Do you think that prostitution should be legalized?

[Dawn]

@Scarf: You're... right. However, the ratio of prostitutes that are being exploited to not being exploited is unholy levels of huge! Quite simply put, it's a lot harder to find or do business when you're on your own and aren't part of a group of some sort that helps you. The ratio is /so huge/ that it raises the question of exactly how much you'd be helping the few that actually do it alone compared to the massive harm you'd be doing by making it harder to deal with the illegal ones. That's another thing. The human trafficking version is quite frankly a lot more effective of a business plan, morals aside, so why would they stop doing what they're doing? Clearly we aren't going to consider legalizing the human trafficking version, right?

 

[twocows]

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.

I tend to obey the law, as should you if you wish to live outside of a prison cell, but I would caution you to not be beholden to the laws. If you equate the US law code with morality, you're going to find a lot of contradictions and a lot of seriously upsetting stuff. The law is dictated by people with a vested interest in their wallets, not in the good of the people.

The law does not explain morality, morality explains (or ought to explain) the law. Saying that something is wrong because the law says it's wrong is essentially elevating the law to the level of religious gospel. It is an excuse to no longer think.

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.

I'm going to stop you at the second sentence because I disagree with it and the rest of the paragraph relies on it. You will not have to legalize pimps. You won't have to legalize human trafficking. Those are all things that occur because there are no (as you said) standards, no laws to regulate things. If you legalize prostitution and put standards and regulations in place, those things will go away.

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.

Human trafficking is a problem that will be reduced with legalized prostitution, not increased.

The human trafficking version is quite frankly a lot more effective of a business plan, morals aside, so why would they stop doing what they're doing?

Human trafficking will be a lot less attractive a prospect if it is illegal while prostitution itself is not. Think of it this way. Two stores provide a service you want (let's their performance is identical). The first provides it for $10, the second for $15. It's illegal to go to either store, but you really want the service. Obviously in this case, if you choose a store, it will be the first one. Now let's say that the first provides it for $10 and the second for $15, but it is legal at the second store and the US government regulates the service so you are less likely to receive injury from it. There may be a small fraction who still choose the first, but a lot more are going to opt for the second. People won't risk their skin if there's no reason to.

 

[Degenerate]

Legalize and regulate. Provided the transactions are consensual and not directly affecting anybody save the parties involved, I don't see why adults can't be left to make their own decisions on it.

 

[Dawn]

I tend to obey the law, as should you if you wish to live outside of a prison cell, but I would caution you to not be beholden to the laws. If you equate the US law code with morality, you're going to find a lot of contradictions and a lot of seriously upsetting stuff. The law is dictated by people with a vested interest in their wallets, not in the good of the people.

I can't fathom what I said that made you think I thought the law dictated morality. I don't think that at all! I simply said that morality is the reason we have laws making prostitution illegal.

Speaking of not thinking, a majority of the arguments for the legalization of prostitution here honestly look like they were paraphrased straight from a marijuana debate with little to no regard given for how different the two situations are. Food for thought.

I'm going to stop you at the second sentence because I disagree with it and the rest of the paragraph relies on it. You will not have to legalize pimps. You won't have to legalize human trafficking. Those are all things that occur because there are no (as you said) standards, no laws to regulate things. If you legalize prostitution and put standards and regulations in place, those things will go away.

See, you've got a fallacy in that argument. Human trafficking occurs because it's a far more effective way to sell the product. Without that model, you've just got prostitutes advertising on the streets. At the end of the day, that's going to get you a lot less money. (Even less with taxs and regulations)

I have to argue that no, in a business all about exploiting lust for massive profits, there is absolutely no reason to believe these criminals will suddenly decide to lose most of their profits and start caring about the law.

Also, how /exactly/ do you plan to tax /sex/ without human trafficking? Do you realize that taxing sex looks eerily similar to a pimp taking a cut of the profits? The only difference is one's an organization and one's a single person. Are we going to start letting prostitutes pay for the government or other organizations to advertise their services? Oh hey, that's essentially a pimp's job in a nutshell!

