avoid discussing this grim topic, but so much for that.) Second of all...

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/what-is-human-trafficking.html

In the above url it explicitly states that prostitution in it's current state is in fact human trafficking. You'll be incredibly hard pressed to find a source that says differently, let alone one that is anywhere near this reputable.

Let me excerpt the part I'm referring to.

Article 3, paragraph (a) of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons defines Trafficking in Persons as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs

@fggtron: Oh. I see what you did there. I admit to finding that funny.

 

[Esper]

What is Human Trafficking?

Article 3, paragraph (a) of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons defines Trafficking in Persons as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.

Bolded important points. Human trafficking is about exploiting people. If you're not exploiting someone, it can't be trafficking.

What this comes down to is the "All apples are fruit, but not all fruit are apples" idea. You would have to agree that all prostitution is exploitative in order to say that it is human trafficking and on par with slavery because exploitation is a requirement for saying that something qualifies as trafficking.

Let's be clear. I'm not trying to do a fancy semantics dance to change the meaning of something. There are people trafficked specifically for the purposes of prostitution and all cases of sexual exploitation are forms of prostitution, but - this is the important part - not all forms of prostitution are sexually exploitative.

Edit: I should add that what I'm saying doesn't, by itself, negate the possibility that most or a significant portion of prostitution involves trafficking (that's where some good statistics would help), just that prostitution isn't by default human trafficking.