Why not legalize prostitution?
 

Alright, so I did a search for this kind of thread and came up with nothing, feel free to close if this has already been done.

So, it's already legal (with some restrictions) in Vegas, so why not make it legal throughout the country? I don't mean street prostitution, I mean legitimate forms such as the Moonlight Bunny Ranch.

That'd be a hell of an industry to break into, I think. If it was ever legalized I think that'd be the first time I would ever look into becoming a business owner.

Are you currently trying to tell me that prostitution is not legal in the United States?

I think it is but only in Vegas as far as I know. I could be mistaken.

Hmm that "sucks". It is legal here in Germany. So apparently, Germany is way cooler than USA.

I personally don't see any reason to not legalize it either, given the societies we already live in. We sell everything, so why not this ?

It would actually cut on prostitution related trafics which are basically slavery. I heard the Australian and German systems are pretty nice, with sexual workers being like any other regular workers.

I don't know if that would be true. I think it's still a problem in any country, regardless of prostitution's legality.

I think it'd be hell to get it legalized. It'd probably have to be enacted through the states. I doubt the Congress could getting anything meaningful passed related to prostitution or sex, in general.

Well, he's not saying it would cut it out completely, sure, but it would reduce it. There would be a dramatic decrease much in the same way that we don't see too many bootleggers nowadays.

Man, my father recently found out that my one of my most-desired professions was "madam." He kind of flipped.

I don't see why it's not legalized like it is at the Bunny Ranches out there in Nevada. I mean, at least the girls would be there voluntarily as employees, they'd be checked regularly with their health, and they'd be providing a completely valid service to people.

While I know this all my contradict what I normally say (as my sister often points out), I think the legalization of prostitution would provide safer, healthier work environments.

Let's face it. It's the "oldest profession" known to man - it's not going to disappear if we outlaw it. The conditions in which the person (man or woman, really) works will only become more black market and more dangerous to the individual who is arguably forced into that profession.

(I do know that a lot of women do it because they want to - they should have that option as an American, if you ask me)

The conditions for these people would be a lot better if the authority legalized it - and to me, that's more important than the morality of the profession.

Deni once said that morality should never be... how did he say... governed? At least in a free society.

Besides - the hoes don't hurt anyone. Sure, they may indirectly ruin a marriage or break up a family - but that wasn't their choice. It's the customer's choice to pay money for sexual trade.

At least you know your husband is clean when he comes home and sleeps with you after banging a legal hoe.

I think it was morality should never be legislated. But yeah, I'm with you on this one. Surprise, surprise. It cuts down on crime, it cuts down on STDs, it cuts down on abuse of women. There's an endless stream of interesting reasons to do this. In Sweden there are women who specialize in people who have social phobias, or are in mourning at the loss of a wife, or have had traumatic sexual experiences. They have degrees in psychoanalysis, or psychiatry and they use sex as a therapeutic method of treatment. Some really interesting things that come about when you get past the factor of "you're paying someone to fuck them." The only reason for it to be illegal is because it makes people feel yucky, like outlawing gay marriage. It's a stupid law with no upside to it. Hell, economics alone, think of how much money you can rake in if you actually tax cunt.

Well, golly. That's a little sexist. Why not tax dick too? That way, you cover your field entirely! Think of the profit!

(Gay people need sex too ;_; )

You can tax every ol' piece of the human body if it's legal. Hell, tax fisting. Tax it all. Get you some socialized health care to pay for the surgery to repair the vaginal tearing and tax double-fisting. It's all good now, kids.

This is no fun if everyone agrees. ;___;

Give it a little time. I am sure a conservative will come in and call us all horrible, immoral people shortly.

Maybe.

I doubt it. Not with two powerhousers coming in and already stating their support in legalizing prostitution.

Where's LordsSword?

In hiding after 2 infractions, likely.

Where have you kids been? That guy got the heave ho for trolling and advertising.

There was recently a debate in the news about this recently.

With the Olympic games coming to Vancouver BC in 2010, there was group of people in the *consort* business that wanted to buy some downtown building to regulate the business. They stated that with all the soon to be business coming in *from athletes especially*, they wanted to have a base of operations so they could have proper facilities, which would also provide proper book keeping, protection for the employee's (health wise and physically, as they could hire bouncers etc..), and just overall make things better.

Their biggest opposition however was not the government, but various Feminism groups who are outright against it, stating the profession demeans women (no group up in arms for the male Gigaloo's tough), and hurts family values etc..

These groups seem to overlook the fact that even if they outlaw this, the women are still going to be doing the job, just in a much less safe way. At least making it legal will as previously said, make it taxable and have it so it can contribute more to the economy. It also lowers rape crimes as well.

From an economic and safety viewpoint, legalization of Prostitution (Or Sex for Money) makes sense: Currently any illegal prostitution is tax-free money, meaning the government will never directly get its cut of that $20 you gave to 'Sally' for a quickie.

So let's say we open official and well-indicated places for consensual adults to get Sex for Payment. (Consort Business as it would be called, has a nice right to it):

First Effect: For one thing, Pimps and Street-walkers would soon be driven from said streets. There would not only be competition, but competition which would not be barred down by Police.

Second effect: These 'Ranches' or whatever they decide to call them, would pay taxes as any other business would, so the government can get a slice of that. The business-owners and sex workers themselves would also get a cut (And to keep costs down for the customer, I imagine the workers would be salaried and get most of the money from Tips, as do Waitresses, Pizza Delivery people, and so on).

Third Effect: Sex Workers would be protected from violence and have access to (probably) great Health Plans, as well as required screenings for STDs and the like. Meaning the chance of sleeping with an infected person goes way down.

Fourth Effect: Infidelity and Rape crimes would probably go down. If some idiot really wants to get screwed, he can pay out the $100 an hour and be done with it, instead of going out and harming some innocent woman (or man!).

Sorry Divest, but I support this. The only real opposition is from a moral standpoint, and even then, one could argue that opponents would rather have Consorts be harmed rather then staying safe. The thing is, when people think of 'Legalization of Prostitution', the mental image is that now the street-walkers will continue forth, but with no penalty. If supporters want even moderates to support the idea, they need to drill into the voters mind that Legalization = Ranch-Style Bordellos, and that Street-Walkers would now be extra-prosecuted, as there is now a legal and safer alternative. However since its a good idea with lots of Pros and Few cons, the current congress and/or administration will vehemently oppose it, since they seem to oppose ANY good idea lately.

I am a conservative, I am picketing this thread.



But anyways, if they do make prositution legal, they will need HEAVY infulence in the midwest. Seriously, fucking anything east of Nevada, and everything West of Virginia is completely fuckboring.

A somewhat related topic I made during the summer http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/po...-legal-us.html

I questioned why porn was legal when prostitution isn't because no matter how you sugercoat it, they are still being paid to have sex.

Everybody has already covered just about anything I could possibly add to the conversation however, the idea that this would reduce the number of rape crimes, I'm not so sure about that. I'm sure it would have some effect on the number of them, but from what I've read about many rape cases is that people don't commit rape just because they want sex. Most people commit rape because of the feeling of power it gives them, because they're violating someone and that the person can't do anything about it.

You have to think about how irrational alot of criminals can be. How many people rape that are also married? And I'm not talking about married guys whose wife won't give them any, in alot of cases it's some guy that the whole community is shocked they would do such a thing. Then there are all the scumbags that rape their own kids. Also how often do people steal shit just because they're a cheap skate? So you'd still have people who might rape because they don't want to spend money. I just find it hard to believe legal prostitution would really do all that much to reduce the number of rapes.

Everything that you just said there has little or no bearing on this thread.

I was commenting on a point that other people had made, that was all. I honestly don't care whether prostitution is legalized or not. I'm not against it, but even if it was legalized I'd never make use of it since the only girl I'd ever want to have sex with is one I care about.

I can think of plenty of reasons not to legalize prostitution that doesn't involve morality. I'm a fiscal conservative.

1. Prices would go up.

States would be given a monopoly on the sex trade. No different then the monopoly a lot of states have on tobacco and alcohol. This would not increase competition, nor would it lower the cost. The exact opposite would occur.

Anything considered a "vice" in the United States would inevitably be taxed more. Whenever taxes need to be raised, alcohol and tobacco are usually the first ones to get hit. Even in blue states. I'm not even gonna touch regulation. I'm way too bias.

Of course, this is all just relative to what men are paying whores today. Gold digging whores hold out for a wedding ring, an SUV, and a home in the suburbs. Classy whores usually require a meal and/or a movie. Low-bred whores only needing a drink or two.

2. It would empower modern feminism.

Legalizing prostitution would cause all sorts of cries of "legalized" rape and "exploitation" from feminists. Nevermind the fact that prostitutes would be "exploiting" lonely men of money. Feminists could attract more support for their ideology where they wouldn't be able to find it before. Namely from social conservatives.

Modern day feminism has not changed anything for the better for anyone. Unfortunately it has caused gender suspicion and hatred mutually. Kinda like how Marxism causes mutual class suspicion and hatred. Legalizing prostitution would only increase the tensions between the sexes.

If only I had a whore for everytime I've heard a modern feminism accuse all men of being -potential- rapists. It would've made pre-law courses involving crime, particularly rape crime bearable.

3. Making sex a legalized commodity is a mistake.

All sorts of unintended consequences would result. Just watch me or some other dickwad slap down as many patents and copyrights as they can once sex becomes a legally recognized commodity.

Think about what companies like Monsanto have done for agriculture.

No, just keep it illegal. Everybody already knows that laws only matter if you get caught anyhow.

This is a reason for women to want to keep prostitution illegal. If sex is the only thing a woman has to offer in a marriage then it is in her best interests to monopolize sex as much as possible.

I agree, but not for the same reasons.

Last time I checked the rate at which the FBI received false accusations of rape was only around 40%. There's so much more room for expansion. Especially with an increase of paranoia by feminists.

O no, women will earn more than $5 for a blow job, how horrible!

(Tax the fuck out of it, I say. You want it? You pay for it. How is this a bad thing.)

Who the hell cares. It's like listening to PETA because they're anti-....anti-human, I guess. ^_^

If the feminists were smart, they'd embrace the ideal. It's protecting women in legalizing it. Maybe the only way to show some people how that works is if you make them work in the current industry, and then in the proposed industry.

Whether women like it or not, sex in general is a commodity. Male, female, whatever - it's commodity. It has been for thousands of years, and will continue to be, illegal or not. Neither you nor anyone else will change this.

Until you physiologically make sex less pleasant than it is, you're not going to change this fact.

Best to make it safe and clean for those who chose to work in the industry.

Well, there's an opinion if I've ever heard one. Does this constitute a factual statement, or just your opinion?

Could you explain how you went from selling sex to Monsato and agriculture? I mean, I THINK I see the point you're trying to make, but from my perspective, you're so off base with this one. =/

Why should a paralyzed man who can't get laid otherwise go to prison because he was trying to offer a whore some cash to get his dick wet? Or even some college kid, a married man, whatever?

What's the crime there?

Put real criminals in jail - not horny men.

Thanks for telling me what we all think! I appreciate that!

Who said it's the "only thing" a woman has to offer?

Pussy is a commodity. Ain't no denyin' brotha. It's not the lifestyle I'd chose for myself, but I don't see why any American, red-blooded woman can't chose to sell her own body for cash.

That is a right that should be left up to her, and her entirely.

Which, ha ha, comes full circle when I mention that in a legalized, controlled environment, it would be more her choice than ever. Do you know how many women are in the sex industry unwillingly these days? It's scary.

They are most vulnerable when the market isn't regulated.

To be honest, what would be the big difference between legalizing prostitution, and oh, let's say building an amusement park?

Both would be taxable, both would offer thrilling rides, fun and games in a safe, secure environment. The only difference is, instead of "you have to be this tall to ride" It would be "You have to be this old to ride".

The risks would potentially be the same in some ways. Each faction has their own one or two percent chance, in a million, to fail. Whether it be a rollar coaster breaking down, or one of the girls you paid for for the hour might have the clap. Either way, low, low risk.

Of course the biggest thing, with our 'christian fueled moral government' is that there, of course, was no passage in the good bible saying "Thou shall not seek thrills in a bouncy castle." Which is probably why America, who is always greedy for that money money money, hasn't gone into making prostitution legal.

Disclaimer: This was all in good fun in comparing Disney Land with Super Neon Man Man Land.

Edit/Add on: Also, who's to really say that this field, if made legal, would be dominated by women? I'm sure a lot of men out there secretly wish to be man-whores. Rarely do you see footage of females going into a chipndales or whatever, to get them a peice of man beef...because, quite frankly, the media always seems to turn towards the females to sell sex, (look at the AXE commercials for christ's sake). Hell, the annoynmity(sp?) of it all would almost guarantee that there would be a lot of bitchy, high office working females wanting their crack at a younger fabio look alike. Sure, men are pigs, but you throw a single, buff guy wearing white cufflings and a black tie around his neck, and nothing more, into a pit of women...hoooo boy you don't see much afterwards :(

Enter the conservative...

I'm actually finding it tough to object on anything other than morals. I just don't want to live in a place that condones that type of industry. On the other hand, nobody seems to be shoving the stripper way of life down the throats of young girls. Although it's a dramatic leap, widespread legalization of prostitution hopefully wouldn't permeate society anymore than gentlemen clubs do.

I've heard that places with legalized prostitution like Denmark have very impressive stats with regards to STDs, teen pregnancy, and even higher average age of virgins. Better than in comparison with countries that have outlawed it. (can anyone confirm this?)

But I'm still against it. Nyeah nyeah! Whether or not anyone shares my morals or not, I would still push to keep prostitution illegal. Hmm, let's get rid of the strip clubs while we're at it too. MWA HA HA! I honestly feel we'd be better off without those types of things. The world I'm imagining probably isn't as fun, but overall it would be happier one. Hrm, better qualify that last sentence by saying, "...at least in my opinion."

But what's the point? 1. Looks like most of you disagree with me. (D'oh!) 2. The other 49 states are very unlikely to amend their laws. (Hooray!) And 3., prostitutes are still going to work, legal or not, throughout the U.S. (Waah!)

Oh man. Can you imagine the recruiting pamphlets in high school for the sex ranches? Kind of like how McDonald's has those advertisements for how they make such an awesome career. I'm sure a ton of girls who've just hit 18 would be up for doing it part time.

Why is prostitution illegal in the first place? I mean it's their own choice if they wanna sell their bodies for a price. I'm totally against the creation of huge sex ranches though and people running a business with it. The money should go to the actual individuals that have to do this shit.

But I really have no idea how legalized prostitution would affect our society good or bad. So I can't fully support it but it's not like I'm yearning for it nor is it of any interest at all for me so I don't really care what happens with it anyways.

A regulated market is not necessarily going to be any safer. Look at all the toxic shit the US imported from China. It wasn't until recently that regulators and safety inspectors in the US 'caught on'.

That depends.

It would encourage more street walkers. Employees will want a bigger cut that not being certified by the government would bring. It's not a problem in European countries because they're welfare states and they don't have hard ons for taxing vice. Any more then any other good or service. I see it being a problem in the 'States. No Republican would go out against support for increasing taxes on vice....... at least not publicly. -_^

If you were to run a brothel, with all the vice taxes and government mandated safety programs for your employees it will be expensive for everyone involved. Not to mention the normal payroll/income taxes on top of it. Making it a lot less lucrative then if it was illegal... or legalized but not regulated.

I don't see any benefit socially in vice taxes in this case either, because the government would spent all of it (or more) on regulation and enforcement. Or issues of financial liability that would result. "WHAT?! I GOT A STI FROM A GOVERNMENT REGULATED BROTHEL?!"

That's all. I'm pretty much out of ideas.

I can't disagree that sex is a commodity or even a bodily function. It's status alone as a commodity doesn't mean it should be legalized though. Uranium is a commodity, but does that mean we shouldn't prohibit the sale of it? There's too many issues of liability, so it's easier to criminalize it.

On the other hand if the government gets away with taxing bodily functions then the sky is the limit. It won't be long before we see fart taxes to combat global warming.... uhh too late? :rolleyes:

Probably.

I don't just want to give anybody, especially not some biotech corp. any more
leeway into messing with my man essence. (or DNA) I'm not comfortable with how many legal rights and patents they have already. There's too many unintended consequences that could result if sex were thrown into the public domain.

Soliciting a hooker is a misdemeanor. It's likely that all that would be handed out is a fine and possibly some community service. That's assuming that the assistant DA or judge on your case is not a feminist or social conservative. Then you're screwed, and I agree with what you said about putting horny people in jail. Barring that it's just another nominal fee on the "service".

I doubt there's a lot of sex slavery in the US. The Feds are pretty good at cracking down on that sort of thing.

Care to elaborate?
It's easy to regulate static locations. It's much harder to regulate moving people with their traveling "rides" and "amusements".

You do all realise Watts is trolling you, right? No one actually believes this sort of idiocy. Messing with man essence? He's doing Dr. Strangelove. He knows as well as anyone that the only real objection to this concept is the moral one. Holland has much lower STD rates than the US, lower sex crime rate, etc. It's all there for anyone who takes the time to look at the statistics. They can regulate porn stars for disease, they can regulate prostitutes very, very easily. And patenting sex? Come on, that idea is so fucking infantile it can't be anything but baiting. This is why he got the joke nom for best debater. I mean, harder to regulate moving people with rides and amusements? They call that a circus. And they do it all the time. Why are we even giving him the time of day? Either he's trolling or he's so stupid he isn't worth it.

You know, I never really understood why anyone went to strip clubs. I mean seriously... If I wanted to look at boobs that I can't touch, I have the internet.

On a more related note, if Prostitution was legal, I'd imagine it would cost strip clubs alot of customers since they could go pay to have sex rather then pay to watch someone dance naked.

As it stands now, you have tons of girls being forced into prostitution through rather illicit means. They are forced into heroine addictions, or beat up and such. Why do they need to be forced? My line of thinking is that the only thing stopping half those 'forced prostitutes' is the fact that it's illegal. It's like one of my friends. He'd be perfectly willing to do certain drugs if it weren't for the fact that they were illegal. So if you legalize prostitution, pimps wouldn't need to force them to do it, and in turn you'd have alot less poorly treated prostitutes. That seems like a benefit of legalized prostitution.

Legalizing it would also mean that the women could actually make a career out of it. With it being legal, they would for sure get more customers. They would be taxed for the income I assume, but for things like applying for an apartment, or possibly getting another job and stuff, they can say 'oh I make this much a year' or something like that. I guess they'd have something to put on their resume. 'Customer Service Experience'.

Despite my moral objections, I can see a lot of positive outcomes to legalizing prostitution.

I think it's a good thing that prostitution is legal here (in Germany), within limitations (e.g. no pimps, the necessity of being registered, etc.). While it is not a profession I would choose, I see no reason why others should not be allowed to choose it, as it is not hurting anyone. Why should we not be able to decide over our own bodies?

On the contrary, a legal, registered form of prostitution reduces the risks that go with it, and limits the demand for an importation and abuse of illegal immigrants (although it is still happening here, sadly).

That could be said of anything that any group of people happen to not like.

There are a lot of things that happen in this country which I (and many others) don't like, and don't feel like putting up with. But we do. (creationism, for one)

Stripping and prostitution aren't the same thing. You know this, right? There's no sex in the champagne room.

Deni did.

The problem here is that the Americans regard sex as this awful, dirty, disgusting act.

Yes, thats the point here. "It seems that it works elsewhere, and things run smoother when sex becomes an industry that isn't black-market. The facts are there! But n'yah n'yah, I don't like it, therefore it should remain outlawed!"

It's a child's argument.

Yes. We get it. You don't like it. Therefore, it should be illegal.

Yes, let's continue to keep people getting abused, addicted, and selling themselves in a dangerous environment needlessly! Just because you don't like the industry.

You see, in this great country of the US of A, we're supposed to have some freedom, provided we hurt no one. We're supposed to have choice. We're supposed to be able to decide for ourselves what is good for us. We're adults. We don't want other peoples' opinions to reign over our own lives. That's freedom.

You chose to not involve yourself in the industry, as I am sure millions would also do.

But for those who want to be able to buy some pussy, cock, tits or ass in a legal, clean, safe, and legit way should also have a choice.

Besides. I don't want ANYONE (including Senators) in MY bedroom telling me what I can and can not do. If two consenting adults want to exchange money or goods for some sexual favors, who the hell can tell them they can't do that.

Here's an interesting thought on the subject. Prostitution is illegal, but it's legal to be a member of hate spreading groups like the KKK or Westburo Baptists because of Freedom of speech. So... according to our government Prostitution is more evil then the KKK. That's some backwards morality there...

Well, that's the whole first amendment right there. Freedom of speech and Freedom of group orginization or some shit like that.

Though, honestly, if a prostitution union popped up, that would be interesting to see.

Well I'm glad at least one person was offended by me. I'll try harder. I thought "nyeah nyeah" was a dead give away that I wasn't being all that serious. Oh well.

Religious argument: Is anybody really going to be shocked that most of the major religions find prostitution to be a deplorable act? Moving on...

Moral argument: In general I'm against anything I wouldn't want my kids (if I had any) to be a part of. Prostitution, casual sex, gangs, recreational drug use, violence, etc, etc, etc. Yeah, I'm really that boring and close minded. I don't even want to see this stuff advertised or accepted by society in general. So all I do is continue to vote for legislation that suits me. If I'm overruled by the majority I'll learn to deal with it. I'm not going to pack my bags and head overseas in disgust. Nyeah nyeah!

I strongly disagree that people should be allowed to do any old thing they want within the confines of their private lives. Drug abuse affects more than just the one person who does it. Sexual indecency has an emotional impact that goes beyond just the two people involved. It may also have a medical impact that can be so widespread it's frightening. The negative impact these things have on society is too much (imho) to justify the desired rights of the individual. And where do you draw the line? No large group of people is ever going to agree on whether or not a 25 year old can legally have a sexual relationship with a 17 year old. Whichever side you are in favor of, there is going to be a split between people who are comfortable and people who aren't with, oh...let's say a kindergarten teacher who paid her way through college by being a prostitute. If prostitution is legal, who's to say that's unacceptable? How do people in Vegas deal with these issues? :\

But like the situation in the U.S. is really gonna change any time soon. Yay for me!

I'm not offended by you. I just think your argument is silly.

"Moving on" after you mention it? That's funny.