That's because the business model you're suggesting doesn't even get rid of the human trafficking model to begin with. You're replacing shady men in purple suits with cleaner looking men wearing suits and ties but doing the same thing.



In short, it's possible to legalize prostitution, but you'd have to completely remove the human trafficking model, which is a large part of what makes the business successful to begin with, taking away any motivation for the illegals to change their ways. Furthermore, legalizing prostitution would not only not really help the human trafficking situation, it would make it worse by giving the illegals more leg room for avoiding "detection". All this is even without the "The majority thinks it's morally wrong" argument.

 

[Degenerate]

I don't think human trafficking is the driving force behind prostitution. Prostitution can be legalized and will survive through lust, don't see the need to legalize human trafficking? The business may not be as lucrative as it is for street pimps but that's not the concern. Dude has an itch that needs to be scratched, Pro has a purse that needs to be filled, let the laws of demand and supply take effect. Tax sex as you would any other service. Hell governments are already pimps by the definition you've supplied with just about every other service currently taxed. Regulation would entail improved measures put in place to detect and avoid human trafficking.

 

[twocows]

Speaking of not thinking, a majority of the arguments for the legalization of prostitution here honestly look like they were paraphrased straight from a marijuana debate with little to no regard given for how different the two situations are. Food for thought.

I fail to see it.

See, you've got a fallacy in that argument. Human trafficking occurs because it's a far more effective way to sell the product. Without that model, you've just got prostitutes advertising on the streets. At the end of the day, that's going to get you a lot less money. (Even less with taxs and regulations)

I have to argue that no, in a business all about exploiting lust for massive profits, there is absolutely no reason to believe these criminals will suddenly decide to lose most of their profits and start caring about the law.

Actually, in Las Vegas, the typical model is brothels run by a matron or jointly by the women and it works pretty well for the women involved. I haven't heard of any major problems with human trafficking in that area, either. And I'm not sure which criminals you're referring to. If you're referring to pimps and such, they don't really have much of a choice; with laws and regulations in place, they become obsolete since women can run things themselves with few problems. If you mean the "consumers," if you will, they'll go wherever they're least likely to get in trouble.

Also, how /exactly/ do you plan to tax /sex/ without human trafficking? Do you realize that taxing sex looks eerily similar to a pimp taking a cut of the profits? The only difference is one's an organization and one's a single person. Are we going to start letting prostitutes pay for the government or other organizations to advertise their services? Oh hey, that's essentially a pimp's job in a nutshell!

Pimps aren't a bad thing because they take money from prostitutes, they're a bad thing because they treat the women like property that they own. People are not property, they're people.

That's because the business model you're suggesting doesn't even get rid of the human trafficking model to begin with. You're replacing shady men in purple suits with cleaner looking men wearing suits and ties but doing the same thing.

See above.

In short, it's possible to legalize prostitution, but you'd have to completely remove the human trafficking model, which is a large part of what makes the business successful to begin with, taking away any motivation for the illegals to change their ways.

It already works fine in Nevada; human trafficking doesn't even factor into things.

Furthermore, legalizing prostitution would not only not really help the human trafficking situation, it would make it worse by giving the illegals more leg room for avoiding "detection".

I don't even know where to start. I just don't follow your logic. I think what you're saying is that pimps and crime lords will somehow be harder to detect. But they won't have a way to do business unless they (a) find a way to still remain relevant and (b) don't abuse the women they're involved with per the government regulations. If they can't find a way to stay relevant, they'll find some other way to make money, and if they abuse their women, they'll just get caught.

All this is even without the "The majority thinks it's morally wrong" argument.

The majority has been wrong countless times throughout history, though I doubt that a majority even believes it's morally wrong.

 

[Dawn]

Actually, in Las Vegas, the typical model is brothels run by a matron or jointly by the women and it works pretty well for the women involved. I haven't heard of any major problems with human trafficking in that area, either. And I'm not sure which criminals you're referring to. If you're referring to pimps and such, they don't really have much of a choice; with laws and regulations in place, they become obsolete since women can run things themselves with few problems. If you mean the "consumers," if you will, they'll go wherever they're least likely to get in trouble.

Okay here is the source for my following argument. https://www.lasvegaslogue.com/prostitution

Now here's an excerpt

After the price is negotiated, the guest is asked to pay that amount in advance, and the girl will take the money back to the cashier before the real fun begins. Tips are extra at that point, but you should realize that the girl usually only gets half of the negotiated price and the house gets the other half. If the guest arrived in a taxi or limo, the driver will usually get a cut of the total too, so the girls appreciate extra tips.

Hmm looks like Las Vegas, or rather the legal areas around it, are a perfect example of what I described earlier. The house simply take the place the pimps used to serve. So. Um. I'd like to bring something else to your attention.

That said, several counties in Nevada have legalized the world's oldest profession, so you can find legal prostitution about 60 miles outside of Sin City. Of course, there are a number of prostitutes working within the city limits, so if you are willing to take the risk and you know where to look, you should have no problems finding one

Hmm. Did you know, that some of the places in Nevada that have legalized prostitution are /devoid/ of active brothels? Huh. Well, clearly prostitution didn't just magically stop being as common there! My point being, any rings that were there probably either didn't become legal and stayed or went somewhere else. The number of legal brothels around the state is... pretty low compared to what you'd expect from such an insanely large business. Seems to suggest quite a significant number stayed illegal.

Pimps aren't a bad thing because they take money from prostitutes, they're a bad thing because they treat the women like property that they own. People are not property, they're people.

Giving the prostitutes respect doesn't change the fact that they're being pushed to do things "your" way by the law. At best that's an awful grey area. At worst it's blatant sexual exploitation. You can't just license and tax people who want to have sex for money. If you want to legalize prostitution, you need to drop that model completely. You could do that. You could say that as long as the prostitutes are acting without a superior telling them what to do, they are allowed to be prostitutes. However, you're making it really easy for them to do it the old more efficient illegal way and just pretend they aren't to the public.

The majority has been wrong countless times throughout history, though I doubt that a majority even believes it's morally wrong.

While that's true, you must know something. There are only two ways of deciding morals. One of them is based on what God says. One of them is based on what we the people say. The former is irrelevant because I'm fairly comfortable guessing we both actually agree that morality should not be based on the bible. So unless I'm horribly mistaken there, lets just skip to discussing why the latter is significant. The latter is essentially majority rule. You can't just say these morals are dumb and expect them to go away. Think what you will of the system, but that's how it works. As a minority, it would be your job to convince others to switch sides.

Let me be blunt. I can only think of one way someone comes to think that the world doesn't look down on prostitution and that's taking TV too seriously. In TVland, human trafficking in the form of prostitution is typically pictured as not at all bad. It's randomly accepted by everyone involved. They're allowed to be open about it and nobody judges them. Nobody gets mad. Nobody calls the cops. That isn't reality. In reality, our police forces are generally very, very passionate about fighting this issue. The problem is that it's a LOT harder than you'd ever believe.

Here's some more evidence, for the above.

https://www.creators.com/opinion/steve-chapman/fighting-a-futile-war-on-prostitution.html

 

[Guillermo]

At the end of the day, some mothers/wifes/fathers/whatever rely on prostitution to provide for their family. If they've stooped so low as to need to have sex with people they don't even know and carry every possible disease known to mankind, it's their choice. What gives us the right to tell them they can't?

+ Some people get bored of ~their own hands~ and need other physical contact, and if they want to find some random chick on the street, by all means, go for it, it's their life.

 

[Dawn]

At the end of the day, some mothers/wifes/fathers/whatever rely on prostitution to provide for their family. If they've stooped so low as to need to have sex with people they don't even know and carry every possible disease known to mankind, it's their choice. What gives us the right to tell them they can't?

+ Some people get bored of ~their own hands~ and need other physical contact, and if they want to find some random chick on the street, by all means, go for it, it's their life.

I don't know about where you live, but here in the USA, our minimum wage is deliberately placed so that anybody should be able to live in a reasonably comfortable environment on it. That's the reason we adopted a minimum wage. If someone can't live on minimum wage, they did something to screw themselves over or the world hates them.