No one should really give a flying fuck what the religious think of this. They can practice whatever religion they want to in the privacy of their homes or in congregations.

Just like people can have sex in their homes and in orgies. Who the hell cares.

You don't like it? Don't do it. (But we totally know the religious do it anyways. =p)

You chose to think prostitution is as bad as gang violence and street crime, I recommend you look into what happens to present prostitutes who work illegally on the street. It may sadden you.

You have your own moral compass. That's great. I'm glad you've actually considered what "right" and "wrong" mean, as most people don't usually consider even thinking about it, and just eat up whatever shit is fed to them.

At the same time, your moral compass is not everyone else's. I see what you're saying - you'd personally not chose to see this happen. But what interests me most is that you ignore the facts and continue to shake your head saying "I don't like it, so I won't go for it."

But it's their choice to do it. Yes, addiction is a horrific thing. But yet, some people chose to do it, knowing the consequences.

I got proper education regarding drugs and addiction in school.

Hell, people do a LOT of stupid shit knowing the consequences.

Yea, medical impact. That's kind of my argument. Thanks for giving that one to me.

You draw the line when you start telling a society what is right and what is wrong, and making adult decisions for them.

You have absolutely no right to tell me that I can't tie up my CONSENTING husband and shove a dildo up his ass.

I don't tell you what to do - why do you think you have the right to tell me what to do? (Not you or I personally, you know what I mean)

Er. Who said anything about underage children working in legal prostitution?

See, you keep arguing these points, but you're really making my case FOR me.

In the present, illegal system of prostitution, there are PLENTY of underage people working as little workhorses, putting out for the masses. If the industry was regulated, that shit wouldn't happen.

As it stands, since the industry is widely illegal and unchecked, they can do pretty much whatever the hell they want.

That's why it's totally illegal in Nevada, right?

I know for a fact you are just trolling this entire thread, and yes, I know I am falling for this sad troll attempt, but it's all good in my book.


I'll tell you exactly how Vegas deals with these issues.


THEY AREN'T UPTIGHT PRICKS.

Now just hear me out on this one. Let's take your kindergarten teacher for example. What if, back when you were that age, she was the BEST damn teacher you had. Was kind, understanding, and was quite knowledgeable and helped you understand the world better. In your eyes to this day she was a damn good teacher, and a damn good citizen, nothing about her you could fault her for...

Three days from now you find out that she was a legal prostitute and used that money to become a teacher.

Now you are met with a options. Either you can look at her as that awesome teacher, who had a private life before becoming a teacher and did things her way to become what she wanted to be. Or, you can look at her in utter disgust and brand her as a whore, and a no good scum sucking waste of life.

People in Vegas, apparently, mostly choose option one. While religious fanatics, and downright assholes who live in Vegas typically choose el numero dos.

I will say that yes, the actions and choices we make in life define us as human beings. But you also have to remember that applies to people you care for and love as well. For example, what if your boyfriend, or girlfriend, back in highschool/college, happend to just be EXACTLY like those people that bullied you, or you happend to bully around. If they aren't today, are you going to hold it against them that they were back then?

And that is the kind of mentallity I think Vegas is running. What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas after all.

I thought prostitution is not actually legal within city confines of Vegas. I am pretty sure that's what a cop told me when I was there, but I see no such documentation. Turns out you can't street walk in Vegas - you just go to a brothel and pay a pretty dime for some company.

You all just yell at me all you like for this link to the wiki on Hoes in Nevada, but at least you may get a little educated.

I myself did not know brothels are legal in Rhode Island! I think I know where I will be moving in the future!

Which means two states actually allow prostitution! Just not in street-walker style in both Nevada AND Rhode Island.

This means that you can't walk the streets as a hoe - you actually have to take up a company to work for. Essentially, contractors for a brothel. Which is a really neat concept, if you ask me.

Lastly, I notice that a Baptist pastor from Reno leads the Nevada Brothel Owners' Association. Isn't that dandy? <3

You see, that's something I always wondered about America. How officially detached from religious morals is it actually ? I mean, you do have the "Under God" thing and the "In God we Trust" on your money ...

Well, theoretically, church and state should be separate. But that's not technically in the Constitution, but a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to some Baptists. He actually ties the Constitution's First Amendment to the noted "separation of church and state" making it clear (to me) that there should be a divide.

These days, the interpretation and vigor faced for the "god" in government depends on where you live, I guess. We're a big, big nation with lots of local and regional cultures. Some people want a god to be involved, some don't.

Massachusetts? We don't generally have problems with more.... "progressive" ideas like gay marriage and anti-gun laws or whatever. We're pretty "godless" and reasonably "liberal" about our national views.

Texas? Fat chance of seeing any homofags getting married out there anytime soon, or possibly getting rid of their guns.

As for the money bit - we can thank the Civil War and the religiously needy during that horrific time. War does crazy shit to people, I guess. In times of need, turn to the most convenient god...? After that business, I suppose it sounded good, and they left it.

Though I am sure Styphon or someone else can recount history more accurately than I can.

Well, the case of marriage is a bit special, since it has a religious origin. I think we should cancel civil marriage altogether and replace it with the kind of contracts we have here in France that is accessible to anyone and basically gives you the same rights civil marriage does.

Anyway, separation of church and state is absolute here in France. It can't really be argued that Christian morals influenced even the raise of democracy and the country as a whole still today, though.

Germany doesn't have an official separation of church and state. Nevertheless, laws about sexual and sexuality issues appear to be more liberal than they are in the U.S.. It's not just religion itself, in the sense of scripture, that comes into it, but the way it is practiced and perceived. These two factors are linked to social circumstances.

For example, the whole frontier situation influenced the strongly individualistic point of view many Americans have ("you can do anything if you just try hard enough", "if people are poor, it's their fault"). It also influenced the emphasis placed on religion as a means of social coherence, which was necessary in a group of "pioneers", and the particular prevalence of certain aspects of protestantism ("if you are gay, you are choosing to be gay, so you can choose not to be, or not to excercise it" - see the similarities?).

So a lot of that historical baggage has remained and was influential in the way American religion, specifically, developed. What has all this got to do with the thread? Well, if we're disregarding religion, we are making it a bit too easy for ourselves. I'm the first person to agree that it SHOULDN'T come into the equation, but unfortunately, it does. People are religious. This influences their opinion.

So, from a point of view that considers social morality, the legalisation of prostitution may not be right for the USA, simply because most people might disagree with it (a social survey on this could be interesting).

Then again, of course practical and economic consequences should be considered as well, and I'll pass on that, simply because I don't know enough about it.

I would like to think that the most progressive stance that would allow maximum liberties would be to allow both gay marriage and gun rights.

Was Watts really saying that people would start patenting tricks?

I don't like the sentiment that the sex industry could be taxed as a net positive, because it's something that only beurocrats should consider. It also allows moral crusaders the opportunity to spin legalisation as a move for Big Government to rake in the cash off of our collective sin, which works in too many circles.

It's enough that two consenting adults can exchange whatever they want between each other without having to worry about police power. Any other positives are just icing on the cake.

Cold war.

I must admit I'm coming around a bit on this issue. But if it were on a ballot in my state I'd still vote 'no'. I know the situation is bad, not unlike recreational drug industry. Legalizing these things would certainly repair a great deal of pain and suffering that occurs in these trades. But it would also expose a greater number of people to different tragedies. Which is the worse of two evils? I'm of the frame of mind that people would be better off if they were restricted from certain harmful things in life. Of course no two people will agree on what those things are. You get "uptight pricks" like me on one end of the spectrum and libertarians on the other who feel governments should stay out of people's business. I'm fully aware that my views are restrictive, but from my point of view I just don't like seeing people involved in anything harmful. And while I'm not going to hit the streets and force everyone to adhere to my ideals; I will express myself to friends, family, and even in an open discussion on the internet.

Anybody see Chasing Amy? I'm the kind of guy who can forgive people for the transgressions of their past. At the same time I wish they wouldn't have done those things in the first place.

How is sex harmful?

At it's worst, sex can be forced upon people against their will.

With regards to consenting adults having sex; I still think it can be and has been harmful to society. Promiscuity has led to the spread of disease. Adultery has made a tremendous amount of people utterly miserable, enraged, and/or depressed. There is a great deal of women who have fallen into the trap of basing their self-esteem around sexual encounters. Fornication has provided a boon of unwanted and uncared for children. This is the most harmful aspect in my opinion. And even if I set my religious views aside, as a human being I feel that sex without love cheapens and demeans the act. Prostitution figures heavily into most of what I just mentioned.

But wouldn't you agree that if prostitution in some form was legalized, this worst-case-scenario would become less and less likely?

Get your head out of your ass. You can't blame the act of sexual intercourse for any of this. Everything you listed is the fault of the person who makes it their fault, they just don't have the balls to man up and take the blame themselves, so they drop the ol' "ITS SOCIETY'Z FAULT LOL" bullshit and fuck things up for the rest of us. Not everyone who has out-of-wedlock sex spreads disease and spits out children. If your stone tablet doctrine of "no promiscuous sex" reached critical mass, do you honestly think that would do society any good?

Drugs are illegal, so what do we have? Drug trafficking.
Selling sex is illegal, so what do we have? Prostitution.

Make promiscuous sex illegal and you'll run society right back into the hole it came from. You wonder why there's so much disease? Teaching abstinence instead of safe sex is probably a good place to start.

There's a word for this, actually, and it's not called "sex."

The Justice System doesn't work the same way as your world view. A lot of morality lawyers forget that people go to prison for these kind of "transgressions."

Ouch. You asked me a question. I'm sorry you don't like the answer.

I don't feel that legalized prostitution will have much of an effect in lowering the rate of sex crimes such as rape, incest, and child molestation. I agree that those already involved in illegal prostitution would benefit tremendously, but that isn't nearly enough for me to comfortably support such a change in law.

I don't blame sex for anything. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but it doesn't make any sense to me either. I do think sex can be misused by people in a way that it harmful to people, but that's much different than 'blaming sex'.

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were looking for other types of examples. It's a bit unfair of you to get upset about it when the burden really wasn't on me to second guess you like that. Hmm, how about the teenager who feels compelled to seek out destructive and frequent sexual relationships because of exposure to sexual and physical abuse at home? Some will take pity, others will say, 'Get over it and shape up your life'. An alarming number of people (not all, in case that's what you think I'm suggesting) in legal sexual industries such as erotic dancing (yes, i'm aware that dancers and patrons don't have sex) and pornography were the victims of sexual abuse. When you learn the situation of an individual it is sometimes becomes difficult to place fault on them.

I didn't mean for you to think that I said that ALL promiscuous people carry and spread disease; that ALL pre-marital sex leads to unwanted children. I didn't even come close to expressing that as an absolute. I maintain that the spread of STDs and the increase in unwanted children being born has everything to do with people having sex irresponsibly. Honestly? Yes, I think it would benefit society in general if promiscuity wasn't accepted or practiced.

I suppose I can agree that if something it illegal...then the people who do it do so illegally. (!?!?) I see the point you're trying to make, but to me it isn't a strong enough argument. It holds up poorly in other scenarios and I don't view your examples as victimless crimes.

Yes, I completely agree that encouraging abstinence is an excellent way to go. I still think people need to learn about safe sex as well.

So what is enough? This is just like LordsSword. "It's not enough." Well what is enough to sway your view? Complete abstinence? Castration at birth? What?

Your quote:
That registers to me as "people having sex is harmful to society." Breaking it down further, it basically looks like you're saying "society is harmed through sexual intercourse." You're saying that something we are naturally predisposed to do is somehow bad for us?


Who's placing fault on them? The fault rests solely on the fucked up minds that deem that sort of behavior okay. The problem is, nobody has the minerals to blame them, and them outright. They scapegoat. They blame shit like movies and society. They claim that if we stopped having premarital sex, none of these problems would happen! But can you honestly prove that?

And I think you're ignoring the facts presented before you. How would it benefit society when statistics show that sex crime levels are DOWN in countries that aren't filled with so many uptight candy-asses? Furthermore, irresponsible sex starts with childhood. If kids aren't properly educated, it's no wonder they fuck like idiots.

I guess the sarcasm didn't really stick with you. Abstinence programs are akin to mental castration. Telling kids not to have sex, when they're going through puberty and reaching their most sexually active years of life, is fucking stupid. There's no other way to put it. People are going to have sex. It's unnatural not to reproduce. People who don't have their head up the bible's ass have figured this out already, and are advocating safe sex, instead of regressing into the dark ages and saying "NO! NO PREMARITAL SEX EVER! NEVER!!"

Can someone else yell at me please? Sorry Sprouticus. :( There's a few good points you make. But the rest of it is changing my words around recklessly and a lot of stuff that just doesn't make sense or is oddly irrelevant.

There are a lot of things in the world which are basically good when practiced by consenting adults, and yet are extremely bad when forced on people against their will. I say we make a nice big list so that we can completely ban all of them. It's the only way to safeguard society from such terrible acts. I'm going to start my list with religion.

It is called a discussion. You say something, someone else says something. You respond to things other people have said and they in return respond to things you've said. It's standard operating procedure for an internet forum. Why does it seem like you're taking offense to the idea that someone might want to respond to you? You must have come into this thread knowing that for this community your responses would be controversial.

Lets make a list of things that can't be misused in a way which is harmful to people. I think I have room on the back of this postage stamp. The contents of the average kitchen, garage or workshop can be put to use in a way which can potentially cause far more harm than is possible to inflict using sex, and to a greater number of people simultaneously.

Your examples don't really support your argument. Each example you have given is a result of the sexual act, but almost anything you do can result in unpleasant consequences if you don't take the appropriate precautions. You won't get a sexually transmitted disease if you take precautions and make every effort to sleep with a clean partner. A woman will not get pregant if some form of birth control is used. If you fail to take these precautions, you know you do so at your own risk.

Since you are a Christian, I'd like to ask you as nicely as I know how if we can avoid the whole discussion on birth control? I mentioned it as part of an argument absent any discussion of the morality of the practice. I personally would really appreciate not getting into that one, and it's off-topic for the thread anyway.

As for adultery or cheating outside of marriage, I don't see any meaningful difference between that and any other kind of dishonest and hurtful behaviour in a relationship. Sex does not have to be involved, there are all kinds of ways for human beings to betray each other. It's never just the physical act that was the big deal, it's always the feeling of loss of trust and of betrayal as well. That can happen either with or without sex.

Oh I don't know... maybe blame that on the abuse? I don't see why sexual abuse should be considered different than other kinds of physical abuse from a moral standpoint. It might be more emotionally damaging to the victim, but as far as I'm concerned, any kind of physical abuse is wrong, it's not a matter of degrees.

Once again... this can happen with or without sex. What you seem to be saying here is that a lot of people are cruel. I can't argue with that, and woul not wish to. Where I think you are mistaken is in assuming that sex is somehow related to this cruelty simply because it is often the 'weapon' of choice. I'm asking you to consider the possibility that it is but a means to an end for cruel people, and that these things are not directly related to sex itself.

If you misuse a car, you may use it as a weapon by crashing it, potentially harming many people. If you misuse a knife, you may harm others by using it as a weapon. If you misuse household chemicals you may harm many other people by creating a crude explosive device. If you misuse a computer (or for that matter, a pen and paper) you may hurt the feelings of others by writing unkind things.

Almost anyhing can be used to cause emotion distress or physical harm. Try to find something that has no potential for such abuse. It's harder than you might think.

Please provide evidence to support this assertion, or there is no point in using it as the basis for your argument.

Since I have made that request of you it is only fair that I point out that what I have posted is only my own opinions.

I can agree with this, but I'm not sure you realise what you've written. The most you have done here is to make a case for people to have sex in a more responsible manner. I agree with you entirely on that, but I think we differ greatly on the definition of responsible sex. My perspective is necessarily different from yours. I am not a promiscuous man, but I have had sexual relationships which did not involve marriage. In fact I do not think I shall ever get married, even if I stay with my current partner for the rest of my life. It just doesn't seem like the sort of thing we would do.

I would advise you to not hold your breath while waiting. I also find it noteworthy that you believe that there can be no such thing as 'responsible promiscuity'. I don't see what is irresponsible about practicing promiscuity as long as the appropriate precautions have been taken by both parties. I am aware that those precautions are often neglected, but I believe there is a better chance of pursuading people to take them than of persuading them to not have sex.

I agree entirely with Sproutacus' response to this particular statement. I firmly believe that advocating abstinence is pointless in most cases. I don't doubt that there will be a few who will choose to abstain from sex before marriage, but statistics have shown that they are in the minority. I just don't see how you could pursuade these teenagers to abstain from sex. The risk of causing unwanted pregnancies did not apparently deter them, and I would find it hard to believe they did not know that was a possibility.

In this one specific instance, your wish is my command.

I just remembered the question that puts things in perspective
for a lot of people:

Why is it illegal to sell something you can give away for free?

Debating moral subjects is pointless. It's boils down to throwing around euphemisms. Legalization/decriminalization, prostitute/whore, rape/prostitution. It's all doublespeak.

Nothing meaningful is going to be exchanged. Unless you feel you have the right to question someone else's moral/religous beliefs. Which apparently everyone does.

Oh look, the abortion euphemisms are already starting to crop up in the topic. Which has nothing to do with whores or legalized rape!

Hypothetically, yes. Realistically, who knows?

I lack foresight into the possibilities. Only thing I was saying is that if DNA can be patented anything is possible.

My position was that opposition to legalization could easily be found on the reactionary ideology, social tension, and/or unforeseen consequences (besides more regulation/taxes) that such a political move would create. To often people are far too willing to upset the balance the status quo creates without thinking about the negative social/political consequences.

Nothing should ever change, no matter what the proof is for it being a logical, proven step, because the boat might be rocked? The point of changing the status quo is because the boat -needs- to be rocked. We're not talking morals, we're talking legality. As always, Watts, you're arguing semantics to obfuscate a lack of actual substance. You are either a complete idiot or a world class political troll.

Ah...much better. Thank you.

Sorry for getting defensive. I promise I just thought I was answering a question about how sex can be harmful. I'm not the one who posed the question. I answered the question as simply as it was presented to me. My answer was brief an unspectacular, but it answered the question. Sex can be harmful. And so can a table saw, a bottle of bleach, the old refrigerator in the garage, etc. This doesn't really demand that I need to answer any differently. I'm used to being flamed, but it's hard to respond when I don't know what I'm being yelled at for.

I certainly wouldn't complain in there was an increase in the amount of people who have sex responsibly. I'm not sure why abstinence needs to be thrown out the window though. This doesn't mean I want to lessen the amount or importance of safe sex. *end birth control discussion*

I still don't see what's wrong with my examples. They reflect, and accurately so, what's happening in the United States. It doesn't have to be that way. The resources to prevent all of it are readily available here, and yet it persists. My argument was to illustrate the ways in which sex can be harmful. I never claimed, for example, that ALL promiscuity spreads disease. But enough of it does. The act of sexual intercourse itself isn't to blame of course but rather the irresponsibility and ignorance of those involved.

I'm against causing harm on a mental level as well, but nobody asked me about that so I didn't include that in my answer. And while there may be things someone can do to upset a partner as much or worse than having sex with another, sex still has to be near the top of that list.

Soluzar explained many other flaws in my answer about how sex can be harmful. Most of it centers around the idea, "Sex can do that, but so can a billion other things". Don't wanna argue those points. Can't really argue against those points. But to me this highlights a shortcoming in the question itself in that it is way too simple.

Strippers and porn stars abused stats: My original source was a general practitioner and a comedian on a call in sex/drug advice radio show. Most of what I could find online was purely anecdotal and most of those seem to link sexual abuse with involvement in the sex industry. A few do deny these claims. A doctor named Mary Anne Layden said "Most strippers, as with other women who work in the sex industry, are adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Research indicates the number is between 60-80 percent". Couldn't find any info on that research though. Here's one tiny article...

Sexual Abuse as a Precursor to Prostitution and Victimization Among Adolescent and Adult Homeless Women -- SIMONS and WHITBECK 12 (3): 361 -- Journal of Family Issues

What disturbed during my (brief) research was the amount of violence and abuse towards strippers. Here's one such article describing that sentiment... Porn Myth 2 Extrapolating this evidence towards prostitution would be another argument against its legalization.

Far too many people who are sexually active are not practicing safe sex. I don't think everyone needs to adhere to my own personal standards. But i do think a great many people could and should be more responsible when they have sex. Wear a condom, get tested, be aware that other people's emotions are at stake. Having sex with a stranger can be and often is highly irresponsible whether money is involved or not.

Tired. Late. Work to do. Thanks for yelling at me. :)

Where's the proof?

According to census data in 2006, Nevada is ranked 8th in having the highest rape rate. (per capita) Attributing the lower STD/STI rates solely due to the influence of legal prostitution is just as shallow. Sex Education plays just as big of a role as prostitution in preventing STDs/STIs. The health care industry would play a even bigger role in preventing the spread of STDs/STIs.

It's not like everybody fucks prostitutes.

Red herring. It's already been stated that there are social and moral concerns with legalization.

Your ad hominem arguments count as actual substance? Why then feel free to throw as many red herrings or insults at me as you can. Just kidding, I know you'd do that anyway.

Patenting original DNA is a bit more complicated than turning a trick so hard your John comes for 2 minutes and then trying to maintain a monopoly on it. I mean, magic tricks aren't patented either, why are you worried about this mess?

I'm going to skip any pretense of debate and go straight to the heart of the matter. You are scum. Most likely also a troll. To adamantly refuse to support an issue in the face of logic just because you feel icky about it is the most shallow reaction to any policy decision on the planet. You are what is wrong with America.

Wrong on both counts. There are patents involving magic tricks. I'll get to that later. The bigger issue is our legal system. This is where the problems with our legal system become readily apparent. Both "tricks" could be considered trade secrets. Which means it's even easier to maintain a monopoly. Wikipedia does a better job of explaining....


That link will provide patent information for magic tricks.

This is where the bio-tech corporation comparison comes into play. It gets even better.... I mean absolutely hilarious given the context we're talking about.

NDA? Holy shit. We might as well add privacy concerns to this legal clusterfuck. This would give brothels plenty of legal leverage through such contracts to blackmail and/or publicly humiliate their clients. Furthermore the government might mandate this sort of information be shared with it. You know, to effectively regulate the brothels and do it's job.

This really isn't a problem right now because brothels in Nevada are too busy in finding some way to obtain legitimacy. That would more then likely change once sex has been commercialized, thus legitimized on a broader scale. All it's gonna take is one person to start a legal action after prostitution is legalized.

I don't think this is a legal problem for Germany and the Netherlands. Differing legal system from ours.

This is all just legal conjecture though. It's not like there's anybody, lawyer or otherwise that would want to manipulate the legal system for their own gain. :rolleyes:

I have yet to realize that the legalize-prostitution movement is backed by such an overwhelming logic based argument. This thread has yet to hit the proverbial homeroom in that regard. Medical, legal, safety, and economic reasons have all been given as arguments against prostitution. And still, logic is not the only reason to support a cause. Well, neither is feeling 'icky' (although that's not how I would describe my reaction). But I don't need to rely solely on logic to tell me that prostitution, or numerous other issues, is bad. Compassion plays a part as does morality. The compassion/morality angle probably leaves a bad taste in the mouth of some because of how is often misused. But logic has been misused by people as well.

Would anyone want their sister to be a prostitute? How about their child? Spouse? Parent? I'm seriously interested in what people think about this. Does prostitution bear an unfair negative stigma? Or is there something inherently undesirable about that profession?

Thanks. Gotta go back to dragging the rest of America down to my level of scum. It's tough work being a detriment to society. ;)

Freedom of choice is a bitch. No doubt about it. When your darling little angel of a christian daughter hits the age of 18 years old, she can tell you to shove a cock up your bum, flip you the bird, and go off and do whatever she wants to because she is of legal age that this country deems fit to say she can make her own choices.

Now, would you want your daughter, if her life long dream is to become a prostitute, working on the streets, or would you rather see her in an establishment that is well organized, has benefits, and seems to be low risk due to it's shelter, and overall knowledge that a business like this would be slightly dangerous, so the security is bumped up?

If my daughter's going to be selling herself in anyway for cash, the least I can hope for is that it's in a relatively safe environment. You'd be a cold, heartless bastard to wish otherwise, and if you want to disown your child, that's fine...THAT IS YOUR CHOICE...same as it is their choice to want to be in that profession.

As for a wife or husband, well, different strokes for different folks. If you meet a prostitute and fall in love, and she does the same...once again, would you rather be it in a situation that she is unable to get out of because of her pimp? Or would you rather have her be able to easily say 'I quit' and give her two weeks notice?

If you are already married, and she decides or he decides they want to become a 'ho, everyone is going to handle it in a different way. Why you ask? Well, because that's the thing about christianity not ruling everyone in the world with an iron fist. Like it or not, we have free will, and no one can tell us how to live our lives. The only time they can is if we go out of our way to physically harm, or cause emotional harm to someone else, and becoming a prostitute well, depending on the person you are with, that could hurt them mentally of course...just like if you are offered a job promotion, and you have to either move the kids (thus harming htem emotionally by having to lose their friends and such) or if you have to break up with a guy or gal because you have to move and they don't want to.

Simply put, killerpineapple, the only reason prostitution bears a negative symbol is because your dainty little religion barred it as such. Just think, if the people who wrote the bible oh...let's say had a thing against people who were hair stylists back in the days, cut hair...it might be TABOO to get your hair cut! My personal belief is that each one of them tried to get with a hookah, and they didn't have enough cash, thus leading them to say prostitues were BAD NEWS.

Of course, the compassionate response to prostitution would be to allow hookers to practice their trade under scrutiny so that they don't have to worry about being abused by their pimps or Johns.

This is a stupid question. No reasonable person wants a loved one to resort to whoring, but at the same time we shouldn't have the right to dictate what others can do with their bodies. (in the case of maturity of course)

Thanks for answering.

There's a lot of people like myself who would be utterly heartbroken if someone they loved got involved in prostitution. Of course everyone is entitled to exercise their free will, but at times it leads to bad decisions. And while some bad decisions are an inevitable part of life, it would be horribly sad if someone I care about turns to prostitution. For me it's a bad decision for anyone to make which is the major reason why I'm against the legalization of it.

Stupid question? I can see why it would seem like that. Is it safe to assume then that the overwhelming majority of people do not approve of prostitution if it involves a loved one? Grail (correct me if I'm wrong) appeared to indicate that prostitution carries an undeserved negative stigma. I'm still curious to see what more people in this forum think about that.

For me, I don't like prostitution. I will actively protect the ones I love from becoming involved. It doesn't make me the scum-of-the-earth just because I want to protect strangers too. The counter argument is "You have no right to tell me what to do". I have respect for the notion that government can't tell people what to do with their lives and their bodies. However, I disagree with that when it comes to issues such as these. It's a matter of (tacky part coming up) love.

I know it interferes with free will, but just because you want to do something doesn't necessarily qualify that you should be allowed to. I'm guessing that's the major point many people disagree with me on. I understand that point of view and even though I don't share it.

Legalizing prostitution will no doubt protect those involved. While true, to me that's a backwards argument for legalizing it. It's an illegal activity in 98% of the country. The vast majority of people find it to be an undesirable activity and a shortcoming to society. If that's the will of the people then efforts should be towards eliminating it altogether. Can such a feat be accomplished? With the way things are going, probably not. Doesn't mean we should give up entirely.

I'm not sure entirely, perhaps someone can find a source for me that backs this statement I make up. But I believe I heard somewhere a while ago, that back in the day, and I mean before christ, before all this religion hoohaa got so way out of hand...being a prostitute was a magnificent way to make a living, and if you were a whore, albeit an attractive one, in a lot of cases you lived a life of luxury, and often times if someone in power, a political figure if you will be it a King, Prince, Advisor or whatnot...if they fancied you, then you were set for life.

And once again you go into the "I don't like the idea of it, so it shoudln't be legalized". Well, a lot of people don't like the war in Iraq, but guess what? It's still going on. So people learn to deal with it, and the war going on right now has probably cost more lives than prostitution ever would if it was legalized.

An idiotic argument, but it matches what you believe about the whole situation it seems.

Yeah, this is going to be the point where most people are going to have to disagree with you, since most people don't think that our government should be playing nanny for adults.

This also doesn't account for why, necessarily, prostitution is a bad decision. With social and economic opportunities being the way they are for many people it can actually be the best decision, pimps and all. Are conservatives like you willing to give people the relief to keep them from turning tricks?

This is just it though Brady. You tend to forget that most conservatives are bible thumpers...most I've met. Most of them don't give a damn about the people on the streets right now. All they care about is perserving their way of life, what they believe is right and wrong, and they want to make damn sure that if anyone is doing what they consider 'wrong' that it be under the worst conditions possible so that they either become a born again, or die.

People like killerpineapple here, they don't care about people in general, all they care about are the people they 'fall in love with' or family members and how they can further protect their morals. They are like a subtle Westboro Baptist Church.

In a free country, you can't legislate morality. Period. The man raised the point when he said we don't need the government playing nanny. You know what we especially don't need? The government playing moralistic measuring stick. You want to do anal? Fuck you, go do it. You want to shit on your partner's chest? Go for it. But I don't want to see it. This is the same sort of problem as gay marriage. People don't like it because it makes them feel all icky. Well you know what? That's -your- problem. Your sexual hang-ups are not good reasons for trying to make the bedroom under government control.

Prostitution is just something that makes straight laced people uncomfortable. Too bad. That's not a good enough reason.

Most conservatives are bible-thumpers. Probably true. I would even go further and say that a great deal of bible-thumpers are misguided in their faith. But I would absolutely not put myself in that particular group.

I care a great deal for people in general. So do a lot of people who share my views. Maybe that makes us a minority, even in the Christian world. A sad state of affairs to be sure. But to say that I want people to suffer as much as possible when they do something I consider wrong is completely untrue. Please don't make assumptions about me, or anyone for that matter. Invariably you tend to be wrong. Sometimes, as in this case, completely wrong.

While a host of other reasons have come up, the most powerful argument I stand beside when countering legalized prostitution is the moral basis. Obviously I'm going to automatically stand at odds with those who don't feel that government shouldn't regulate morality. It is indeed a free country. Nevertheless, laws do exist that regulate morality. I'm clearly not in favor of abolishing all these laws. I'd imagine that would mean most of us are clearly unhappy with the legal system here. If enough of the country cherishes those sentiments then a change in the future will surely happen.

I can't really compare prostitution to gay marriage, anal sex, and um...colorful sexual habits. Totally separate issues that need to be handled as such, if they even need to be addressed in the first place. But you're right Deni, being merely 'uncomfortable' isn't enough of a reason to enact policy. The effect prostitution has on people (in my opinion) is damaging to them on a physical and mental level. This damage extends beyond the two people involved and begins to affect others. There is abuse associated with prostitution and after a little research I realized that legalizing it won't automatically solve those problems. I'm not blindly following my religious teachings...I've analyzed it, pondered it, and I honestly agree with it.

Please name one. I'm genuinely curious to see what you think kind of law you'd cite as an example of this. I'm going through a list of what I imagine you might say, and I can think of good counter-arguments for most of them. Not all, but most. Obviously there's a chance you might have thought of something I didn't

I want to follow that particular line of debate to see where it leads. I've had this discussion before, and as such I don't believe that morality is legislated to any great extent in America. I believe that attempts have been made to do so, but they have largely been defeated. I think that you're looking at some of the things that the law does protect and seeing "morality" when really it's something else that has the protection of the law.

If your country legislates morality, then no it isn't. I know you're going to go with things like drinking and driving, but that's a matter of public safety, not morality. You can get as drunk as you want, you just can't endanger people while doing it. Legalised prostitution decreases risk, it doesn't increase it. When a country legislates morality, it isn't free. I'm not saying it's a police state, but it sure the fuck isn't a free country.

How are they separate? Wanting to pay for sex can be considered a vice right up there with sadism, and I promise you, if your government ever tried to take that away from me, I'd vote from the rooftops. (see? Deliberately exaggerating there. To make a point.)

The bad effects of prostitution are largely attributed to the fact that woman are often trapped into this position, deliberately kept in poverty and a sort of slavery so they can never escape the lifestyle. Ask prostitutes in Holland how taxing mentally their job is. Also, you're lying with statistics here. It's the circumstance, not the act that is responsible for it. There's a dude at NYU named Don Kulick who does a lot of research with this stuff. He's written a few books on it, Taboo and Transvesti being the most applicable here. And no, legalizing anything doesn't complete solve any of the risk involved. There's a risk to getting on a carnival ride, you want to outlaw those, too? What it does is make it controlled, it MINIMIZES the risk. And trust me, the stats on violent crime during prostitution go WAAAAAY down when it's legalized, like, 95% down.

Hey guess what? High school has a profound damaging effect on a lot of kids' mentallity and physical state. What with being bullied, teased, and beat-up.

I have an idea, how about we abolish schools altogether? Because I know my entire high school career was icky, and I personally believe that the world would be a better place without teachers and establishments in which they can do their craft.

See how silly your words are above now?

I'm still wondering how killerpineapple thinks that putting people into prison and/or stigmatizing their record is forgiving them for their transgressions. That's something I don't think was ever addressed, since I doubt he wants to think about it.

Hey guys,

Soluzar: Gee I guess it depends on what you consider morality issues. Prostitution certainly qualifies as one for me. Here's more, some allowed by law, other not so much: suicide, drug use, statutory rape, public indecency, abortion, slander/libel, FCC guidelines, animal testing, racism, fur industry, gay marriage. Of course there's hardly anything along the lines of "love thy neighbor" on the books which is what your maybe looking for. (Racial discrimination comes a little close I guess.) With stuff like that, yeah, there's not very much I can think of that's a law. Hrm. Tell me if I'm understanding you correctly or not about that.

Denicalis: Same issue as Soluzar. I'll concede your point if we're talking about "love thy neighbor" kind of stuff. I still think a lot of my list qualifies as morality issues though. :P There's a variety of reasons why I can't lump gay marriage, anal sex, and prostitution into the same category. Some of it has to do with my faith (warning: don't try to 2nd guess me on the gay marriage issue ;) ) and some of it has to do with what I feel are the social implications...or whether there are any implications to begin with.

And I'm totally on board with you guys that safety issues with prostitution will go way down if it's legalized. I'm more interested however in protecting people from becoming involved in the first place. I wouldn't want the people I love to do it (most people feel that way) and I feel that even people I don't know should be protected from it. Some people want the right to be able to fudge up their life. I'd rather they didn't have those opportunities.

Grail: Sorry, I don't quite see what was so silly about my words. I'll play along though. I don't think high school should be outlawed. Instead we should legalize bullying and physical assault. That way the teachers and staff, who are stronger and wiser, can provide those same experiences in a safer environment with immediate access to medical treatment and counseling. The bad things still happen, but the damage is reduced to an acceptable level. Perhaps it will open up career opportunities for bullying specialists thereby helping with the economy as well. Bleh, what I just wrote is juvenile, irrelevant, and worst of all unfunny. But the highschool/prostitution comparison wasn't very well constructed either.

Bradylama: I have thought about forgiving criminals. Yes, I'm obligated to forgive people for their thoughts and deeds. That doesn't mean that if I was king I would let every murderer run free. The rest of the people need to be safe from those who would endanger them. So it is possible to forgive someone and still incarcerate them. I'm not sure what you mean about "stigmatizing their record" so I'll try to guess. Actually I'm too tired to guess. Brain hurts. I'm not sure if you're talking about labeling people or processing someone as a felon which can hurt their opportunities in the future. Let me know which, or if it's something else.

Good night!

Don't you think that your wishes for people shouldn't override their own when it comes to having the individual right to do something that isn't necessarily harmful? That's what I think. This point has been made a bazillion times already, though. It seems like this thread is mostly one dude explaining how the world would be if he was master of the universe and never checked his suggestion box.

Brothels do exist. There's places you can go and legally be with a woman for a night - but they're trained specialists that can give you massages and all that other fancy stuff.

Look at what you just posted above me. You'd like to protect them from fudging up their lives. Fair enough, but guess what? Even the smartest kids who go to high school could end up blowing their own brains out, or someone else's due to bullying and non-acceptance. I certainly don't want MY CHILDREN to experience this kind of travesty such as bullying. So denying them the experience of high school, and what it can do for them, I am in fact doing my job as a lovely member of society by closing my eyes, ignoring the facts, and going nyah nyah nyah.

Is this not sinking in to you? Or are you just a troll who's opinion is law?

I just don't think you seem to get it. You don't want your kid to grow up and be a prostitue, fair enough, but I don't want my kid being bullied throughout their whole life like I was in school. Either way, however, it's bound to happen. What choices do I have? Home school? Private school? Teach my kid to beat up other kids first?

Personally, I think you're nothing but scum. Telling adults what to do with themselves, and making sure one job profession that's been as old as time continues to stay outlawed so that those who might not even WANT to be in that profession, forced if you will, continue to stay that way because it's not legalized...that's just fucking pathetic. And you sir will be the one burning in hell.

Honestly, put two and two together pineapple. If prostitution becomes legalized, that puts less demand on streetwalkers because, for the most part, everyone will be going to the actual establishments due to health and safety reasons. Streetwalker rates go down, Pimps start dissapearing...Less girls forced into being streetwalkers because, well, there would be no use for them.

I think it's pathetic that you only want to protect your loved ones. IF something good could come out of legalizing prostitution. Why not be for it? If it makes the world a better place because people CHOOSE to go into the profession, why would it be so bad for it to be legalized?

Oh...I forgot...It's icky. Well checking cow shit for health and a steady diet is an icky job...but is it outlawed? Fuck NO bitch. And once again, I'm going to sit back and lounge in the sweet irony that your daughter, upon reaching adulthood, will in fact probably turn tricks for a living. Sweet irony for those that can't get it through their heads that compassion just doesn't mean caring for immediate family members.

Since Denicalis obviously has this one, is it OK if I just cede the floor to him? He's much better at this kind of thing than I am. The point I'd like to make is that those laws don't legislate morality for the most part. They legislate the protection of minors, infringing on the rights of others, and things like that. You're mistaking those laws for legislated morality because they happen to be compatible with your idea of morality, but that's not entirely an accurate view.

I'll leave it to Deni from now because I know he can pull this off better than I can.

I want to ask, but it would derail the thread. The only reason you could have for posting that is because you feel your view is not the same as that of the stereotypical Christian, which means...

Damn. I don't want to drag the thread off-topic. :(

Your idea of improving society is to curtail the rights of the individual. Maybe you'll live to see the day when society is improved so much that some rights you care about are the ones that the "morally superior" are interested in taking from you.

Should that day come, I hope that somehow you are reminded of this thread.

Ok.

Suicide is not a moral law. And the law against suicide is laughable. It shouldn't be on the books at all. "Try and kill yourself? Fined!"

Drug use is illegal for many reasons, however, a large majority of drug laws are moral ones, and they're stupid and shouldn't exist either. See: Holland. Legalize drug use, reduce drug crime and the problems associated with drug addiction.

Statutory rape: Is usually based on the concept of being of sound mind to consent. Age of consent in Canada is 14. Every 15 year old I've ever met has been smart enough to understand the ramifications of sex. People who say a 17 year old fucking a 22 year old is somehow immoral are hilariously fooling themselves. As if that 17 year old doesn't know what they're doing.

Public indecency says what you can't do in a public forum, not what you can't do, period. I'm not saying people should be allowed to hire a prostitute and get a blowjob in the city square. Privacy of their own bedroom etc.

abortion should never be illegal. Ever. It's fucking insulting to women to say you have a right over what they can do with their body.

Slander/libel just says you can't LIE about someone in a damaging way. If they stole from a company, and you can prove they did it, it isn't slander.

FCC is a joke. That IS legislating morality. The only thing that should decide what is fit for the ears of the public is the public. Don't like it? Turn it off.

Animal testing is more about cruelty than a right to anything. It stops undue suffering, not unlike abolishing the guillotine.

Racism isn't illegal. Inciting people to murder someone because of racism is. Huge difference.

Fur industry isn't illegal, it's just rejected by a large section of society. People can choose not to purchase anything they want. They're free to that right.

Gay marriage is the same thing. They legislated morality, something they have no right to do.

A free country doesn't legislate morality, it legislates the state. Stay out of the bedrooms of the people.

Abortion makes me sad :(, but I agree with you.

I think it's sadder that a bunch of men in suits can determine what women can or can't do with their bodies.

Sorry Grail, I'm not understanding that last sentence. But that may be because I didn't really understand what it was I wrote about highschool earlier. About your other thoughts though...

I have two fundamental problems with the highscool/prostitution comparison. First, one is required (with few alternative options) and the other is a career choice of sorts. Second, the bad parts of high school are caused by its participants outside the original intent of instruction while the bad parts of prostitution (to me) is the act itself.

Three corrections I need to make from your post Grail
1) I AGREE with you guys that legalized prostitution will make the industry safer but I still feel it should be outlawed for reasons I've stated many times. I'm not expecting you to agree with those reasons, just understand that's how myself and millions of other people think.
2) I've stated twice that I care for both people I know and people I don't. So I'll say it again...I care about and want to help people I don't even know.
3) I also never used the phrase "icky", but at least that inference makes a little bit of sense. But the way you're kind of quoting me on it really makes some assumptions about my opinions that just aren't true.

To those I've annoyed: I apologize to anyone whom I've flat out said "you're wrong" to. Not cool of me. I'm trying mainly to explain my position. In this case it seems fairly important since most of us think prostitution is legal and yet it remains illegal in most of the U.S. My unique stance lets me explain how the 'other side' thinks. I have no doubts that it comes off as trolling, and to some degree it fits the definition perfectly, although I'm not intentionally trying offend anyone.

I know most of you guys think I'm scum. :( I guess I'm 'okay' with that. Obviously i don't agree. Or at least not for my thoughts on this particular issue. ;)

Soluzar: I realize the danger of limiting the rights of an individual and yet in certain situations (like prostitution) I feel the safety and comfort of the many outweigh the rights of the few. A huge point of disagreement, I know.

I kinda agree with how the protection of minors seems to be more basic and fundamental than moral issues. I can't really explain it but those types of laws just seem "right". There's some gray area, like how young is too young and so forth, but most of those laws seem right on without any controversy that accompanies moral issues.

Perhaps one day I will lose some rights I cherish to a political force that justifies those laws with the morality argument. I'm obligated by my faith to endure any laws that don't interfere with my salvation. But I'd be lying if I said that I wouldn't be disappointed to lose my right to vote, or my right to marry who I want, or any number of rights. Still, my thoughts on prostitution wouldn't change.

Denicalis: You totally put much more thought into this than I have. I certainly don't disagree with you on every issue either. I'm just gonna pick a few to respond to, and briefly so, since it is gets away from the main topic.

Drug use: This is a complicated one for me. Not every drug is equal. I think alcohol and cigarettes are much more dangerous to users and to society than many illegal drugs. This issue does bear some strong similarities to the prostitution issue, but drugs seem more complicated to me.

Abortion: This is indeed a sad issue. :( I think there are times when it is utterly inappropriate. But I can't see any way to legislate it perfectly. It is an incredibly complicated issue. Here's a quote from an alien impersonating Bob Dole on The Simpsons as he tries to make all the voters happy, "Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!"

The FCC: Yeah, it's a joke. Maybe it will get better when all TV media goes digital and parental guide settings are mandatory on television receivers. I still don't want porn on channel 5 and Sesame Street on channel 4.

Racism: You can't kick someone out of a restaurant or cab because of ethnicity. Employers can't discriminate who they hire based on race. To me this is an example of morality laws being useful to everyone (except racists i suppose). But I gather some of us might not categorize this as a morality thing.

Exactly. If women or men can't sell their bodies for money in a well organized way, and if homosexuals can't marry who they want to marry...what gives you the right, right now, to do the same?

Edit: As for my whole 'highschool/prostitution' deal. Think of it this way: Think of the teachers as prostitutes, and then think of all the men going to their service as students or whatnot.

In each area there are risks and dangers to be had...students getting bullied in high school, women finding out that their husbands cheated on them with a prostitute blah blah blah...either way, both are damaging in their own rights, but in the end who really ends up getting hurt the most? You can't tell me a straight answer like that.

Kid snaps, shoots up a school...jealous guy/girl over a prostitute shoots up a brothel. Both would be rare occurances.

Funnily enough, sending more pimps and prostitutes to jail means early parole for murderers. :tpg: Oh, Justice System, it's like you have finite resources.