You're also provoking a slippery slope argument by invoking "It's their choice". Lots of things are choices. Not all of them can be legal. There needs to be a balance. At some point, people need to have some sort of standards. At some point, people need to care, because if at some point none of that happens we're pretty much just embracing moral depravity. Cue this quote, you know it's coming, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

P.S. Self-Control is not something we should support being made optional. At the risk of sounding harsh, don't protect them from having to deal with the consequences of their actions.

 

[Oryx]

I don't know about where you live, but here in the USA, our minimum wage is deliberately placed so that anybody should be able to live in a reasonably comfortable environment on it. That's the reason we adopted a minimum wage. If someone can't live on minimum wage, they did something to screw themselves over or the world hates them.

Just singling this out because lol. Minimum wage working full time barely breaks the poverty line for one person (If you're a single parent of even one, it only breaks poverty by a few hundred a year), and if you've ever been close to that you know the poverty line is barely sustaining yourself. It's nowhere near "reasonably comfortable". If you have the option to make enough money that you can afford a house, afford bills, etc with prostitution, when you can't make enough with a minimum wage job, then that option gets pretty easy.

 

[Dawn]

Just singling this out because lol. Minimum wage working full time barely breaks the poverty line for one person (If you're a single parent of even one, it only breaks poverty by a few hundred a year), and if you've ever been close to that you know the poverty line is barely sustaining yourself. It's nowhere near "reasonably comfortable". If you have the option to make enough money that you can afford a house, afford bills, etc with prostitution, when you can't make enough with a minimum wage job, then that option gets pretty easy.

TL;DR "Comfortably is a misnomer."

The word minimum is in minimum wage for a reason. Don't expect much luxuries. That's how it's /supposed/ to be. However, this is all irrelevant to the fact that minimum wage is supposed to give you enough money for a full time job to live off of. The very core of why we have minimum wage says you should be able to buy yourself food, water, and shelter. Furthermore, being a single parent working minimum wage means you either did something to screw yourself over or you happen to be a rape victim, in which case it's fairly unlikely you will have two kids.

 

[Ghost]

Prostitution should remain illegal, the benefits of prostitution doesn't seem like much or anything at all. Hookers can always get around the law just like any other types of groups. Selling your body for money is not smart, STD's could be spread and the "hookers" being is in danger also. What's the difference to legalize this? The percentage of this happening currently is high enough and the law can't necessarily stop it.

 

[Guillermo]

I don't know about where you live, but here in the USA, our minimum wage is deliberately placed so that anybody should be able to live in a reasonably comfortable environment on it. That's the reason we adopted a minimum wage. If someone can't live on minimum wage, they did something to screw themselves over or the world hates them.

You're also provoking a slippery slope argument by invoking "It's their choice". Lots of things are choices. Not all of them can be legal. There needs to be a balance. At some point, people need to have some sort of standards. At some point, people need to care, because if at some point none of that happens we're pretty much just embracing moral depravity. Cue this quote, you know it's coming, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

P.S. Self-Control is not something we should support being made optional. At the risk of sounding harsh, don't protect them from having to deal with the consequences of their actions.

SOOOOOOOOO ANGRY I REPLIED AND I HAD TO DELETE IT AND UGH.

Anyway, I'm obviously from Australia if you took a second of your life to look at my ~location~ lol. And yeah, i'll give you that, in the USA your minimum wage is fantastic for someone that hasn't got any kids, and doesn't have hospital bills and any other extra expenses to deal with day in and day out. Same goes for Australia. However, I'm pretty sure the amount of people involved in prostitution that don't have kids or other expenses, are slim to none. Why do you think they got involved in prostitution to begin with? For the hell of it? They like having STDs? They get bored with one guy?

Uh well I'm not really, hey. It is their choice. It's like smoking marijuana, or doing other drugs. You don't have any say in what they do, unless you're an enforcer of the law or they're affecting you personally. You have no right to tell them they're wrong. You think people that are involved in prostitution give a damn about morals? Obviously they wouldn't, they don't care how they get their money, as long as they get it and have enough to support themselves and their families.