I feel confident that my safety is being ensured against the threat of Call Girls. Give me a fucking break.

Both. Being processed as a solicitor is going to cut you off from a lot of opportunities, whereas if it was a legal practice any whore could walk away from pulling tricks and go into another field.

Ah, that does make more sense. But I still have to disagree with your main point for the two problems I mentioned before regarding the comparison itself and my general thoughts on the issue.

You're right, I can't give a straight answer. I'm not sure it's possible. I don't think high school and prostitution should be compared in the first place. So forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you and write an answer that misses the point. Here goes...

At first glance I don't think you can say with 100% accuracy that school violence is more or less hurtful than violence in the sex industry. But the sex industry isn't a required part of American culture. The crimes and abuse that happen to prostitutes and erotic dancers signify consequences of an unnecessary part of life. Thus it should follow that such consequences could be avoided entirely (only it doesn't follow because in the case of prostitution people continue to do it illegally, which I really wish they wouldn't).

If instead you compared prostitution to something like being a late night liquor store clerk, it might make more sense. Both are professions where the clients come voluntarily. Both are linked to violence against the seller. Both allow patrons to do indecent things (fornication vs. alcohol, cigarettes, and twinkies). But I would still argue that prostitution is worse because it offers nothing of redeeming value to society as a whole and in my opinion actually worsens it. A liquor store at least provides food, water, and other amenities.

Well is was referring to murder at the time. But I'm okay with imprisoning a prostitute in places where it is illegal. Doing so prevents people from being able to solicit one.

Okay, I think I already answered the prison part of the question. As for labeling someone...that also doesn't get in the way of my ability to forgive someone. In places where prostitution is illegal it's just a matter of disclosure. But as I said, I need to be forgiving, and when encountering such people I absolutely must not judge them by their criminal record alone and be open minded as they explain it to me. I've learned that EVERYTHING in life is more complicated than it seems initially.

The situation changes in places where prostitution is legal. If I were to meet a prostitute there I still need to be forgiving and open minded. When it comes to public issues I could not and should not limit their opportunities in accordance with the law of the land. For private issues it would be up to me to decide. Do I want this person as a babysitter? Probably not. Although I still forgive them for what I believe to be a sin, I can still choose not to let a person like that into my house if I have good reason to do so. In this case I don't want a person who approves of that lifestyle being an influence on my family. What if this person is teacher for my child during the day and a prostitute at night? If I don't want to allow that (and I can't say for certainty that I won't) then I'm the one who must bear the burden of moving my child to a different school. It would be absolutely unfair of me to demand that teacher be fired. It would also be unfair of me to demand that my child be moved to a different teacher in the same school or even to vocalize my discomfort to the community and smear the teacher's name. The same courtesy should be extended to convicted prostitutes who served their time and now abide by the law.

Look, what this is going to come down to is that KP believes his morals are more important than freedom of choice. And no amount of arguing is going to change that. He thinks some archaic, non-existent utopia of judeo-christian morality is the key. I say its suffocating and strangles the life out of a man. It's never going to get worked out, though. Because you can't convince him with logic, and he can't convince us with belief.

Right, but whoring isn't a danger to the public, and while you can argue that whores spread diseases, this is easily avoided through medical regulations.

That's great, but you're not an employer, who tends not to be so forgiving when it comes to trusting their potential employees. Nor are you a justice system. You're absolving yourself of any responsibility regarding the incarceration of prostitutes by forgiving them on a personal level while the state continues to keep their practices in the margins and limit their potential for personal development. Then when you're confronted about the fact that their lives are being ruined, you argue some letter of the law bullshit, which you don't care about to begin with since you don't think prostitution should be legal.

You have a hypocritical and shortsighted worldview.

No school board is going to want to employ a teacher who doubles as a working girl. You're inventing ridiculous hypotheticals.

Although I'd say it a little differently, in general I'd have to say...

yup. :)

And to Bradylama: Well you can't blame me because prostitutes don't behave the way I want them to and also because the justice system doesn't behave the way I want them to either. I wish both sides abided wholesomely. Hypocrite just isn't what I am. Shortsighted? Perhaps. Just longing for a better world. Sorry about the hypothetical, someone else had brought it up earlier and I was just returning to it.

So, how can you be this openly blind? I just don't understand.

You basically admitted to being illogical and irrational, you know that, right? Way to step into a bear trap you phlegmatic fuck.

Yeah and I hope that NEVER happens. I'm definitely not looking forward to wall watching as the pinnacle of entertainment.

This makes sense, yes, but you could be (and I have a feeling you are) talking out of your ass here.

Whoa ho ho, just confirmed it. Stating that cigarettes are more dangerous than any illegal drug, no matter which one you choose to use as an example, is just about the dumbest statement I've heard in a very, very, very long time. This confirms, beyond a shadow of a doubt, you're nothing but an over-sheltered, ignoramus, morality imposing prick. Go die in a fire.

PS: I bet you're religious too.

Ignoramus? You just ignored the letter m in his "any".

Err... it's tricky wording but it's right.

Well I'm used to being misinterpreted and over analyzed at this point. No biggie. ;)

Care to elaborate?

I'm genuinely curious how you think cigarettes could be worse than any street drug you care to use as an example.

If you weren't stupid, you'd have realized he said "many" which means NOT all, thereby admitting that there are illegal drugs worse than cigarettes. The point here is that things like weed are illegal and harmless whilst things like cigarettes which have many negative health as well as environmental factors are legal. Way to pay attention.

Christ Bessy, you're more clueless than he is.

First, I used the word "any" meaning he could use any example he wanted. Get it? I know he said many. You weren't the first astrophysicist to make this deduction.

Second, who the fuck are you kidding saying marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes. Smoking cigarettes don't alter your state of mind. Example: It's far safer to drive after smoking a cigarette than it is to drive after smoking a joint. Long term effects?



Now, if you feel the need to step away from your chocolate cake for two seconds and blurt out any other stupid shit feel free, otherwise, stop shitting all over pineapple's statements and let him speak for himself.

Trust me, you're only making him look smarter.

Wait.

Are you arguing that smoking butts is less harmful than smoking pot?

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there.

I mean, depending on the frequency of use of either item, cigarettes are far more harmful to the health of an individual than smoking pot is. (Granted, pot smokers don't usually smoke quite as much as cigarette smokers by habit, which should say something right there)

I could be wrong, but I have NEVER heard of death due to marijuana.

Cigarettes, however....

No, no.

The complete opposite. I'm saying smoking pot is more harmful.

And I've heard of plenty of deaths related to marijuana.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't saying "smoking pot is more harmful than cigarettes" the same as what sass said "smoking butts is less harmful than smoking pot"

Therefore, what you are arguing is the same as what she asked, and therefore not the complete opposite.

Anyhow...

I've always considered smoking anything to be equally dangerous. In the big picture, you're inhaling something into your lungs that they weren't meant to have put in them. Any kind of smoke is unhealthy. Campfire smoke can kill you if you breath in too much. So arguing the semantics of 'is tobacco smoke worse than marijuana' isn't gonna go anywhere.

Divest, did you read what I wrote. =/

I'll concede the point if you can prove more deaths nationally from marijuana than from cigarettes. =D

At the same time, we're losing the original point of the OP. I'm not sure if that's kosher or not, considering it's pretty much KP arguing with everyone who uses their brain.

On the topic of Marijuana being harmful. I had a friend that smoked pot. He died at the age of 19 from a rare lung disease. Now, I'm no doctor but the fact that it was something involving his lungs, just kinda leaves me to believe it might have had something to do with all the pot he smoked.

He died at 19 due to a rare lung disease. He shouldn't have been smoking anything, dude.

He didn't die because of marijuana use - the shit just sped up the degradation of his lungs, I imagine. But then, I'm not a doctor.

But seriously. Someone prove that pot kills more people nationally/annually than cigarettes! I'd love to see that one.

He didn't have the lung disease when he was smoking. He was in the hospital for 3 months dieing when they realized he had whatever it was. The bad thing is it sounded like the doctors didn't even know what it was he had.

Yes, yes, I read what you wrote but I'm here at work and I had to switch quickly between here and just hit the post button. I expected to have time to go back to it, but I see that wasn't the case. I may end up doing that again to this post so forgive me if that happens. Anyways, back to the discussion:

You have to understand that I'm comparing cannabis to tobacco directly, meaning tit for tat what the drug containts, not necessarily the rate of consumption.

It's well documented that the chemicals found in marijuana are more harmful than the chemicals found in tobacco, but tobacco is consumed at a more frequent rate. Having said that, marijuana is still technically the more dangerous drug (especially when it comes to short-term effects). You can argue that the reason tobacco is more harmful is because of the addiction it causes but you'd do well to remember that weed is an especially habit forming drug. Not to mention it does horrible things to your immune system.

Also, are we talking short term or long term effects here? Short term, come on. Cigarettes don't alter your mind whatsoever whereas cannabis most definitely does. Long term it's moreso a question of your ability to quit smoking cigarettes. If your average cannabis smoker were to smoke as habitually as your average tobacco smoker, the numbers would be higher. Then again, I have known a couple of pot smokers who DID smoke as habitually as a tobacco smoker and let me tell you firsthand, their health was complete shit. They would smoke [pot] like crazy for about two weeks, get extremely sick for about a week and cough up phlegm, then go back to smoking. Eventually they stopped because of this reason.

Divest, you're killing your own thread. I really don't want to respond to a tangent on a tangent but if I must: you've completely misunderstood me. When I say use the word 'many' I don't mean 'any'. I'm not sure why, or how, you thought that. I got a sneak peak of one of your posts before you edited and I know you're aware of this to some degree. I am not going to elaborate any more than that in this topic.

I'd like to get back to arguing with people who use their brains on the prostitution query if I could. The reason I brought up drugs was because I thought there were some interesting parallels to the prostitution. We really shouldn't be focusing on the drug issue itself though. At least not here.

It's been brought up that many (not any) of you disagree with me on what is a moral issue and what is just an issue. Hopefully by now we've gotten to a point where we at least understand how the millions of people like myself think. I'm not demanding that any (not many) of you be forced to agree with me. It's a controversial issue in the real world and it shouldn't surprise anyone that it became controversial here as well, if only because of myself.

I'm sure it's frustrating that what appears so basic and logical is not getting through to someone who writes well enough that he should know better. (On second thought, maybe me no write so well either) But I don't share most of your morals, and I'm entitled to my opinion, and even the logic I use with regards to serving the public is radically different. I'm enjoying the debate a lot and I appreciate the opposing point of view. As i said earlier, i agree with Denicalis that there's no chance I can convince you to see it my way, and I'm not going to change either.

That's fine and dandy, more than likely a lot of people won't change their views either. My biggest beef is that you are saying prostitution is harmful in a lot of ways, and therefore should continue to be illegal no matter what the circumstances are. Because of your religious/personal beliefs, this is the reason why, and apparently, the only reason why you think it should continue to be illegal.

The problem I have with that angle is you are refusing to see that prostitution has the POTENTIAL to do a lot of good, if it is legalized. You look right at the facts and ignore them completely because of your moral beliefs. What we don't understand is how you could be so against something that would cause a lot of certain crime rates to go down, help stop the spread of STD's and improve the well being of a lot of people.

As an example AGAIN: If your daughter turned 18 years old, and despite your best efforts to shield her from the world, she decides to become a prostitute, and there is nothing you can do about it. Would you rather have her walking the streets, getting beaten by some guy if she doesn't make a certain ammount of cash, or rather, would you want her in an establishment where at any time she can deny service, get good health benefits, or just quit at anytime and do something else with her life?

Or will you be a typical bible thumper, and assume she was never a part of your family to begin with?

I never said that you said "any". I said the word "any". The reason I said "any" was because I was stating that there wasn't any drug that was less harmful than cigarettes. Do you see where I'm coming from now?
Now since you said "many", besides the drug we're debating about now (marijuana), which drugs do you seriously think cigarettes top in terms of negative effects?
You didn't elaborate at all. You merely said "You didn't understand me!!! :gonk:" When I clearly did. How could I misinterperate
Now, I'm asking you, which drugs are you talking about? Sounds to me like the reason you don't want to elaborate is because you know you said something completely stupid and don't have the logic to back it up. The closest you could get to reason would be pot but you already blew that by saying "many".

Sorry Divest, good question, but not here. You can check out the RSA's findings in the Commision on Illegal Drugs if you wish.

Grail: To me the good that would result from legalized prostitution doesn't nearly match the good if it were abolished altogether and I'm talking about exterminating it even in its illegal form. I'm not ignoring the facts. I'm aware of them and still have arrived at my conclusion. Why do so many people automatically dismiss statistics that show that there is a drastic increase in the amount of abuse and violence against American workers in the sex industry? And that includes when it is legal. Even though I know it's highly unlikely that prostitution can be eradicated completely in places where it is illegal I'm unwillingly to give up on that cause. Because if it could be stopped entirely it would benefit society better than if were simply legalized and given government support. Disagree with me if you wish, but that is my reasoning.

If I hadn't mentioned it before, I would be heartbroken if my child became a prostitute. But that's not enough to magically make me want to alter the system so that's she protected from doing something that I told her not to do and that the law told her not to do too. In the end I am more concerned for her soul than her physical well being which is why I would prefer her to grow up in an environment that more closely shares my views.

Haha oh man. I don't even know how to respond to that either. :(

Yes, and if I could close my eyes and wish away all the BAD BAD things in the world, why, that would just be happy cakes and gum drops! Oh boy yes it would! Grow up. Violence, war, and prostitution have been as old as time itself. Instead of closing your eyes and wishing away the problem, you coudl be doing so much more by at least enacting laws that would control it, and make it safer. Course with violence and war, well, the only laws that go into effect make each case there more effiencent and a faster way to kill. So go figure.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want my kid growing up and selling her hoochie on an everyday basis. But I have learned that the more you shelter, and try to keep your child from finding out the bad things in this world, the more they are curious about it, the more attracted to it they become. It's human nature to be adventurous, curious, and moreso, seek what is forbidden. Your fucking Eve knew that much, according to the bible.

And as far as growing up in an environment that shares your views, that's a good start. Move to some place where prostitution isn't as widespread. Oh, and if she ever DOES ask what prostitution is, make sure you tell her that it's a filthy race of people that have no rights, no morals...they don't take baths, they eat babies and they all should be stoned because they belong to that part of society. That should scare her enough.

Maybe the war on prostitution is doomed. Another similarity to the drug issue. But you're asking me to condone something that I firmly believe is wrong. I can't do that no matter how bad we're losing.

Hey, I agree with you about the tendency of sheltering to backfire. It's important for people, even those as conservative as me, to be knowledgeable about the world and be able to handle exposure to it's less than savory parts. It's better to be able to deal with and resist temptation than to hide from it all your life.

I may be taking this out of context... but you are basically just confirming that you want her to follow YOUR views of what is right and wrong, and refuse to help your daughter if she were to ever develop her own.

Statistics show in countries where it is legal, to have much lower rates of rape and other sexual crimes. By taking prostitution off the street, you can take the employee's off the street and put them in a work environment where they would have the right to complain to police. Right now they know they have no one to turn to since their job is illegal, even though their pimp AND customers abuse them, and often end up dead or traumatized. However we've repeated this too many times already, lets get to the point.

The biggest problem here , and the reason why you will never change your mind (which very few people ever do ) is you are being selfish. You don't care how making prostitution legal would help others, or how many deaths/rapes it would prevent. You will defend where you stand to the very last, even if it would mean the death of 500 innocent people this year alone, simply because you think it is 'icky', and because your belief doesn't allow it.

That would be like Atheist saying "hey, religion and church are against my morals and I do not agree with them, therefore they should not be allowed even though on a logical level I have no problem with it and may help others and the community.". So then all of a sudden, your religion is outlawed, and illegal. How would you feel about that? To all of a sudden not have the freedom to follow your religion, all simply because the idea was 'icky' in someone's mind.

Lets just replace a word now

"hey, legal prostitution and sex are against my morals and I do not agree with them, therefore they should not be allowed even though on a logical level I have no problem with it and may help others and the community."

Wow, by just changing two subject words, I changed it from something that is against you (making church and religion illegal), into a sentence that is almost exactly what you are stating (making prostitution illegal). I bet the original sentence sounded pretty stupid to you and any other religious people, yet that is almost exactly what you are saying to us.

It all comes down to your selfish belief's and morals. "This is my belief, and I will be damned if I let you do something else, even though I agree with you that it would mean better treatment for those in the business, and maybe even prevent poor Jennifer from getting raped next week"

Here is a better scenario, as you seem to keep bringing up the daughter thing. What if your daughter got raped by some drunken guy, because he had an itch in his pants and could not pick up a girl, so he see's your daughter walking home from a friends place near a dark alley, and in his drunken mind, decides to have fun with her. Had prostitution been legal, he could have paid some woman for the fun and been done. She would have gone home safe, your daughter would have gone home safe, and Uncle Sam would have an extra $10 in his wallet. Sure, it probably won't be the exact case with your daughter, but I bet that scenario has happened more than once, resulting in the rape of some innocent girl somewhere in the world, and many more like it.

(I actually wanted to write my freshman paper on legalizing prostitution, but I was afraid of the negative connotations. *sigh* what an insecure kid I was back then)

Not much into replying in the Political Palace, but I'm curious: Killerpineapple, do you honestly think it's possible to COMPLETELY remove prostitution in the United States/world/wherever-you-live?

You seem intelligent if not stubbornly religious (nothing personal), so I'm just going to assume that you'll say "no, it's no possible." So then, rather than making the act illegal, wouldn't it be better to legalize it? (the 'lesser of two evils' so to speak?) A lot of things would be better; this isn't some sort of hypothesis based on what-ifs, we've already seen the positive effects of legalizing prostitution in many other countries, right?

Why is there such a negative feeling with sex/sex before marriage? I'm not sexually active person myself, but I honestly don't see what the big deal is; why would providing sex for cash (and health care and tax cuts!) worse than something like modeling? I understand that it's a precious and sacred thing to many, but not everyone feels like that, right? I mean, what gives you the right to preach and control if you can't back-up your ideas with facts and logic and instead fall back to your gut instinct, what 'you feel is right'?

Nope, that's not it at all. I would always be available to help anyone I care about. It's important to not stop loving someone just because they're going down the wrong path. I disagree with conservatives who disown their children because they're gay or what have you. I try to learn from the parable of the prodigal son.

I'm repeating myself yet again but I am not going to condone something that I know is wrong. If we can eradicate it completely in its legal and illegal forms then it would help more people than simply legalizing it everywhere. Why does it make me such a bad person to strive for the best? Studies have shown that people in the legal sex industry (including erotic dancers) are statistically much more likely to be the victim of abuse or sexual crimes because of their job. I've only perused studies done in America, but I still urge others to do so as well. Legalizing prostitution won't make that problem of violence and abuse toward sex workers go away because it already exists where such professions are allowed. The only way to make those sort of crimes disappear is to outlaw the profession entirely and weed out those who do it illegally.

Interesting point. (Can we stop with the "icky" already though?) The anti-prostitution support does not come solely from the religious populace. A more than significant amount of people oppose prostitution on moral beliefs not tied to any religion. There are many states where the majority of voters are liberal and yet prostitution is still only legal in one of them. There are places in the world where people are not allowed to practice religion by law. Of course it would be a drag for me, but I'd still continue to worship. It's unlikely that an officer of the law would feel compelled to arrest me since the way I worship has a negligible effect on my community and does not have any sort of negative impact. Or maybe I would get arrested. It happens in China even today. It's happened many places within the last 100 years. It happened to the apostles. I would feel burdened, but not so much that I would regret my faith.

I have problems with both sentences actually. And the two word switcheroo isn't all that convincing an argument either. I can turn something from normal to silly with only one word change. Behold my awesomeness... "Candy tastes good." vs. "Poop tastes good."

Rape is a predatory crime. You cannot make the assumption that all rapists, or even a majority of them, would use prostitutes as an outlet for their sexual desires. Nevada is the 35th largest state and has the 33rd most rapes. Shouldn't Nevada exhibit less rapes per capita instead of slightly more?

I'd prefer people wouldn't make assumptions, but you actually got me right. :) No, I don't think society will ever completely get rid of prostitution, even if it tries to. At the same time I don't think that should have the most bearing on what we decide to legalize. How could you apply that argument to murder, stealing, or other crimes? It's a never ending battle, but that's exactly how it is for most crimes. By focusing on certain crimes we can make a positive impact even if we don't squelch it out completely. I applaud those successes. We have one state from which to draw information about the benefits of prostitution and at this point it isn't a slam dunk so to speak.

From the Christian standpoint there shouldn't be a negative sentiment towards sex. Christians who feel that way or spread that message are ones that don't understand their faith. To a Christian, sex is supposed to be a beautiful thing meant to be shared by husband and wife. My feelings on premarital sex are purely guided by my faith. I don't expect or demand that others live by my standards in that regard. My feelings on prostitution however are guided by both my faith and my instinctual human understanding. Here's some facts: An overwhelming amount of people would be unhappy if a loved one became involved in prostitution. This is a basic human reaction with or without religious guidance. Logically we all want the best for ourselves and the people we know and love. Prostitution is never part of that equation. Is that enough to create a law? Well, we aren't supposed to interfere with free will unless we feel it is harmful to people. Myself and others feel that harm indeed occurs thus we can set up laws to prevent it. Another group sees no harm being done and feels prostitution should be protected by law.

And guess what buddy? Most of our laws...oddly enough...stem from religious settlers. I have no idea why, but prostitution is the only crime in the US right now that is only illegal because it could 'hurt' someone's feelings if someone they cared about became a prostitute.

Your 'harm' that you talk about is someone doing something that doesn't even INVOLVE you, making a choice on how they work. That is selfish, and by god, idiotic.

While we are at it. How about we target another demographic Killerpinapple. Every adult has sexual urges...the urge to procreate, if you will. Well, let's say that someone is so emotionally sheltered, has an odd quirk about them, or for the longest time, even though he has done his best to be a good person...he just can not find anyone to have sex with him.

Let's also say that this guy has a track record of being a nice guy, but dag-gonnit...every female around him is only into the 'wifebeating' kind of guy. This guy is at his wits end...he can't find a girl, he can't even derive pleasure from strokin the bishop. Why should those who are socially incapable, or overall not that attractive, be deprived from doing a basic human act? Sure, he has to pay for it, but in the end he finally is satisfied, and perhaps helps out his self-esteem/social outlook on life.

And ya know what twinkle-toes? The majority of people who would use legalized protitution would fit under this category. Does that make them a bad person? In your eyes, yes it would. Despite the fact that said gentleman above did nothing to harm himself, or the prostitute he payed, he is still a bad person in your book, deserving of going to hell because he didn't want to suffer under the image that your god made for him.

So...Is it in your beliefs that a man, or a woman, should go without having sex because they can not find a suitable mate? That, try as they might, they can not find a wife or husband, so that deems them unworthy of having sex? That's what I hate most about people who are religious and have faith. No matter how nice they come off, they ALWAYS fucking make themselves look to be better than everyone else in the world.

Wait a sec? We all know prostitution is undesirable, I don't want to let people do it, and that makes me selfish? I'd be a hypocrite if I condoned an action that I knew was wrong. And the politicians and voters who decided to outlaw prostitution in 49 states didn't do so ONLY because the act hurts the feelings of people not even involved.

On the other hand, I'm totally okay with you thinking my stance on prostitution is idiotic if you also believe that all laws that prevent people from doing things that don't directly hurt others are idiotic. I guess that would include stuff like drug abuse and suicide. Your answer won't change my beliefs, but there'd be no point arguing if you said yes.

I'm not sure I trust your instinct that most people who pay strangers for sex are upstanding citizens who have extreme difficultly getting into a loving relationship with a woman. I'd actually like to learn more if you can provide some studies or statistics...but it wouldn't sway my opinion. Who is saying that having sex is a right? It's a basic human urge, like the desire to be accepted and loved, the desire to become wealthy, etc. Saying that people are entitled to have sex one way or the other doesn't sound like judgement based on factual evidence or logic. We aren't talking about breathing and eating.

I'm pretty religious and have a good amount of faith...but it really doesn't seem like I'm coming off as a nice guy in this topic. Perhaps in other circles people perceive me as a nice guy, but that's their perception. I'm not trying to make myself look great compared to other people. Real Christians are a humble sort of folk. Don't let the fake ones ruin it for the rest of us.

One last question...Twinkle toes? ;)

Wait, we do? Because I think the large majority of us here are saying there's nothing wrong with is.

And you'd be a fucking ignorant prick if you said what is wrong for you is wrong for everyone.

No, they did it because they were reactionary and it was a bad decision. These are also the same people who voted for prohibition.

They are. That's the point.

Do you even begin to realise how ignorant you sound when you say that? And for the record, go read Four Hundred Thousand Swedish Perverts by Don Kulick for your stats that WON'T SWAY YOUR OPINION, as you've decided BEFORE EVER READING THEM. God, go fuck yourself.

You realise that right now, you're the guy ruining it for the rest of them.

I suppose he assumes that he looks pretty good when compared with LordsSword, but honestly... I'm not sure just how great the differences are.

Deni just summed up about everything that I had to say about your last post, Pineapple.

Most laws that are still in effect today, had been instituted back ages ago. Times change, people change, morals change.

A fine example would be that now instead of sacrificing a goat to appease your god, all you have to do is believe in him and pray. Back in the day sacrificing goats/chickens was a common thing, now...fuck...PETA would be on your ass faster than a gay man with a ticket to the ass parade.

Additional Spam:
He doesn't have a quote from the bible after every sentance?

Additional Spam:
Also...you have got to be fucking KIDDING ME. We can have sex with whomever we desire, as long as they are conscenting to it as well. We have the right to have sex with others who are willing to agree to have sex with us as well.

What we DON'T have a right to do is have sex with those who do not fully understand what they are getting into, and we do not have the right to force ourselves onto someone who isn't willing to do so.

If you say that we don't have a right to have sex, well, take away people who need machines to help themselves breath, or take away the jobs people have that help the mentally handicap eat right. Some people need help eating, breathing, and pooping right...some people need help having sex. What the hell is your problem?

The large majority of us are saying prostitution is okay. But most of us have also said that ideally they wouldn't want it their loved ones to be involved. To me this indicates that there is something wrong with it. This isn't the major point to of contention but rather whether or not people have the right to do whatever they want to themselves.

I haven't said that everything I think is wrong is wrong for everyone. I've even pointed instances where I don't expect people to live by my standards of right and wrong.

The sad story of someone who can't get sex for free doesn't change my view point. Since it doesn't affect my opinion then stats and studies about that specific situation will do nothing other than to satisfy my curiosity. Triple quoting aside, I'm not sure Denicalis, if you were aware that I wasn't referring to statistics in general. It would be nice if someone acknowledged the stats I mentioned regarding violence within the legal sex industry or rapes per capita in Nevada. But if not, no biggie.

I don't see how I'm "ruining it for them". You guys disagree with me. Fine. I'm not attacking anyone. I'm not misrepresenting my faith or the people who share my political views. My viewpoint stands at extreme odds to most of yours but I'm not trying to convince or convert anyone. I just explain where people like myself are coming from. It's totally fine to reject my stance. I'd prefer not to be insulted, named called, or told to F myself...but if that's what you want to do then by all means go for it. :) It's okay with me.

There seems to be a lot of discontent toward lawmakers past and present. While I share that sentiment from time to time I can't help but acknowledge that most of these people understand politics and law much more than me. It's possible that most or all of you are smarter than I and perhaps as smart or smarter than the lawmakers in question. Should that be the case then there would be an abundance of capable people in society sharing your viewpoint. In a matter of years we will see changes made to the law that reflects the overwhelming sentiments expressed in this thread. In any case it's pointless to yell at me for laws whose creation I had nothing to do with. ;)

Many well thought arguments have been made here, but this is still just a forum for people who like video game music. Several of you claim that current laws are stupid and created by stupid people, but this does little to affect my opinion. Why should I value the opinions of people here more than those who earned there way into a legislative position? I don't agree with every law on the books but that doesn't cause me to think someone is an idiot for not sharing my opinion. There just isn't an infallible argument to inform the world that prostitution should and must be legal. Hence all the controversy. Everyone is entitled to think people like me are idiots, but that doesn't it make it true.

Sex is a right? Not really, but I understand what you're getting at Grail. I gather you are very passionate about sex to compare it to eating and breathing. While sex certainly is intensely enjoyable, I can't put it on the same level as energy consumption and oxygen respiration in terms of necessity.

The stats for rape in Nevada are with very constrained laws concerning prostitution across an entire state wherein the total amount of brothels are seriously constrained in their placement and their usage. Go look up the rape totals in Holland, and then expect us to pay attention to you.

And yes, a lot of us here like game music. But a lot of us have, for instance, a Masters and working towards a phD in the social sciences. Some of us have a degree in law. Some of us have degrees in history.

There should NEVER be an instance wherein your opinion of right and wrong weighs heavily over the people, because you are a self-righteous, moralistic little prick. The point is that no one should mandate sexuality or morality ever. And you disagree with that, because you want people to do things the way you want them done, instead of letting them decide for themselves.

Don't want your daughter sucking cock for money? Raise her so she won't. Welcome to a free country. A law where if that little girl grows up, decides she wants to suck dick for money, and goes to prison for it when she's hurt absolutely no one but her daddy's precious feelings? The laws gird too tightly, sir. You have -no- right to dictate law. And the people who did were overstepping their bounds as governors. But you're right, who are we to know better than law makers?

Oh right, that's the purpose of an informed populace. To question their leaders. If they act in a way unbecoming to our beliefs of what a nation should be, we oust them, have them replaced. The leaders fear the people, not vice versa. The joy of democracy. Some laws are stupid. Up until quite recently a woman couldn't vote, a black man couldn't go to school white men. Should we not have overturned those? Were those just and righteous laws, sir? The men who made those laws were the same men who made laws about prostitution and gay marriage. So again, sir, go fuck your half-witted arguments.

I'm not going to dismiss that statistics in Nevada so easily. Because of it's location it has greater implications for U.S. policy. But then again, I already said it's no biggie if nobody here pays attention to me.

I've stipulated that I can't assume anybody disagreeing with me is less intelligent than I. They could just as well be smarter than me or even smart enough to one day be in a position to affect law. It would be pretty cool to get the insight of a practicing lawyer especially if they specialize in this particular subject.
I feel like you're saying the same thing I did.
Just because you identify some stupid laws of the past doesn't automatically qualify you to pass judgement on current ones. You cannot say conclusively that the politicians instrumental in banning segregation and passing women's suffrage would likewise embrace gay marriage, prostitution, and snorting cocaine amongst other things. I suppose they could have but just decided it wasn't plausible or worth the effort, but I'm not going to assume that either. I also find it hard to believe that the men who prevented women from voting had their hand in all the major laws you disagree with today. Some evidence of such would be appreciated. Or perhaps you are generalizing "types of men" which isn't convincing either because stereotyping is not a legitimate argument.

Arguments that indicate guilt by association are fundamentally flawed as well. You can't say "Old white guy (or ones like him) prevented women from voting. Same guy is preventing prostitution. Therefore prostitution should be legal." You could use that method of thinking to discredit any law, good or bad.

I'm sure I don't present the best arguments, but that doesn't mean I have to accept other bad ones. Either way, thanks for calling me 'sir'. :cool:

You don't present good arguments, and you completely miss the point of those of others.

I didn't say individual men created the same laws, I said they were created in the same eras, and yet we overturned them for being stupid. As such, your argument that lawmakers know more than the society they serve is retarded. Your long winded reply makes my point about you, though. You'll make one argument, and then you turn around and think that you can change your argument point because its been proven wrong.

I'm not saying they would 'embrace' anything, I'm saying what I've said all along, a free society does not create laws that legislate morality. Your right to choose your own path, so long as it does not damage others, is absolutely your own choice. That is freedom, as I've held this entire time. But you feel free to keep flailing in your little cage.

I'm not sure what it was that was proven wrong that forced me to change my argument.

I do wish you would elaborate on your problems with my argument about lawmakers knowing the issues better than society. When women weren't allowed to vote it was an incorrect decision but at the time it echoed the prevailing sentiments of the so called free society. Times change, people change, and oddly enough politicians change too. If there weren't any lawmakers who agreed with the bulk of society then it stands to reason that no laws would ever change. I'm not sure why you think society knows more than your typical lawmaker. I enjoy the system of electing representative officials we trust to study the issues and vote on our behalf in order to save us time. Elected officials are the ones who got rid of segregation, not a popular vote by all members of society.

But then again I'm not sure why you brought this up at all since it doesn't directly support your ideals about laws within a free society. I admire your tenacity and I agree with your concept of choosing your own path. But I disagree greatly on what constitutes damage to others.

Perhaps another point of disagreement... Are laws that forbid racial or sexual discrimination moral in nature?

Legislatures will never be able to overturn prostitution bans because of the political ramifications. An opposition candidate running around saying "HE LOVES WHORES" doesn't look good, even if a majority of the population and a majority of the legislature agrees.

See: Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education

The Supreme Court of the United States, for one.

No. They are based on rights. There's no room to disagree here, if you disagree you're wrong. The facts support me when I say that these laws are based exclusively on the principle of safeguarding rights. Morals just don't come in to it. It's not illegal to discrimate against black people because that would be wrong. It's illegal because the constitution states that we all have equal rights.

You can get a bunch of people together in your house and discuss how much you hate black people all night if you want. What you can't do is infringe on any of a black person's rights. There are a whole bunch of legally protected ways to be a racist if you wish to do so. Your right to be as racist as you wish to be is protected by the Bill of Rights.

Excuse my use of the term "we" when I am not an American.

killerpineapple

We are not going to change your mind, and honestly I have no desire to. The problem is that our rights and freedom are being warped because of your personal beliefs. You are selfish, but everyone is. The church just so happens to be one of the most selfish entities on the planet, as they constantly feel they should push their view on morals on others , even if they don't want them. Stem Cell research is a excellent example. Something that could save thousands and thousands of lives, yet since the church doesn't deem it moral, they felt they had to ruin it for everyone that doesn't even share their view. Rather than just saying "well we won't use it because it's against our Faith", they felt that had to police the world and figured they spoke for everyone.

You also stated that if religion were banned, you would still do it in private. Is that not the same thing as the argument for prostitution? Paying money for sex is not a problem for most of us, and it yields many benefits, including what we hope would be a decrease in rapes.

I would personally like to see religion gone for good, but that doesn't mean I am going to try and burn down all the church's I can find. I respect your freedom enough to have no issues with you going to church, as long as it is not forced down my throat, which currently in a way, you are.

Thats both arrogant and dishonest.
You're arguing that the letter of the law is the spirit of the law. You're stating that the legal application of "rights" is the be-all-end-all. Perhaps legally speaking, yes you are correct. But it seems apparent that KP is leading to the wider context. By your assumptions, we would not have any need to reinterpret and reapply the constitution in any other contexts but the ones that it was established in.
However, the legal application of these "rights" is directed by, and subservient to, the morality of the greater public(though this concept does have a feedback influence on which direction the public morality moves).
Lets put it this way. Jim Crow laws weren't violations of legal rights until the greater public, and by extension the courts, felt that it was morally abhorrent, and in turn legally unacceptable. Given that our country's legal system operates on a system of natural rights, it was inevitable that these rights were used to justify the ban, and legally establish the greater morality.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not here defending killerpineapple. (Frankly, it looks like he just wants to get the last word.) I just can't sit around and tolerate that farce of a statement to stand.

I'll admit to arrogance in that instance, since I'm certain that the facts back my position. I won't admit to dishonesty, because I meant what I wote
I'm speaking legally, since we are discussing the law. KP's application of a wider context is nothing but a smokescreen to justify taking the rights of free men. It's precisely the same kind of absurd truthiness that the governments have been forcefeeding British and Americans for years now.

The law takes no moral position. It is nowhere stated that racial discrimination is wrong, or that racism is wrong. It is stated that racial discrimination is prohibited because the priniciples of a free society state that we may excercise our freedoms only in so far as they do not infringe on the freedom of others. That's all. If the principles of law were intended to serve morality, then racism itself would be prohibited, as would many other things which currently are not.

If you think I'm wrong, that does not trouble me. If you think I'm being dishonest about my views, that would bother me a lot.

Not true. The Jim Crow laws were always in violation of the basic rights with which all men are endowed. All men are considered equal, it says so right there in the constitution. The Jim Crow laws were an obvious violation of the constitution.

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but lets see what you think of my response.

I would say that racial discrimination is a moral issue but it turns out that if I do I'm wrong. :( Some people, lots of them in fact, don't want the government limiting their rights to choose who they can hire, or let in a restaurant, or admit into a school.

I guess it is kind of fucked up. In order to assure equal rights they have to impose morals.

And GASP! Lots of people don't want the government limiting their right to choose a profession that does not infringe on anyone else's rights, or harm them in anyway possible.

With prostitution, the only thing you're talking about is the 'collateral' harm that will come with it becoming legalized. That it will hurt your feelings.

Well, I think a lot of small business owners feelings got hurt when wal-mart strolled into town and put them out of business. Should walmart's be illegal now?

That's not what I said at all. I said that if you think that the law is based on moral principles, you'd be wrong. The facts don't support that conclusion, no matter how arrogant some people might find it of me to say that. The facts support the conclusion that the law is intended to safeguard the equal rights with which all men (and women) are endowed. The whole of American law from the constitution up takes this tone.

Of course racial discrimination is a moral issue to you. You're not wrong, it's a moral issue to a lot of people, but that's not what the law is based on. It just so happens that the protection of the rights of the individual serves what you see as a moral end. A lot of laws designed to protect our rights also serve a moral end, even though they aren't based on any moral principle. How hard is it to understand?

Protecting your rights as an individual stops people from doing to you a lot of things that you would consider immoral. It does so because they don't have the right to limit your freedom by killing you, stealing your property, and discriminating against you based on race, gender, and oh... religious beliefs.

The principle of law is very simple. No person may excercise his rights where such excercise would necessarily infringe upon the free excercise of the rights of another. It's the basis for most of the oldest parts of the law.

I think I covered this already. They didn't start out with the right to limit the free excercise of the rights of another person. That's not something that's been taken from them, its's something they never had. Just like nobody has the right to prevent you from being a Christian.

If you are speaking of the law, then you are wrong. If you are completely limiting the discussion to that within the legal system, then I concede your point.
You seem to be misunderstanding me, or maybe I'm just sucking at explaining myself. Officially, the legal systems must remain independent of the transient morality of its constituents. However, to say that the creation and application of the law is irrefutably independent of public morality in real life is pretty naive. What those in my government have been trying to pull off is attempting to make that sort of thing official, which is exceptionally wrong, while doubly being misleading on what the public morality even is. (I don't know whats going on in England at the moment.)
I think you're being dishonest to the nature of law, not your views.
Hindsight is 20/20.
I half agree with you there. A law cannot justify itself by reference to any morality, as it is separate from the bounds of the legal system. However, on a philosophical and historical level, the very nature of jurisprudence has been moral. From the first origins in religious code, to modern conceptions of rights-based jurisprudence, legal systems were established to address moral and ethical issues in society.
"Rights" are just another human theoretical construction attempting to codify a universal morality which aims to please the largest number of individuals.

So to answer the original question, laws prohibiting racial and sexual discrimination, while not legally justified by reference to morality, are still, by extension of the nature of law itself, and by the nature of real-world pressures to create and enforce these applications of "rights," moral in nature.

Thanks for explaining your position more clearly Soluzar. I still disagree with you, I think. Brain hurting. :( 3..2..1...Begin babbling rant:

In nature there are no laws. That is real freedom. It's a true paradox that laws are required to ensure freedom for us humans. There's something innate within a person that let's us know what is right on wrong. With some fundamental issues there is no disagreement. We tend not to even think of those basic concepts of right and wrong as morals. Well, except people like me. I still tend to equate knowing right from wrong with morals. Maybe I'm totally butchering the definition, in which case I'm making it painfully difficult for anyone to understand my already whacked-out position. D'oh!

I like the term 'transient morality'. I can comfortably agree that those types of viewpoints should be left out of the lawmaking process. But in the case of prostitution, I'm bound to see transient morality differently than others. Controversy continues. Whee. :(

My thanks to many of you. Heh, even the ones who think I'm couldn't possibly be referring to you. :) Vacation beckons. Brain already shutting down. Don't think I'll be able to fully understand Soluzar and Packrats' thoughts until I get back, but this topic, especially this most recent page, was certainly thought provoking and enjoyable to read.

From this unintentional troll to all of you: Happy new year. :) Hope to see this thread still kicking in 2008.

You made the thread interesting. I don't think any of us think of you as a bad person, we just don't have the same moral opinion.

That's because you don't understand the nature of the position correctly. You see, we're not arguing fundamental concepts. We're arguing the modern American legal system, and it's really based on relatively simple concepts

Wrong. That's only "real freedom" for some people. The strong are "free" to take advantage of the weak, and to curtail the freedom of anyone less able than themselves. To ensure the maximum amount of "real freedom" for everyone is what requires a law, and I fail to see the paradox.

These laws have nothing to do with right and wrong though. They don't tell you what's wrong. They just enforce equal freedom to excercise your rights for everyone. They don't even do that because it's right to do that. They do that because it's in the constitution.

Like it, or not morality has played a huge historical role in defining the American legal system. If we didn't legislate morality then slavery would still be an accepted institution of society. Just not a modern one. The only argument the abolitionists had against slavery was a moral one. William H. Seward, a fervent abolitionist argued against slavery based upon a moral argument. The Constitution didn't have much to say in that regard, until an amendment was passed.

Slaves were not citizens, just property. Kinda like fetuses.

Oh, the historical irony.

I'm not sure what the point of this is, unless you ar referring to the fact that most prositutes nowadays are slaves because of the situations they are in. Granted, not all of them. Though, I do think it's somewhat odd that they are arrested for doing a profession they may not want to be in, but have no way out other than to be arrested.

I wasn't trying to make a comparison between prostitution and slavery.

Merely trying to refute the common held idea in this thread that we aren't free if morality is legislated. Since ethnic minorities (blacks in particular) were only given rights by a series of amendments in the post Civil War era. I'm pointing out where those amendments originated from. Which is a morality based argument by some Republican (Seward) and other abolitionists.

The 13th amendment (Abolition of Slavery) was 100% moral. Slavery is merely a social/economic system that defines the status between labor and production. Much like serfdom. Like I said before, slaves were just property in the eyes of the law. They were not entitled to rights, liberty, or freedom. Which is why any argument against slavery has to involve morality.

The 14th & 15th amendments that quickly followed, (essentially both race rights laws) would have never existed without the 13th amendment being passed in the first place.

The last bit, I was referencing the irony I find between the Dred Scott decision and pro-abortion rhetoric.

Yes, and if the simple concept of freedom that causes no harm to another shall be the law had been in place, slavery never would have existed in the first place.

Again, Watts wanders in, argues apples and oranges and thinks he's made a point. Do you ever get tired of completely missing the strain of an argument, I wonder?

well , it's possible and reasonable to legalize prostitution not until the business of humantrafficking is exterminated!

Except that legalizing prostitution institutionalizes it and makes it next to impossible to use any sort of illegal women to do the wo- you know what? Why am I rationalizing this to you? Leave.

Denicalis wants you to stop posting entirely, norrispang. I'm going to make it just a bit easier on you, just stop spamming. Stop reviving issues no one's talking about anymore. Have something worthwhile to say. Stop submitting posts like a grade schooler.

Actually Deni, I think he might have a fair point. People smuggling is big fucking business in South East Asia (check his timezone.) And this would only increase the demand if say, Australia, legalised prostitution and we're well on our way there.

However I still think it's a poor argument that the existance of people smugglers should stop us from legalising prostitution. If anything an increased rate of illegal women in the country working in a regulated industry could make it easier for authorities to crack down on people smugglers, as their cliental will be more often identified.

He doesn't have a fair point. Illegal smuggling of women for the sex trade is a problem because it isn't checked. If it's legalized, these people have to get T4's, they have to pay taxes. They have to be citizens. Illegally smuggled women used in the sex trade are decidedly not legal citizens. The point of legalizing prostitution is that it eliminates the problems associated with it. Mandatory drug/STD testing, legal citizens etc. So human trafficking is fucking horrific, but it has NOTHING to do with legalizing prostitution, mate.

I just think you're coming down hard on the kid. I agree with you regarding legalising prostitution but human trafficking is an aspect to it (however minor) and to his credit no one had mentioned it until now.
Can't you just calmly explain to him why he's wrong instead of being flat out rude?