P.S. The hand thing was obviously a joke, hence the squiggles, derpppppp.

 

[Dawn]

Why do you think they got involved in prostitution to begin with? For the hell of it? They like having STDs? They get bored with one guy?

There's a bunch of reasons!
A. They're forced to for financial reasons (Keyword: Forced)
B. They're slaves and don't have the education to know they have other options. (This is not uncommon.)
C. They just don't care about the morality of the situation and want them some extra money.
D. They aren't in the best mental state and make bad choices.

I'd be willing to bet you A and B are the most common, followed by C. Generally I'd think D isn't the sole cause, but rather becomes a problem in combination with the other three.

Quite frankly, if people are forced to resort to prostitution for money and have not made some really bad choices to screw themselves over, then there's a problem with our economy, not the laws about prostitution. Perhaps the minimum wage is too low. Perhaps there aren't enough jobs. We should be attacking the roots of the problem, not accepting the symptoms.

Uh well I'm not really, hey. It is their choice. It's like smoking marijuana, or doing other drugs.

I'm going to stop you there. I... did point this out last time. This time I'm going to expand on it.

Your argument is subject to a slippery slope. If you're just going to say "It's their choice" and then compare prostitution to doing drugs, what can't we do? Where is the limit? Why don't we legalize /everything/ that doesn't directly hurt or kill someone? I mean if they're all the same...

At the end of the day, someone has to care. Someone has to set standards. Someone has to protect morality. We cannot just always sit around and let everyone else make all the bad choices they want so long as it doesn't effect us. /That/ is wrong. I'll give you that the other extreme is just as bad, but that means there needs to be a balance.

 

[Esper]

Your argument is subject to a slippery slope. If you're just going to say "It's their choice" and then compare prostitution to doing drugs, what can't we do? Where is the limit? Why don't we legalize /everything/ that doesn't directly hurt or kill someone? I mean if they're all the same...

Well, why not? I mean, if something doesn't hurt people then what's the harm?

At the end of the day, someone has to care. Someone has to set standards. Someone has to protect morality. We cannot just always sit around and let everyone else make all the bad choices they want so long as it doesn't effect us. /That/ is wrong. I'll give you that the other extreme is just as bad, but that means there needs to be a balance.

You're stuck on this idea that it's always going to be a bad choice. It might not be an ideal choice, but plenty of what we do is not ideal because it's the best choice we have available. I'd love not to have to travel so far to get to work because it's a waste of time and money for me. It's not ideal, but it's a tradeoff because I'm close to friends, to grocery stores and have a pretty good living situation. Someone in prostitution might be doing it because it's the best way of paying the bills, feeding the family, etc. If they're not being coerced or forced (and choosing to do it because it's the best paying option you have isn't the same as being forced) to be a prostitute then where's the harm?

And morality, you use that a lot, but I'm not quite clear what you mean by it because someone says something like "Hey, it's too consenting adults!" and you say "No, that goes against morality!" so that just makes me think the morality you're talking about is some kind of anti-personal freedom thing. I don't think that's what you mean, but it comes across a little like that. However, I'm all for the idea of making the world a place where people can have more choices so that no one has to be a prostitute because of money issues. That's just a good scenario for everyone. I think that's where we can find common ground, right?

 

[Dawn]

Well, why not? I mean, if something doesn't hurt people then what's the harm?

The sarcasm about them all being the same was... meant to be there. They aren't the same.

See, the problem with arguments like "Lots of things aren't ideal." and "Everyone should have the right to make bad choices." is that they both are slippery slopes.

Rule of thumb about slippery slopes. If your argument can be used on just about everything, it's probably not a strong argument. Sure it's someone's choice to swear. Sure it's someone's choice to smoke. Sure it's someone's choice to prostitute. (Disregarding the fact that a majority of prostitutes probably don't choose their job because it's the awesomesauce) It's also someone's choice to murder. Where do you stop? You can't just use those arguments on anything. At some point, the people need to care enough to say "No this argument is no longer appropriate for this issue." I don't think that argument is appropriate for prostitution.