Go check his profile and read the prior posts he made, then you'll see why I reacted to him that way.

Guys why do you bother arguing in threads that will only be sealed forever the moment Styphon notices that something in the Palace is actually alive :(

All of the arguments are wrong anyways. :cool:

Human trafficking is only marginally impacted regardless of legalized prostitution. A black market for sex slaves will always exist.

Arguments are not wrong, you just can't infer meaning to save your life. The point here being that in legalized sex houses, it would be damned hard to use illegally procured Taiwanese girls to service the men, due to the institutionalized nature of it. Human trafficking doesn't stop due to legalized prostitution, but legalizing it sure as hell doesn't have to hinge on the destruction of the sex slave pipe line.

:rolleyes:

(I can use obnoxious smilies too)

Looks like somebody's being serious in the Political Palace.

Your posts seemed to attempt to convey the idea that legalized prostitution would make it harder for human traffickers.

Internets. Serious business. Etc.

Also, yeah, upon re-reading them I can see how it comes across that way. Not what I meant to convey, though. Moreso that legalized prostitution makes it impossible, or at least very difficult, for LEGAL brothels to use cheap mexican sex work labour.

There would be little reason for them to do so as well. It's not like a brothel madame is under the same competitive pressures as a bacon dog vendor.

Quite.

I'm trying really hard to formulate a A tastes better than B joke here, but just assume I mad some snarky comment about flavour and product placement and we'll just go on living our lives.

Food for thought: Sold as a sex slave in Europe - June 2001: SEX SLAVES: Europe's trade in women - MSNBC.com

There's a small bit specifically about Amsterdam towards the end of the article.

It's not mentioned in this article, but Amsterdam has shut down a significant part of the red light district because of massive corruption. Perhaps that's an argument about how a government can take steps to improve conditions when prostitution is legal, or perhaps it highlights problems inherent to the industry.

No one is marketing stem cells you inject into your dick to make it swell and glow green. What are you talking about? And why wouldn't someone have patented any invention already, to corner the rest of the world outside the US? Fucking IRAN has prostitutes ("temporary wives") so it's not like there's no market out there...

This thread is so American.

Interestingly, this is what prostitution often is! :eagletear:

I am a conservative. I see nothing really wrong with prostitution. I am sorry if someone has already said this, as I am far too lazy to read all that crap that people wrote. Why is it we can pay people to have sex with EACH OTHER... and TAPE IT, but we can't pay someone to have sex with you and NOT tape it. As long as there were not a lot of hookers walking the streets at night, and they had their own 'houses of ill repute', screw it, let them make a living however they deem necessary.

Additional Spam:
I would also like to add (without using the edit button for my previous post) that prostitutes make excellent firewood, as do homeless people.

I read an interesting book, the end of faith by Sam Roberts.

He argues that drugs are illegal only because it distracts people from praying and religion. The best proof of that: a legal kind of pot (i can't think of the name) is now on sale in Canada, but not in the US. It gives, so was I told, the same buzz as ordinary pot BUT contains not THC, the illegal substance in ordinary marijuana.

For prostitution, I believe it is the same case. The state wants to regulate mores to save the (inexisting) souls of its citizens.

One of Pierre Trudeau rare intelligent quotes was ''The state has no business in the nation's bedroom''. We should keep that in mind: what goes between CONSENTING adult, be there money involved or not, is no business of the state

Alright, let's touch upon some of the issues you guys have been glossing over and/or dodging altogether:

Before we can willy nilly legalize prostitution, there are a lot of things that need to be considered. First, we run with the failure that is the Nevada prostitution system. In Nevada, brothels impose inordinate restrictions on prostitutes, requiring them to stay within (inside) the brothel for weeks, or months at a time. You don't like the rules, don't work legally, of which the vast majority of prostitutes opt for in Nevada. Then there's the underage prostitutes, being brought in with fake IDs, the stigma associated with being registered with the State as a prostitute, which can prevent them from obtaining other jobs (based on laws and on discrimination), the pimps that still manage virtually all legal prostitutes, the claims by ex-prostitutes of pimp abuse, brothel owner abuse, brothel bouncer abuse, and customer abuse, with prostitutes having no witnesses & no credibility, and thus no legal recourse. Then there's also such issues as what constitutes a legal prostitute. I.e., what laws would be in place to define prostitution as a business, whether it be individual, business entity, and/or location of business. Then there are the issues of legal prostitutes losing custody of their children, and/or giving custody as wards of the State, for the compounding problems of State/Federal regulations, individual brothel rules, child safety concerns and, again, the stigma of the industry biasing their day in court. Then we have all the ex-prostitutes that denounce legal prostitution, not merely for how it is virtually ungovernable, but for the psychosocial, and sometimes physical, damage that prostitutes incur. And we move onto touching upon how all of sex industries, legal or otherwise, are rife with abuse, corruption, exploitation. Then we discuss the issue of defining a legal prostitute, and how in Nevada there ar so many illegal prostitutes because they simply cannot qualify to be legal (drug history, etc).

And the list goes on: dehumanization, fostering sex addiction, escalation, infidelity, adultery (breach of marriage), etc.

So yes on your guys end, you're grossly oversimplifying this issue. On your end, it's slipping on a condom. But it's far more complex than a little latex barrier.

You realise this thread has been dead for over half a year and the original member who posted it has been banned to never return.

No, I realize that it's been dead for awhile but I wasn't sure if I should start another thread. I noticed this place has been quiet for almost a month now and wanted to see if anyone would like to pick this particular discussion back up.

Also, I don't understand what the original thread maker has to do with this. As far as I could tell, he wasn't even participating in the discussion.

Another point I would like to add: The job of a liberal democratic government is not to enforce any subjective morality but to protect the physical and mental well-being of its people. I would like to suggest that although prostitution is not necessarily physically harmful, there is certainly mental harm or degradation involved, the root cause of which can only have come from physical causes (drug addiction, coercion etc.) For that reason prostitution is both immoral and harmful to society as a whole and should therefore be illegal.
__________________

From what I'm to understand, threads that have been dead for a year are subject to having a discussion restarted in a new thread.

If it's 3 months...not so much. Though, I can't really see it as being anything different from what has been seen here. But I can say this, with SEX becoming so bad and evil and bad and nasty...before long we'll be using 3 seashells and every restaurant will be a Taco Bell with how anything that is 'immoral' is bad for society and should be banned.

Go back and read my argument. That's not what I said at all.

I'll quote it because I think this is the main thing you may be overlooking:

Criminalizing a health issue is a surefire way to turn it into a social one. Assuming that the majority of prostitution results from some form of coercion, how does the criminalization of the behavior and the subsequent punishments and records from enforcement help prostitutes break the chain of coercion? A criminal record involving a sexual taboo is like being relegated to a caste.

I don't think you've ever seen Demolition Man.

As soon as we start outlawing everything that is bad, everything that can harm you physically or psychologically, you start taking away people's freedom and free will. Granted, some of them are reasonable laws due to the fact that some things out there will KILL YOU if you do it (hardcore drugs etc. etc.)

If a woman decides that she wants to make money selling her body, that is her choice. She will have to live with any consequences that come with it. So as I see it, people who want prostitution banned on the 'immorality' of it to begin with, just want to see those 'immoral whores' on the street get the punishment they deserve by not being in a safe enviroment to perform their job duties.

As far as physical and mental harm...ANY job has that. Hell, working at Wal-mart for 2 years made me feel like the most scummiest person in the world. Nothing I did for that company was ever right, no matter how hard I busted my ass, sweat dripping off of me at the end of everyday...it wasn't good enough. And dealing with customers? Do you know how demoralizing it is to be yelled at by a hairy fat guy in a wheelchair because he's too damn lazy to get off his fat ass to reach 3 shelves up to get an item? And how it's YOUR fault?

Not everyone lives in a happy go lucky suburban, middle to upper class home. Not everybody has that up-bringing. The worst time in my life was working for that company...does that mean wal-marts across the world should be banned? It hurt me physically and mentally every single day. So therefore, it should be according to your logic.

But Grail, we all know you were only working there to feed your crack habit.

History has shown that prohibition achieves nothing except making more money for criminals. You can find something as distasteful as you want but that's not going to stop other people from wanting to do it and when you ban whatever that is, you only force it underground, making any regulation impossible, making money for criminals and lessening the protection for those involved. It really is as simple as that, banning things is a shit way to stop people hurting themselves or others doing them.

Legalizing is a rubbish way to stop people hurting themselves or others doing them.

Funny how turning around comes to the same conclusion.

Point being, it's not an on/off switch. If prostitution is to be legalized, it needs to be done correctly. Interestingly enough, the same solutions that can be applied during legalization can also be applied during illegalization. That's the point of all this. Legalization is not the point, it is a distraction to the greater concern, which is that of ensuring people are not exploited, abused, misused, or otherwise injured by the business of prostitution.

Legalization of prostitution essentially says, "it's okay to exploit, abuse, misuse, or otherwise injure people, as long as the government get's a percentage of the profits."

Until there is a sincere and direct effort to address the REAL problem here, it cannot be legalized. If, in this direct effort, legalization is included, that's fine, but legalization, in and of itself, is not a solution, and is in fact counterproductive by by its very acceptance of dehumanizing commerce.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks you ought to give people the choice whether or not they fuck themselves up though. If I'm not hurting anyone else, I don't really see why the government needs to legislate to stop me hurting myself if I so choose.

Now some folks will straight away say "But Shin, what about all the poor prostitutes that you're hurting and drugs farmers in South America you're keeping out of proper work and the huge cost to the health service, you're wilful disregard for prohibition laws hurts more people than you realise", to which I would point out that once an industry is legalised it can be legislated in ways to make it stop hurting people like that. If big business took over from drugs barons in importing coke then the farmers would at least be no worse fucked over than the ones growing chocolate and coffee at the moment and brothels could offer the same level of protection to their staff that say strip clubs do now. The cost of healthcare can be offset either by denying treatment to users of previously banned stuff (If you're a bastard) or realising that the revenue from selling these things with tax on would far outstrip the additional cost of hospital trips, which are already happening from people using shit illegally anyway.

The only downside would be that all the criminals would need other sources of income so would take up something else sketchy instead. Or, have an amnesty on drug dealers and pimps and give them all fucking jobs in the newly created industries. After all, who's going to make a better dealer or pimp, some civil servant or a guy who's been doing it for years already?

That's incredibly blinkered. Legalisation of prostitution says "We know this shit happens anyway and there's fuck all we can do to stop it so we'll bring it out in the open to give us a chance of looking out for the people involved, improving their standards of living and working conditions and hey, make a couple of extra tax dollars while we're at it". Just because something is distateful to you, doesn't mean it's inherently evil and can't be conducted in more socially acceptable fashion.

So what are you saying the REAL problem is? That guys like having sex and some guys are too fucking ugly or socially inept to get any pussy so they go out and pay for it? Good luck addressing that problem pal. Maybe you should start a selective breeding programme for fat chicks with low self-esteem or something.

I know a few lasses who've told me they'd like to be a prostitute if it were legalised and properly regulated. If it is something in demand, and there are people who are willing to supply that demand who don't believe it would be dehumanising, wouldn't its legalisation at least stop illegal prostitution trafficking of young women who are forced into the business?

No, BB. You don't get it. The far liberals know better than you about what demeans you. They're doing this for you. It makes them uneasy, so it MUST make you uneasy. Don't you get it?

Okay, I'm going to let it slide that you COMPLETELY ignored my post, but if you ignore this one, Eschy-boy, then I'll know you're just a selective hearing, self-centered bastard.

In my last post I outlined several ways how working for one retail company just happened to be complete hell for me. No rebuttal from you, however, explaining how the physical and mental stress I went through, was any different any prostitute could have even if it was legalized.

Now, the only address I did not make to my job is how they exploited, and misused their workers. This is how they did that. It's been a long standing 'secret' that everyone who works there for at least half a year comes to know. And that is every year, the managers at wal-mart get a bonus based on how FEW people run the store. I'm not talking about just assistant and department managers either, i'm talking about floor employees.

The managers would get a bonus depending on how few employees they had but still ran the store efficiently. So a department that would, at an given time of the day, need 4 or 5 people to run effectively, we would only have 1 or perhaps 2 people at any time during the day. Sometimes we got lucky and had 3, but we were never fully staffed. Why do you think you see Wal-mart getting sued all the time?

I know a lot of you are thinking "Well, Grail...why didn't you just quit or try and further yourself in the company?" Well, I did. After 3 years of working there I tried to go to 3rd shift for an extra dollar an hour...a week later they fired me on the grounds that for an ENTIRE year I was showing up late and leaving early...with no prior talkings to, or even mention that I was doing such a thing.

But that's the beauty of working in somewhere that's legal...you CAN quit at any time. Some prostitutes, if not most, never have that option. What I find hilarious is that most 'Moral, upstanding citizens' like yourself Esch, tend to be the ones that want to see people continue to suffer the most.

I probably have no place in here whatsoever, but Eschbach has caused me to say something.

I'm curious, Esch, what you know about every woman's wants and desires. I'm curious as to how you presume to know that a woman who choses to work in the sex industry wants. She just doesn't know better, that stupid slut, right? Some man made her do it! Or she's poor and never grew up right!

Don't fucking presume that all women in the sex industry are mistreated, abused, coerced, or generally pissed on. There are women who have a choice, and they actually CHOSE this line of work. Like Shin said: you may find it distasteful, and you're entitled to that opinion, but you have no right to tell people what to do based on your perception of reality.

If prostitution was legalized, regulations could be applied to the sex industry to keep women more safe from the mistreatment, abuse, coercion and all that which you've mentioned.

And look. No matter how hard people try to repress the sex industry, it will always, always, always exist. Best to treat it like every other goddamn commodity than to pretend it doesn't exist and try to repress it away.

You don't get to mommy everyone. Sorry.

The oldest profession™

because the workers get so many diseases and problems from prostitution. its a very risky buisness and isnt healthy.

You are easily the dumbest person in this thread. And that's saying something.

So you could say it is... the deadliest catch?

Coming this Fall to Discovery After Hours

Sex out of marriage isn't frowned upon as much as it used to be. However I still think alot of people would have problems with legalizing prosititution. Alot of unwelcome additions come with prostitution, one of the big ones being drugs. If it was legalized would that change? Maybe. Right now though it would just devalue whatever region it happened in.

Recently a "Spa" near where I live was shut down because it was a front for a brothel. When I read about it, I just shrugged and went huh, thats interesting. The other people in my community treated it much much worse though. The way they described it, you'd think that in the middle of the spa a gateway to hell had been opened. I'll never have a problem with it, but a good majority will.

That's a silly thing to say, rape is generally a matter of dominance rather than just a need for sex. Hence straight male rapists often rape other guys.

weird system...

Statistically true. So not really silly. Silly is thinking anyone will take you seriously in an actual topic with a name like that.

It is obvious from recent developments that we cannot go any further without making one thing extremely clear: that the concept of equality, whether of sexes or races or individuals, or even of animals, plants, or inanimate objects, is absurd. It would in fact be impossible to even find two equal electrons or quarks, if electrons or quarks actually existed (which they don't), let alone anything more complex. The only domain in which the concept of equality is not absurd is in pure logic (including mathematics), but in the real world there is simply no such thing. There has never been, and there never will be.

Now of course this simple, self-evident truth is obviously beyond the comprehension of 99.99999999999999999% of contemporary mankind, as is every other simple, self-evident truth. That, however, is not my problem -- it is theirs. And since many of the things discussed on this site already, and that will be discussed in the very near future, presuppose human beings intelligent enough to grasp these simple truths, I am obliged to simply immediately ban whoever seems to be incapable of grasping them. Because the funny thing is that, though these truths are simple and self-evident, they seem to be immeasurably harder (if not outright impossible) for people to comprehend than many truths that are far more complex and obscure. But these are the effects of prejudice, bigotry, superstition and stupidity inherited by 2,500 years of the Socratico-Judaeo-Christian metaphysic, and its attendant herd/slave morality, and it is simply beyond my powers to cure people of this disease (that, only these books can do, and then only for a very small number of people). All I want to do is analyze games as deeply as possible, and to do that I have to take for granted all the simple little truths that philosophy has to give us -- one of which being that nothing is equal to anything else.

To give a concrete example of where this simple truth has been recently used, and to great effect, consider my Cocksucking Videogameland article. In the last two paragraphs I explain why women are in general inferior to men as regards the analysis and evaluation of virtual worlds. The reason is psychological and proceeds from a biological difference -- a biological inequality in other words. Therefore whoever believes that men and women are equal, or should be equal, or should be treated and regarded as equal even when they clearly are not (i.e. always), would simply be incapable of coming up with this idea, or grasping it once it had been explained to him -- let alone accepting it and drawing all the various and very important consequences that follow from it.

But we must draw these consequences! This is philosophy -- drawing the ultimate consequences out of every deduction -- not stopping and turning our backs on them because we prefer to live within the safe and narrow horizons of a happy-pretend land in which everything is equal to everything else and every person loves every other person and we all go to Heaven when we die, amen.

So, to all current and prospective users of this forum who espouse the religion of Equality -- at the very least stay away from "theory" threads. You can still be a religious nut and post in individual news or games threads -- it doesn't take much intelligence for those. But please leave my serious threads alone. If you want to find other religious nuts to discuss your beliefs, why, the internet is full of them -- click on a random page and you are there.

PS. The above also applies for all the other modern religions: the religion of Freedom, Justice, Human Rights, Cockroach Rights, Chicken Rights, etc. I am afraid that philosophy and religions are diametrically opposed, so if you have even the slightest religious inclination in you -- just stay the hell away from my goddamn theory threads. In other words: The theory threads are only for 100% declared atheists and immoralists -- everyone else is anyway already perfectly served by all kinds of bibles.

And since everyone already knows what "atheist" means, here is a helpful link that explains what an "immoralist" is:

NIGGERS

Jesus, just read through some of that thread, and I don't think I've ever seen a more self-important person on the internet.

Schopenhauer: "It is not only in the activity of his highest powers that the genius surpasses ordinary people. A man who is unusually well-knit, supple and agile, will perform all his movements with exceptional ease, even with comfort, because he takes a direct pleasure in an activity for which he is particularly well-equipped, and therefore often exercises it without any object. Further, if he is an acrobat or a dancer, not only does he take leaps which other people cannot execute, but he also betrays rare elasticity and agility in those easier steps which others can also perform, and even in ordinary walking. In the same way a man of superior mind will not only produce thoughts and works which could never have come from another; it will not be here alone that he will show his greatness; but as knowledge and thought form a mode of activity natural and easy to him, he will also delight himself in them at all times, and so apprehend small matters which are within the range of other minds, more easily, quickly and correctly than they."


Therefore my writings, if I am indeed a genius, will always be "works of genius" regardless of the subject matter. A genius, by Schopenhauer's definition as well as by anyone else's, is not capable of NOT producing works of genius, just as a cow is not capable of not producing works of cows, and so on. A genius is a genius and a cow is a cow from birth to death -- and that's the end of that.

Maybe Piero Manzoni's shit is worth its weight in gold, nowadays even more. For all I care it is worthless.

The acrobat may have a peculiar grace to his everyday walk, but that doesn't mean that acrobats have not stubbed their toes or slipped on ice. I don't trust the genius to be paying close attention to every thread of his existence, or to be versed in all things he discusses. Everything the genius does is in fact "the work of a genius," but not an ingenious work.

As far as prostitution: maybe it is not the place of government to tell who anyone can fuck and for what reasons. But it is the place of government to maintain public schools, balance the economy, and make sure people have decent job opportunities. If it were doing those things then perhaps prostitution wouldn't even be a reasonable choice.

What if you like having sex?

Hell, weren't those Washington DC call girls something like $10k+ a night? I think all of them had at least a college education (or more), and certainly could have gotten a job elsewhere if they had wanted.

We all know that 1) people who like being prostitutes and 2) make over 10k a night are few and far between. For the great majority, it is exploitative and degradating work that they couldn't help but resort to.

You must know a lot of prostitutes.

Wow. There's been a lot of good arguments (but also a lot of bad ones) lately on this subject.

People like me need to realize that there are indeed women who willingly become prostitutes and enjoy it. However, nothing written here has convinced me that this industry can exist in a way that doesn't take advantage of women. Even our legalized areas such as Denmark and Las Vegas are plagued with mistreatment and exploitation of sex workers. In a perfect* world perhaps women would be free to go in and out of this line of work in a way that never infringes on their human rights. But that certainly isn't the reality of the industry in today's world.

But for people who condemn prostitution on moral grounds, the failings of legalized prostitution are just a secondary point. I do believe that society's approach to sex is much more liberal now than sixty years ago. Perhaps this isn't as obvious in the polarized political climate of the United States. But even if the bible-thumpers suddenly all disappeared, I doubt very much that prostitution would suddenly become legal here or in other parts of the world. There is a fundamental moral abhorrence carried by a gigantic chunk of the world's population regardless of their religious or political leanings.

Now this says nothing about whether or not that moral abhorrence is grounds enough to outlaw prostitution. I don't like it, but does that give me the right to tell strangers that money in exchange for sex is illegal? Framing the question like that; most people will say "no". You need to approach from a different angle...

Put succinctly, lots of people dislike prostitution. They don't want their loved ones involved so they extend (force?) this view onto the people they care about: family, friends, community, an entire city, etc, etc, etc.

Since prostitution is largely illegal, it is not a heated debate in U.S. politics and consequently you don't see a lot of self-righteous jerks like me throwing their weight around. Legislators don't need to openly take a stance against prostitution since (well maybe not in this forum) the majority of people are fine with the way things are. If they aren't, they just move to or away from Nevada as necessary. Alternatively, they can write something constructive (or nasty and juvenile) on a web forum.

Is that a fact, now?

I don't think anyone who dislikes prostitution automatically has a "hang-up" about sex. Most people today don't adhere to the conservative stance on "no sex before marriage" but that doesn't automatically mean they are okay with prostitution. From personal and media observations it seems that most people in general do not approve of prostitution and that includes people who aren't tied down sexually by traditional conservative values. I'm willing to listen to evidence to the contrary. The overwhelming amount of laws in most countries that prohibit prostitution seems to indicate, at least for the time being, that the vast majority of people in the world disapprove of it. However, because of the way society is constantly veering towards a more liberal approach to sex, I wouldn't be surprised at all to one day see prostitution becoming legalized in more places.

I wouldn't want my kid to work in porn, but I certainly don't mind other people's kids doing it. ;)

About a page back I made a few posts about my experiences working at Wal-mart. Go back and read those over before you say that the sex industry is the only industry that takes advantage of its workers. Don't be like that Eshebaun fuck that completely ignored my posts and further tried to prove his point just like you're trying to now.

On top of that:

I'll put it plain and simple. I wouldn't want my loved ones working for any company, or industry, that would put them into a depressed state of mind, or feel physically exhausted in a non-healthy way. That being said, I'd never want my children working at Wal-mart.

The point is, EVERYONE is different. Some people enjoy working for companies just like Wal-mart, and there are others that enjoy spreading their legs/getting their freak on to make a living. The question is, why would society want to keep those people on the streets where they would be in danger, instead in a safe work environment?

I agree, it is moral legislation. It is possible to argue on non-moral grounds like mistreatment of sex workers and corruption in the industry. You can also argue (as some have done in this thread long ago) that all laws stem from a moral foundation.

I for one am glad for some (not all) of the laws that I perceive as moral legislation. Like laws that prohibit discrimination, ponzi schemes, animal abuse, child labor, polygamy, use of certain narcotics, etc.

I feel like this is the most common attitude towards prostitution as well.

Did I really say something like that? If so, my apologies. It might surprise you but I don't approve of taking advantage of anyone. Your analogy works on some levels, but prostitution is a radically different industry. I've never said to a friend, "Let's go to Vegas or Amsterdam so I can buy a couch for fifty bucks." I've never heard a girl say, "I wish they'd change the laws here so I can work at a cash register or be a store manager". I must also confess, Grail, that I find some of your arguments confusing. You take great care to illustrate how a legalized industry can still abuse its workers. Then you seem to propose that legalizing prostitution will invariably make it safer. Maybe in a perfect world, but even places where it is legal, prostitutes can and do endure mistreatment on a scale not applicable to even the least fortunate Wal-mart employee. From my research this may not be an inherent fault with the sex industry, but rather that it has a tendency to attract the wrong sort of people. People who corrupt the industry to a point that it becomes as bad as places where it is illegal.

Am I correct Grail, in saying that you wouldn't want your loved ones being prostitutes or wal-mart employees for the exact same reason? Like you, I wouldn't want my kids working in either business. But my reasons for not being a prostitute are different than my reasons for not working at wal-mart.

I can see where you are coming from on this, but in the long run, prostitution is just like every other single job you see in this country. You use your body and your mind to make money. You are providing a service in which you use any given amount of your five senses to paying customers. How you do it makes no difference at all.

Couches are readily made available to stores all across the country, that's why you never have to go anywhere outside of your town unless you REALLY want a specific couch. Same thing with a strip club, do you ever hear someone say that they need to go states away to see women dance naked? No, you don't.

As for the other analogy, I've never wished for laws to be changed either, but I HAVE wished that there were more colleges nearby that I could train in video game design, BUT, unfortunately there are just more OPPORTUNITIES to be a cashier and manager in my town as it is.

I'm not too entirely sure what your work history is, but if you are involved in any company where heavy lifting, or mental stress MIGHT be a factor that could hinder your performance, the entire first day of your new job is spent getting information shoved down your throat on 'how to be safe in the work place' and constant help lines to deal with your stress. The only problem is, while these programs are actually beneficial, if you ever EVER have to resort to using them, you usually end up fucking yourself in the end, depending on how, and I'll get to this in a second, corrupt your company is.

For the most part, people with any position of 'power' so to speak can easily be corrupted. I've had GREAT bosses before, and I've had bosses that can only be described as satanic in every way. What you are trying to say is that the 'wrong kind of people' don't fit into your moral code. The fact of the matter is, legalizing prostitution would make it safer, if even if it was for the simple fact that BOTH PARTIES would be consenting to the act. Sure, said prostitute may have to spread her legs for not the most attractive guy, but at least she knows she's doing it to get paid, and not that she'll end up getting pimp smacked if she doesn't bring her pimp enough money for the night.

I'm saying I wouldn't want my loved ones being forced to do back breaking or dangerous work for shitty pay, and even shittier treatment. If my daughter decides that, as an adult, she wants to get paid for spreading her legs for men night after night, I can't do a thing about it. That's her decision and the best thing I can hope for is that at that time, she is in a safe, stable environment in which she can work her craft.

Wouldn't you?

Sorry, I really have to disagree that prostitution is like every other single job you see in this country. I actually find it to be extraordinarily different for a variety of reasons. I do see your point, I just don't agree with it.

And yes, government regulation would set up the framework for a safer working environment for prostitutes. Unfortunately, even in places where it is legal, people continue to break the law and sex workers are still being mistreated. This is the major reason why half the red-light district in Amsterdam was being shut down. (I haven't followed that story in months, anyone up to date?) No matter how bad it gets at wal-mart, people aren't going to force you to work without pay. You won't get threatened of physically abused if you choose not to comply. I don't think we should be so quick to legalize prostitution until the places that allow it have fully sorted out their problems with it. (Actually, I don't think we should legalize it ever)

I have to agree with YouMad again, at least for the most part. The only way I see prostitution infringing on the rights of uninvolved people is the shame it brings on family and friends. It also spreads some disease, there's no denying that...but I haven't seen any statistics on that. I can stand behind the "burden to society" platform, but I'm fully aware that it is not a conclusive argument nor is not a universal belief.

Well, I'm also against the recreational use of certain narcotics even though it only affects the user. You may argue that an addict with a costly and reprehensible drug problem can be a burden on a family and a community, but you can make the same argument about a prostitute or their clients. Likewise, Ponzi schemes only affect those looking to invest money. Nobody is forced to invest. But I still feel it is morally wrong to deceive people that way. Should it be illegal to lie or deceive? or is it just immoral? Hmm, both probably.

Should it be illegal to have sex for money? Or is it just immoral? We all have our answers to both questions, but the arguments from both sides are strong enough that neither side will earn a clear victory. At least we know what the other side is thinking.

Despite the fact I see that this entire area was your 'final thought' so I don't expect a response, I do hope you realize what you just said above. The Red-Light district, for what I'm to understand, has been around for YEAAAARS and for the most part, due to it's legality has never stirred much controversy other than 'zomg it's prostitution.' But look at what you just said...people are being mistreated, and when the law is broken (when abuse/whatever is brought up) places get shut down...JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER JOB/EMPLOYER IN AMERICA.

Um...Okay...do you realize that this ENTIRE time we are not talking about legalizing prostitution so that all the pimps in the crib mahn (drop it like its hawt) can have a free ticket to bitch slap their women if they don't bring in enough dough? We are NOT talking about the places right now having a free ride. We are talking about making it legal so that RULES AND REGULATIONS can be instilled for entrepreneurs that WISH to open up brothels/enact in business run prostitution can do so, but have to follow a specific guideline, and rules that apply to human services. Which I will outline in the next part right here:

As much as I want to sling insults for this first sentence here, I won't. I just hope you realize how ridiculous that first sentence of yours is, and apologize for it later. Just as Wal-mart can not be held responsible for any 'stigmas' viewed on the people who shop there (generally poor, dirty, nasty people only shop at wal-mart etc. etc.) prostitutes and businesses like that can not be held responsible for any 'shame' that a family feels if their daughter works there.

As for diseases...this just goes to show you that you have never, EVER worked in a place that you are prone to get injured or have the possibility for blood transfusions to take place. If prostitution had OSHA on their side, holy shit...STD's from prostitution would probably see a huge decline...and that is for the simple fact that guidelines and steps WOULD BE (not could be) WOULD BE enforced to minimize the transfer of STDs. This could come in the form of every paying customer needing to produce a clean bill of health (STD free) to always using a condom no matter what the sexual act involved is.

The last time I checked, you invested money to make money. The risk is that your investment may not fall through/the people you invest in may not succeed. I believe what you are talking about are when people intentionally steal the money that were invested in them, thus they WILLINGLY took money that wasn't theirs, and that is breaking the law. Nobody is going to force you to go see a prostitute, and unless said prostitute only becomes a prostitute to try and seduce ONE MAN THAT SHE MET ON A BUS ONE DAY into leaving his wife, that is the only situation that I can see a prostitute wanting to deceive, and if it came to that point, there is something wrong with the woman, and not the industry.

And unfortunately the other side is thinking that despite the fact that if prostitution was legalized, for the most part, that profession would become a safer place, they would still find it 'evil and morally wrong' just due to mostly religious beliefs nowadays (hell back in Greek times it was all the rage, and not frowned on at all), they would rather keep their morality in check and judge people rather than wanting people in a safe, secure location to do what they want to do.

As RR posted above, he'd not want his daughter in prostitution, but woudln't mind if his neighbor daughter did...I'm sure that if said daughter was in that business, he'd still want her to work in a safe environment.

Take a look at it this way Killer...World of Warcraft has caused deaths in the world...a video game has caused deaths. Mainly in Korea, but does that mean that we should ban it? Make it illegal?

See, you part from the assumption that people want to be prostitutes. That may or may not be the case. Why do you think that it is?

The point is, I don't think you have any data to back up that claim, but here is some to back up mine: In the paper "Prostitution in Nevada," Richard Symanski writes about the brothels and prostitutes in a state with legalized prostitution. The rules in Nevada are extremely stringent and concerned with health codes. Symanski found that most of the current prostitutes were previously streetwalkers, waitress, call-girls, or university students. Why do you think that women in respectable, well-paying jobs aren't in that list? The main reason these prostitutes give for entering the profession is "quick financial gain." He does write, however, that normalizing prostitution does away with many of the present health problems associated with the profession. Here is a link to the article:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2562357

I understand that becoming a prostitute is a way to gain power for a lot of women down in their luck, but isn't it a bit ironic that it involves using a patriarchal system that has put them in that position in the first place? That is, males have exploited women for a long time. How can women get out of that position? Why, exacerbate the problem! Make yourself an object! Work within the power structure that men have cemented for you. Maybe some women DO want to be prostitutes, but I would contend it is because of their politico/economic place in society. I find that system in itself criminal. So, to meet you halfway, I have absolutely no problem with women wanting to be prostitutes and doing it legally, for whatever reason it is they cite. But I do wish that instead of making it easier for girls to become prostitutes, we were working on giving every person a dignified and prosperous place in our society.

Second, I am not entirely sure that religious beliefs are really what is driving opposition to prostitution, at least not unilaterally. I, for one, am simply concerned with people being exploited. I agree with you, working for large retailers sucks (I used to work at Best Buy, and I am never going back). But on the other hand, I feel like prostitution opens up a much bigger can of worms. Yes, people sell their bodies for manual labor in the construction industry, but that rarely involves an intimate, powerful practice. Sex is serious business (:tpg:).

Wow. This is an extremely ignorant thing to say! I wonder if you think America (or at least the liberal parts) isn't racist anymore.

Hey Grail, I think you understand a lot of my rantings pretty well, I think you're just flabbergasted that anyone actually thinks the way I do.

You make a great point in pointing out that the system is apparently working in Amsterdam when they finally start shutting down the places that need to be shut down. I'd be happier if the system worked faster though. The legality of prostitution is what caused the industry to grow so big that it couldn't be effectively policed. Lives have been ruined and there is no guarantee that 1. All sex workers are being treated well now and 2. It won't happen again. As you mentioned, the red light district has been around for YEARS and during many of those years people ignored the laws and still exploited sex workers in heinous ways. Those rules and regulations are a good thing, but they aren't 100% enforced. Not even close as it turns out. If there wasn't any prostitution to begin with it wouldn't be a problem. Both of us are naive though; me for hoping that prostitution can be eliminated altogether, and you for thinking that laws will guarantee equal and satisfactory protection for every sex worker. Whether it is deserved or not, there is an unsavory element attached to the sex industry that affects how it is run.

My argument about how prostitution affects uninvolved people was SUPPOSED to be weak. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. Read again and you'll (hopefully) see I was actually agreeing with YouMad that prostitution does NOT infringe on other people's rights. At the same time I still defend my position to endorse moral legislation. Poorly stated and confusing so you have my apologies. (See, I apologized, sorta) You can disagree with my 'perception' of moral legislation (i.e. Ponzi, etc.) but the real question is whether or not ANY moral legislation is appropriate. I say "yes", many others here have stated "no".

I'm sorry, but with regards to disease I can't see much of a comparison between prostitutes and...well, any other industry. Despite my strong disagreement, my stance against prostitution is not really based on that. I'm a more of a moral elitist than a concerned medical practitioner.

I've heard the argument about "I don't want my daughter involved, but let's make it safe for other people's daughters". By and large, nobody likes prostitution. Everyone wants to keep the ones they love away from it. In this particular case I understand, but strongly disagree, with the notion of legalizing something bad just so those poor souls who do partake in it can be safer. I'd much rather keep anyone from doing it in the first place. I'm aware that such a goal is unrealistic, but it's still worth the fight in order to reduce the number of people involved. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but at the same time I don't think anyone can conclusively state that myself and others are clearly in the wrong.

I'm not morally opposed to video games like I am to prostitution. I believe when you play games the way they are intended to be used it's a benign diversion. But as you mentioned, even something like video games can be abused to a point where it is sad, disgusting, and reprehensible. By contrast, prostitution (in my eyes at least) is sad, disgusting, and reprehensible right from the start.

The religious opposition to prostitution is obvious. But as mentioned, opposition also comes from a huge yet separate population of diverse thinkers. It is unfair to categorize anyone as "endorsing unsafe working conditions" or "against privacy rights". Usually it's people like me that make irresponsible broad sweeping statements like... "You oppose prostitution? Oh, so you WANT sex workers to be exploited, diseased, and physically harmed?" First of all, I don't want there to be ANY sex workers. Second, it should be obvious at this point that the issue is far more complicated than that.

I think most of America is very racist. Not even a Harvard Professor in a beautiful historic Cambridge home is safe from American Racism.

Yes, but not all of them require becoming a prostitute to lead a finnancially stable life. THAT is objectification; that is what I am concerned with. But you are funny though, real funny. You got internet humor down, I am real impressed.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I guess you do it pro bono. I kind of admire your selflessness. The rest of us are mostly whores, though. We sell ourselves and our talents for the petty reward of filthy lucre. How foul it is that society has driven us to this!

There is no practical distinction between "I work as a coal miner because it's the best job available to me" and "I work at a brothel because it's the best job available to me". Coal mining, like sex work, can be an immensely dangerous job if the proper precautions are not taken, but does anyone propose it should be illegal to work as a coal miner? Of course not! Instead, laws are put into place to make coal-mining a safer profession.

The arguments in play here seem to revolve entirely around the notion that using one's body to make a living abruptly becomes implicitly monstrous the moments one drops one's drawers. Why? What is so implicitly amoral about the vagina or the penis relatively to the arms or the back? Yes, fucking for a living can give you diseases if you don't take precautions. Are we to outlaw DOCTORS on this basis? After all, they touch sick people every day! HOW DANGEROUS!

I don't see a lot of male ex-lawyers or corporate CEOs becoming strippers or prostitutes either. Maybe you're on to something!

Then I wonder why black people use racist systems that marginalize them in the first place. Isn't it better for them to not work within the power structure that whites have made for them? They are only exacerbating the problem with racism.

Certainly not all prostitutes are that, but I think a great deal of them are. the article I posted (the first of any sort of EVIDENCE that has been brought up between the both of us) cites that virtually all prostitutes in a state in which the practice is legal 1) used to be hobos or in low-paying jobs 2) mostly fuck TRUCKERS. Come on man! You know people wouldn't go with TRUCKERS for fun.

What I mean by being "down on their luck" is more than just being out of a job. There are material, political, and economic reasons for the way modern society is structured. And sometimes certain groups get the short end of the stick. There is a reason why African Americans make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population, and why women in certain urban areas are more likely to become prostitutes. Now, the way to solve these problems is not to KILL the blacks in jail or allow the women to become prostitutes, but to focus on better education, better jobs, and a reformulation of certain aspects of American society.

Do you know why she thinks you're a misogynist?

It's because you're talking about allowing grown-ass women to perform a profession.

Yeah, but those are massive societal changes. Changes we probably will never see.

If prostitution were legal, imagine all the women who would be safer and probably more able to take themselves and their kids to a better part of town, or at the very least, a slightly better position in life. Their kids could possibly have the opportunities their parents did not, and in turn, begin to set in motion those very changes you spoke of.

That shit will not happen with a job at McDonald's.

Well, what some of the African Americans I know do is work within the system to highlight its racist aspects and to speak against it because it is what allows them to reach the most people. Black academics or socially-conscious rappers are great examples.

It is quite a nuanced position, though, and you are on to something by pointing out that it feeds off of the problem it is trying to solve.

Pang, I agree with you completely. I, however, have a problem with ALL exploitative careers. I should hope that in the future both coal mining, industry work, and prostitution can be left behind.

I do think, on the other hand, that being a prostitute may subject someone to particular and unique psychological stresses that other professions can't touch. But maybe not.


Alright, then I am a misogynist. Will you agree with me, then, that because the business community has a very limited number of female, black, or minority CEOs it is racist, misogynist, and hateful?

It is not I who is doing the allowing, but the US Government, which, by the way, allows GROWN ASS PEOPLE to do or not things/professions all the time.

Am I also onto something by saying a nigga gotta eat?

Cuz that was what I was aiming for

as an aside, do you think prostitution is the only (or even the most dangerous) way the patriarchy marginalizes women

I would say that white color professions over-represented by men is far worse tbh but I'll be damned if I can think of a way to change that by not participating

you idiot

I do not allow you to continue this charade of intelligence. Rip off your mask and post as you truly are, trainable.

Additional Spam:
how does it not allow grown-ass adults to do things

I mean I googled crime statistics right now but they look pretty high so.........................

I have no idea what the fuck you are saying, so I will just stop replying.

I see what you are saying, and there is some merit to it. I think, however, that prostitution may be a little more hurtful to those in it than other careers. Do you think it would be a better alternative if women could lift themselves out of poverty without becoming prostitutes?

Why do you think it is the requirement of a person in a marginalized demographic to heroically rise up and throw off the shackles of their oppression when all they want is to pay their bills and raise their family like a normal fucking person?

why is it a requirement of women of little means to be martyrs to a battle you imposed on them?

And also why on earth are you comparing yourself to the US Government?

A: The federal government doesn't disallow prostitution AFAIK. There are laws governing interstate travel or immigration for the purpose of prostitution, but I'm pretty sure the FBI doesn't give a tin shit if you invite some dude into your house and charge him $100 when he leaves. Local authorities will be very interested, but not the Fed.

B: Name any other victimless profession that is broadly outlawed in the majority of the USA (and no, doing a job that may subject you to certain stresses does not make you a victim).

Killer Pineapple got away with this due to the fact that he can actually NOT make himself look like a complete idiot.

Do you know that this god damn country was FOUNDED on fucking jobs like coal mining, industry work and other shit like that? EVERY GOD DAMN JOB in this fucking world is exploitative of their workers. It doesn't matter what the fuck it is.

Work is supposed to be that, WORK. Many, many people have died on the job for various reasons. You keep ignoring the fact that prostitution is just like EVERY OTHER SINGLE JOB IN EXISTENCE. People EXPLOIT prostitutes more because women who work the street regardless of choice, or being forced into it, because it's a lose lose situation for them right now. They can't go to the cops because they will be arrested for prostitution, and if they say they don't want to fucking do it, they get beat or worse the majority of the time.

You can't just close your fucking eyes and pretend that if prostitutes don't exist that the problem will fix itself. You want prostitution to go bye bye? That's perfectly fine and fucking dandy, but how about until it somehow magically disappears, you show a little bit of compassion and WANT them to be in a safer environment instead of looking down at them like they are the lowest rung of scum on societies ladder, you fucking prick.

You are a fucking child. Get the fuck off these forums right now. HIGH SCHOOL produces fucking just as many unique psychological stresses. If a fucking woman (or man) decides that she wants to make money by spreading her legs, and it turns out that she doesn't like it come a month or two into the position, if it is legalized, she can fucking hand in her TWO WEEK NOTICE. That is not how it works right now. She complains, she gets bitch slapped for it.

It's often I find those that 'take the moral high ground' on discussions like these, tend to be the ones that spit on human rights the most. It's sickening.

Because I think the world is an extremely fucked up place and it would be better if we confronted some of these problems head-on instead of lived as if it's none of our business.


When did I say that I required anyone to do what I say? All I have been saying is that I wish people would have better opportunities so that would not have to resort to what I consider extreme degradation. Maybe it is not as bad as I paint it. In the end, it does not matter, it is not up to me to decide, is it?

Where did I say I am like the US Government? All I said is ultimately the entity that allows or disallows prostitution is government, and not me. What I think or care about doesn't really matter in this context.

Maybe prostitution ought to be legal, but that means jackshit. The government is the only entity that can do anything about it.

The fact that this country was founded on those jobs doesn't make them any better. And you got my point exactly! All jobs are more or less exploitative. Shouldn't we do something to change that?

I understand that is cool or whatever to get angry, cynical, and swear out the ass on the internet, but all I have been saying is that I wish people would have other opportunities before becoming prostitutes.

IF people had good economic opportunities and THEN became prostitutes, then it would be a matter of choice. But most of the time that is not the case.

But, I will say it again, I am all for LEGALIZED PROSTITUTION, as long as people are given a fair chance at leading their lives a different way first.

I find it interesting that you find illegal prostitution a more serious human rights violation than women being forced to have sex to survive.

I see where you are coming from though; and I agree that perhaps prostitute's lives would be better as it is with the implementation of certain laws. My point, however, is that sooner or later we will have to get down to the bottom to the bottom of the problem, and not just skim it with regulation.

A: point taken.

B: I assume teaching people how to build dirty bombs, drugs, or other harmful substances would land people in jail if they did it out in the open. The information itself is not illegal, we all know that, but that does not mean that the US or state government would respect your right to disseminate it.

You assume it would be illegal to openly advise people on the practice of producing & using drugs? Why would you assume that?

http://hightimes.com/userdata/24/ima...over_dec08.jpg

Pot is legal in my state. And you only focused on a third of my post.

You know that pot is peanuts compared to some of the other shit the government is worrying about. Find me a printed magazine about making crack, dirty bombs, or how to fly planes into buildings and then we are talking.