 

[Esper]

See, the problem with arguments like "Lots of things aren't ideal." and "Everyone should have the right to make bad choices." is that they both are slippery slopes.

Well, I know I'm simplifying my argument a bit because, well, I don't want to make a tl;dr. I don't personally believe in a simple "If it doesn't hurt anyone it's okay" idea, but that's one part of the equation for me. If I were to explain in detail I don't think it would be a slippery slope.

So, yeah, on the topic of prostitution I'd say if two people want to exchange money for sexual services then it should be allowed providing:

1) that both people are of legal age,
2) that neither is being coerced, forced, or otherwise manipulated into the arrangement, and 2a) the person paying does their best to discern whether the other is freely entering into the agreement and if not to refrain from the arrangement,
3) that both agree beforehand to the details of the arrangement before any payment is made, and
4) and that both agree to use protection and take whatever other precautions are necessary for whatever they're doing.

I'm sure I could refine this, but off the top of my head this sounds like a good rule of thumb. I don't see where this can get slippery.

 

[Dawn]

So, yeah, on the topic of prostitution I'd say if two people want to exchange money for sexual services then it should be allowed providing:

1) that both people are of legal age,
2) that neither is being coerced, forced, or otherwise manipulated into the arrangement, and 2a) the person paying does their best to discern whether the other is freely entering into the agreement and if not to refrain from the arrangement,
3) that both agree beforehand to the details of the arrangement before any payment is made, and
4) and that both agree to use protection and take whatever other precautions are necessary for whatever they're doing.

I bolded #2 because I want to make a point.
#2? That doesn't happen even a majority of the time. Heck. #1 is violated enough times. The prostitution business as a whole is not clean enough to meet your rules and regulations, and we could instead be fixing problems with the economy to help alleviate the problem, so... why?

I mean that's not even getting into that many people consider the whole prostitution business morally wrong. I mean I don't think it's irrelevant to consider what the population thinks of an act.

 

[Guillermo]

There's a bunch of reasons!
A. They're forced to for financial reasons (Keyword: Forced)
B. They're slaves and don't have the education to know they have other options. (This is not uncommon.)
C. They just don't care about the morality of the situation and want them some extra money.
D. They aren't in the best mental state and make bad choices.

I'd be willing to bet you A and B are the most common, followed by C. Generally I'd think D isn't the sole cause, but rather becomes a problem in combination with the other three.

Quite frankly, if people are forced to resort to prostitution for money and have not made some really bad choices to screw themselves over, then there's a problem with our economy, not the laws about prostitution. Perhaps the minimum wage is too low. Perhaps there aren't enough jobs. We should be attacking the roots of the problem, not accepting the symptoms.

You obviously don't understand what I am trying to say here, because points A, B, C and D just supported what I was saying, not what you were saying. People turn to prostitution because it's their last resort, and if their last resort is illegal, that's not helping them live their lives or support their families very easily.

You're not wrong we should be attacking the roots of the proble, but until the problem is fixed, what other choice do people that are put in this situation have? Drug dealing, prostitution, robbing stores, these are all things people turn to when they've got nothing else. If prostitution is legalised, it decreases the chances of people turning to other things for money, like the aforementioned. I'd rather some chick stand on the side of the street and have sex with with people for cash, over someone robbing a store and killing the shopkeep.

You underestimate what people will do for cash, with or without a mental/financial/educational problem. You don't have to be a mental nutcase to do stupid things.

 

[Dawn]

Being forced by monetary issues makes it a form of slavery and human trafficking, Guillermo. We cannot legalize that sort of situation. That is at least 100 levels of wrong.

We need to fight the fact that people can be forced into it. This may involve raising minimum wage, and it might involve creating more jobs, and it may involve laws protecting the poor. It might even involve an answer I haven't thought of.

Think of it this way. Look at the type of prostitute you're describing. They've been forced to resort to prostitution due to money issues somehow, maybe debts. They didn't want to do it, if they did they wouldn't have waited until they had no choice.

You can either make it legal to keep doing what they're doing.

Or you can help them not need to resort to it anymore. Give them the /choice/ to do it or not.

Which do you think the prostitutes themselves will appreciate more?