Am I on crazy pills? Wait, don't answer that. Still, are we all supposed to believe that there's no significant difference between a prostitute and a coal miner? That the strife of a wal-mart cashier is identical to the strife of street walker? That using your arms or your mind for a career is in no way different than using your genitals?

I know I have a mild case of insanity, but I still can't wrap my brain around the idea that prostitution is just like any other job. Sex makes everything different. Not always worse, certainly not always better, but different and profoundly so.

It has been mentioned repeatedly that laws could be used to protect prostitutes if it was legalized. We kind of have laws to protect people right now. Those laws say, "Prostitution is bad, don't do it". We could legalize it and then trust its practitioners to be nice to their sex workers. But looking at areas where prostitution is legal indicates that the people in this industry are all too willing to bend the rules to suit their financial gain. Again, the sexual nature of the business makes a world of difference. Comparisons do not and should not apply.

Please, please, PLEASE stop assuming that those who oppose prostitution are pleased with how illegal sex workers are being exploited. That makes as little sense to us as it does to everyone else.

Victimless profession: Yeah, drug dealers I suppose. Whether or not you agree that is victimless won't change anyone's mind about prostitution. Apples and oranges.

Why? Exactly what went wrong in your upbringing that you see sexual intercourse as some kind of magical transfigurating event? It's just nerve endings and lube, no particular witchcraft is involved. Your perception of sex as some kind of witchcraft that corrupts everything it touches is hard to rationalize on any level other than "because the Bible tells me so".

I'll have to agree with Pang and ask why?

Let's play a little game of This and That. I'm going to take two physical and mentally straining professions and put them both together. Today our choices are Professional Boxers and Legalized Prostitution.

Boxing: Rough, physical sport that, when sanctioned with laws, are still quite physically harmful and can be mentally deteriorating.

Two men enter a ring, their goal is to knock the other man out, or win by a judges decision if both fighters never go down. They must vigorously train to keep their bodies in top notch shape, only to go out and get the snot beat out of them time and time again. They chose this as their life. They were not forced into doing so.

Mentally it can be straining to have to push your body that hard, never knowing if your next fight is going to be your last, and perhaps even IF you became a famous professional boxer, there is no guarantee that you'll lead a good life, and accidents always happen...you could take a punch and end up paralyzed from the neck down, or worse. There are NO guarantees...and all the while you are doing this, some fat ass boxing organizer, mobsters, and other walks of life are actually BETTING on you to win, and some are even betting against you to lose.

Now for Legalized Prostitution: A physical job that, even with laws that were in place, can be a physical and mentally straining job.

Despite the fact that, for the majority of the nights you are on your back, you still will have to cater to customers who may not be overall appealing to you. There are some risks that there are diseases involved, but that is a risk that, if prostitution was legalized, the person involved MADE CONSENSUALLY.

Every night a woman -could- have the lingering thought in her mind that the man that is paying her could be married...but other than that, she also has to contend with the fact that a lot of people that know her would either look down on her and judge her for what she does.

But, as you can see, both jobs have the employees putting their mind and body on the line. You say Prostitution can hurt people uninvolved? Well, look at people out there who have gambling problems...BOXING can hurt those uninvolved just as much.

who's deciding what now

Yeah, and what difference does that statement make? Government has the real choice, I am just telling you what I think is best. Again, that does not mean I am comparing myself to the US Government, your original complaint.

Then let's go through this example: would you mind me fucking your mom for $10,000? And have absolutely no qualms? You are a being of pure reason, afterall, and you know that the money is more real than nut I'd bust on her face or what that would mean to you or her.

Here is what you haven't understood: I don't have any misconceptions about choice being some sort of ultimate good. In fact, I believe some choices should be kept illegal.

I do think that prostitution could be a legitimate choice that a woman has, and I even think that government might allow that. However, I'd like government to use its power to lift people out of poverty rather than create more means for them to live in it. That's it.

Let's get this straight: allowing women to become prostitutes is fine. But trying to protect them from being sexually exploited degrades them. Right.

What if prostitution gets them out/keeps them out of poverty?

I'd like a way that is less degrading. I know some people here don't think it is degrading, but I don't think that is how the vast majority of the country feels.

Also, RR, the study I quoted today says that in Nevada most women only stay in the business for 6 months, many quit within one. And that is from a place with legal, controlled prostitution.

Most people work at McDonald's for less than six months, should we shut them down? I imagine a number of people going into prostitution have some sort of glamorized version going on in their head where they just get to go WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO all day, but then find out it is really is a form of work.

Heck, one of my good friends in undergrad was a stripper. I'm sure pretty much everyone out there considers that a fairly degrading job, but she said it was a lot of fun, and earned her a lot of money in a little bit of time, so she's have plenty left over for her studies (double majoring in engineering plus a minor in technical writing while editing a textbook for one of our professors was a fairly time consuming commitment to begin with).

The problem is that you believe that you and people like yourself have the authority to tell women what they're allowed to do. What everyone keeps telling you and you still seem to fail to understand is that this makes you a miserable misogynist jackbastard, regardless of your intent. Women, or anyone for that matter, do not need your (or the government's) blessing to act. The fact that you and the government share this bizarre superiority complex is not what is being complained about, though congratulations for recognizing the similarity, if not comprehending the inherent stupidity of your position.

"How would you like if it I fucked your mom"? You're a real class act, Tamburlaine. But I tell you what, put the money in my hand and I'll escort you to the cemetery straightaway. Hell, I'll even give you the shovel.

However, if my mother weren't both three years dead and morbidly obese in the bargain, whatever acts you might like to pay her for would be entirely between the two of you. It's none of my business how anyone makes their money — even my family, provided it impacts me in no material way.

You know what, I've got a cousin who's kind of slutty, maybe we can compromise here.

You understand that the US Government doesn't disallow anyone to do anything. They allocate punishment to dissuade people from doing certain things. This is a fundamental difference compared to what you think is best, which is a deeply paternalistic and frankly unrealistic opinion.

Also I like how
I like how a white man in America is telling marginalized groups that they must use their career choices in a crusade you've defined for them, and they have to rage against the Man without taking advantage of the Man or doing anything else you feel is socially inappropriate.

For laughs, what's your job?

I've seen analogy after analogy after analogy, and frankly those don't serve to strengthen the argument for prostitution. If you'd like I'll come up with my own analogies. They might be moderately clever but do nothing to clarify the issue because prostitution bears little similarities to other professions no matter how much anyone wishes it to be otherwise.

Prostitution is like being a mortician

• Cannot discuss or let young children see people doing their work
  Can't even do your work openly in public. Closed doors are a must.
  Good advice to skip going to your child's "bring-your-parent-to-school" day
  You may have to work closely and touch unattractive people
  Children under the age of 18 should not be allowed in this field of work

Okay, that's not even remotely as clever as I had hoped. But it's an analogy much like the ones that have been thrown at me which is to say it is pretty lame support for my argument. Why? BECAUSE BEING A MORTICIAN AND A PROSTITUTE ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. (Those crazy pills have not worn off yet). Just like a prostitute is different than a clerk, a boxer, a store manager, or a guy telling other people how to grow marijuana. On the other hand, now I want to outlaw morticians.

Pang, I really don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. Especially with such an inaccurate portrayal of my views. Maybe you know people like that, but your presume way too much about me.
is a far cry from I don't have a major problem if sex is a very casual "no-big-deal" kind of thing for adults. But the idea that sex is just "nerve endings and lube" is an absurd simplification of an act that ties intense physical, mental, and emotional aspects together in a unique fashion. Perhaps I'm taking your little quip too seriously, but you are arguing that sex does NOT change things. So I'm not sure how else to react. Let's say a little girl asks her father about becoming a prostitute. The father would be a complete arse if he told her that it was just like being a boxer. Why? Because the sexual nature of being a prostitute changes the issue. Those differences need to be addressed. To explain it as just "nerve endings and lube" is inadequate and irresponsible.

"SEX MAKES EVERYTHING DIFFERENT"

"How? Explain why sex makes everything different."

"IT JUST DOES".

How is that different from "it's magic"?

I am really, really curious about your logic here and I'm trying to figure out whether you're 13 years old and helplessly naive or 65 years old and desperately bitter.

For adults that willingly choose to have sex with people with whom they have no emotional ties, yes. It is. Why is this so complicated for you? It's a service that you provide, dispassionately, with the use of your body. Like a masseuse (There's a reason these two professions tend into wink-nudge overlap). If you're doing something on a professional basis, for money, it stops being intensely emotional about an hour into your first day on the job. If you want to use morticians as an example

Riding a rollercoaster can be very exhilirating, yes. It can be a very enthralling experience that you remember for weeks, if not years. But if you were being paid to ride rollercoasters every day, you'd get jaded about it in a goddamn hurry, don't you think?

However, here are some 'spec knucks on outlawing morticians. The funeral industry is a massive scam.

Pineapple.

I would like to know.

What makes selling sex any different than anything else.

Really. I would like a nice, concise rationalization as to why selling sex is taboo for everyone - not just yourself.

And "just 'cause it's sex" doesn't count as a rationalization.

Ugh, I just deleted one of my multiparagraph rants. (...and there was much rejoicing...) I think some of you are expecting something profoundly insightful or stupid when I mentioned that "sex changes everything". I think I explained myself already within the context I established. Oh well, here's attempt #2...

Take any job other than a prostitute. Now make regular sexual activity with clients a part of that job. To me that changes everything about the job (which was the point I failed to make apparently). Boom. Simple. Nothing ground breaking or amazing. Just the obvious.

Here's a play I wrote:
"Hello boss, you wanted to see me?"
"Hey KillerPineapple, you need to start having sex with strangers as part of your job if you want to get paid."
"But that changes everything."
"How?"
"IT JUST DOES!"
"I don't get it. Explain."
"Um...It's magic?"
"How old are you KillerPineapple?"
"Sex changes the job, can't you see that?"
"Oh stop putting it up on a pedestal."
"Can't I just continue selling cheaply made household products?"
"You're selling your body for sex now. How is that any different?"
"Well, when you put it like that- I guess there really is no difference."
"Great! I thought you were one of those bible-told-me-so nuts."
"You don't understand the concept of sarcasm, do you?"
"Get the *%#$ out of my bedroom."
"This is an office."

A little nonsensical dialogue you put together doesn't qualify as a rationalization, pineapple.

Please, try to make a coherent argument. You're making no sense. Why do you feel that sex is magic?

Once again, please explain what is so frightening about intercourse to you that you think there should be no price tag on it.

I'm also really fucking curious as to why you and so many other people think you can put a price tag on OTHER peoples' genitals, but I fear that trying to discuss this with you would cause your tiny brain to implode.

Yes, adding prostitution to office work would, in fact, change everything about office work.

Adding office work to prositution would also change everything about prostitution.

Adding prostitution to prostitution, however, does not cause any great waves.

Why are people who have never had sex arguing about the legality of paying for it? Obviously, I'm not talking to Devo. Bitch is a ho.

It is not that it is magic, but that it is a very personal experience. Some of you guys have been arguing that it is just a physical encounter with no strings attached, and I fully believe it CAN be that, but it certainly isn't always. Many rape victims take a life-time to overcome what can be chalked up to a few moments of sexual intercourse. Sure, that isn't MAGICAL, but it sure is powerful, more than "just nerve endings and lube" like Pang puts it.

I am all for prostitution in which women have a legitimate choice. As it is in today's society, I feel that many of the women that would resort to it would do so because they have had no other opportunities. I take that to be coercion; Sure, these women wouldn't be RAPED in every sense of the word, but if prostitution is the only profession they can resort to in order to survive you can't really think that they are doing it out of a complete free choice. That is like saying that I give my money willingly when I have a gun pointed to my head.

If our government can spend a trillion dollars on the Iraq war, 3 trillion bailing out banks, and another trillion in medicare, then why can it not give better opportunities to these women? Now, once those opportunities are in place, the women can become prostitutes and do whatever they want. I just think that there wouldn't be as many.

I can't speak for anyone else here obviously but I am entirely capable of having a shag without experiencing some kind of profound emotional moment. Like Pang said if you do anything enough it becomes humdrum and banal.

I would have thought that taking a gun and shooting someone with it would probably be a pretty fucking emotional experience. If someone stuck a gun in my hand and forced me to shoot someone, it'd probably leave me more than a little traumatised. Despite the obvious horrors of killing other people, the government not only allows such a thing but in fact positively encourages it with their army recruitment ads.

When you join the army, you've got to accept that at some point there's a pretty good chance you're going to be expected to shoot someone. You get training to deal with it and one would imagine that after a couple of tours of the 'Ghan, killing people becomes a rather less emotionally involving act. You're in danger of getting killed every minute of every day and being asked to perform possibly the most morally reprehensible act there is on a daily basis. And you know what, the vast majority of people who join the army come from a poor background. You don't get many lawyers in the army, why is that do you think?

If it's ok for the government to ask people to join the army, put themselves in mortal danger and shoot people dead, why is it so bad for other people to be allowed to have sex for money? I'd suggest that someone working as a prostitute for a year would probably have less mental scars than someone doing the same stint in the army and be a lot more likely to be alive at the end of it.

And I believe that there are some women out there, that after having been raped, deep down enjoyed the experience. Not because they are a bad person, but because EVERY GOD DAMN PERSON IN THIS WORLD IS DIFFERENT.

Let me say that again.

Every god damn person in this world is different.

I thought I told you to grow up and get out of my forums. Do you have ANY idea how many people right now, in this country, are working jobs that they fucking HATE and would love to be doing something they love? I got lucky, after about...six years of working, I finally found a decent job that I enjoy doing. I was unable to get into college because my single mother making 25k a year apparently was TOO MUCH CASH for any financial support.

What you are proposing is that if people were laid off from their jobs, or, that their towns economy is so bad, that you would rather wait and see for the government to do something about it that didn't involve legalizing prostitution. Which in turn, leads me to believe that you would rather see people suffer with no income coming into their home instead of having a safe job where all they have to do is spread their legs.

Can you understand why some people may think you're a heartless bastard? Oh and for the record, there's a pretty decent possibility that I'd never even pay for a prostitute...hell I've only been to a strip club once in my life, and I'm 24 years old. Doesn't mean I don't like the idea of strip clubs, I just never have the urge to go.

Okay, taking this and what you said above that a prostitute would be a 'gun against the head' profession. How do you feel about strippers? In essence they take the same risks as if a legal prostitute would, perhaps even moreso because it's just one big cocktease. A stripper is just another job, same as a waitress, same as a cashier, and if you've never gotten a lap dance, well, those are pretty god damn personal experiences as well. Hell I still remember my first one, was like losing my virginity...cept when I lost my virginity the bitch was disappointing -_-.

Honestly, this conversation has been geared towards women, but men can be prostitutes just as much. This whole argument you have boils down to 'we have to keep the women safe, we have to give them better opportunities, we have to do this we have to do that'. Stop watching the god damn Lifetime channel and grow up. Women don't want YOU to tell them what to do, and as much as this is going to PAIN you to hear, they certainly don't want you deciding what is a good job, and what is a bad job.

For you, maybe. Why do you think you have the right to define this for everyone?

Of course you're going to bring rape into this! It's what you people DO. Even though it has nothing to do with consensual sex between two adults.

Look. No one is telling you to fuck without feeling anything. That's not anyone's position to define for you. At the same time, you have no position to tell others what they can and cannot do with their own genitals between consenting adults.

Ahahahhaa, man. You know, a lot of people work at Walmart because they have no other opportunities. Walmart has really POOR employment practices. In fact, a LOT of companies have very poor employment practices. Why are you picking prostitution as the arguably exploitative employment opportunity alone, here? Because it involves tits and vag, and not the IRS or payroll? What defines your retarded arguments, exactly?

Women AND men (did you forget that men whore themselves out, too??) have choices.

In a world where prostitution is LEGAL, they have even more choice and more protection than they do in the world YOU seem to want for them.

Are you really this dense.

Wait.

So you think -BY DEFAULT- if a woman should want to be a prostitute, she doesn't know any better and has no other choices in life?

You're an idiot. Do you KNOW any women? At all?

No. I do think that giving prostitutes other opportunities would drastically decrease the number of prostitutes because prostitution is (probably) tough, gruesome, degrading work. Maybe it is pure glamor though.

So how are you concluding this, exactly?

Just 'cause?

I mean, that seems to be the argument here on a whole.

"Why do you think this? Can you rationalize it?"
"Just because, jeez"
"wow, okay."

I really do want you to justify "tough, gruesome, and degrading."

Seriously, as Sass said above about wal-mart, I OUTLINED two pages back of my experiences at that place, what was expected of me, and how I was thanked for it when I wanted to move up in the company to make a measily 9 DOLLARS A FUCKING HOUR.

The work was tough, TVs fell on people's heads because the management decided "OH HAY THIS WILL WORK BETTER IF THE 42 INCH PLASMA'S ARE PUT UP ON THE HIGHEST BACK ROOM SHELVING"

Cleaning up kid vomit, cleaning up diaharea because someone coudnl't make it to the bathroom in time, and on the rare occassion having to report to managagement that there is a transvestite walking around the clothing department in a bra and panties is gruesome work.

Degrading? How about you have some 400lb fat peice of shit calling you nothing but a worthless, good for nothing cock sucker because you don't have a movie in he wants to see and you can't pop him in his fucking jaw like he deserves? Go fuck yourself Tambur. Go fuck yourself with a rusty god damn saw blade.

What "other opportunities" could be offered that would pay a few hundred dollars an hour?

I am not going to say I am wise in what the majority of prostitutes feel about their job, but I do know one and she has changed my view that prostitutes are somehow victims. The woman I know was never sexually abused, and comes from a home where the parents have been married for 30+ years. From what she has said to me, I get the impression she likes the power and control she has over the men in that they want her enough to pay her $300+ an hour. She has also told me that while some of the men she sees are not attractive, she does see men that are not only attractive, but damn good in bed and actually make the effort to please her as well as themselves.

This woman also has a screening process of some sort and doesn't see just anyone. She has never been hurt in any way by a client that wasn't consensual.

Grail, I understand that working at Walmart sucks, but I don't think it is as bad as being a prostitute most of the time.

Look, I have already said that I want prostitution to be legal. I well conceive of some people who even enjoy being prostitutes, although I think that that is probably a minority.

When prostitution is legalized, it would be good if efforts were put in place to give women in urban and rural areas opportunities other than prostitution. I do have a problem with it becoming the profession that impoverished people default into. A young girl or boy in a rural area may only have prostitution as viable work in order to survive. That seems to be exploitative to a cruel degree.

Do you disagree with that?

As to whether it would be a bad job if it were legal, who can tell for sure? Like we have already agree, there are people for everything. The point is, we have no data and are basically discussing opinions. As for me, I think it would probably be terrible, but I have worked on a Rape/Sexual Assault line and dealt with a lot of impoverished women who have had to resort to it. I can see that you prefer keeping it a woman's choice. All I hold is that this choice probably wouldn't be so free.

I am sure lots of women like that exist. But I still contend that the majority is far from that. I don't really think that's such a controversial statement.

You didn't answer my question.

None. I don't think that is a huge problem, though. Most people don't need those types of wages.

But if someone wants those wages, what's to stop them from becoming a prostitute even after all of those government opportunities you want to happen suddenly appear?

Nothing. I have said that I am perfectly fine with legal prostitution, as long is it is not the profession people default into.

See, Tamburlaine, I think that whenever you hear the word prostitute, you think of the street-walking, coke addict, abused women that you solicit on a Saturday night downtown who ARE in fact taken advantage of by not only their johns, but by the police.

Yes, very much.

There are women -and I say this from personal experience- who would be HAPPY to chose prostitution if only it was legal. Women who are NOT impoverished and/or abused. They're very intelligent women who think that it's a fair way to make money. I know at least 2 with whom I've had conversations about it, and they have made it very clear that if it was legal and if they were protected by law and were permitted to work in a legal establishment of their choosing (like any other job), they would drop what they're doing and become a prostitute right away. It's the oldest (and one of the most lucrative) jobs in the history of man - job security is almost guaranteed provided you're good at what you do (LIKE IN ANY OTHER JOB)

Again, you're thinking of the MINORITY of prostitutes who actually walk the street and get the shit beaten out of them because they have to feed their kids. Those women need options, yes. But then, so do a lot of people who aren't associated with prostitution. So let's not just assume that ONLY STREET-WALKING HOES need "options."

I assure you, they are NOT the majority. Do some research. The majority of the prostitutes out there are not suffering.

So before you start saying "prostitutes have no options," do some fucking homework.

Of course, not all women think prostitution would work for them. And that's totally cool. I don't think being an accountant would work for me, SO I DON'T FUCKING DO IT. See how that works. I don't outlaw accounting because I think it's a tough, gruesome, degrading job.

I don't actually have anything against accounting or accountants. ;_;

I don't think you understand what I mean by options. But I am gonna let it go because we aren't getting anywhere and not listening to one another.

If you care however, you should watch this video:

YouTube - Noam Chomsky - Noam vs. Michel Foucault (Eng. subs)

See, Tamburlaine, what you need to do is explain what you mean by "options." I think there's only one meaning in this situation, but I'm curious to see what you come up with.

But hey, feel free to post links to youtube videos instead of actually arguing your position. That always works.

I have to wonder just how sustainable that rate would be if prostitution were legal. I don't think it's economically possible for everyone to make this kind of money. I suppose this could tap into the multi-billion dollar porn industry, but how much of that is married guys who wouldn't be able to get away with visiting a brothel.

It'll be just like any other business most likely, where you bill out to the client at $150 an hour, but your take is $35 an hour plus healthcare, 401k, 2 weeks vacation, sick time, etc. You'd probably get a cut of the profit for any new business you bring in. The big money would be in running a chain of brothels.

As for whether sex should be different than any other commodity in a secular society, that's an interesting thing to ponder, but it clearly is. Consider how much more serious (and frightening) we consider a sexual assault compared to a physical assault.

While this viewpoint may hold true for some percentage of people, the issue of rape is still only nominally relevant (it involves sex).

One of the primary horrifying factors of rape is the violent loss of control over one's body. Legalization of prostitution on the other hand is an act which could potentially give many women more control over their bodies.

As mentioned earlier, many women who are part of the prostitution market in America are caught in a catch-22, where they may be subject to slave-like working conditions, yet have no legal recourse due to their participation in a crime. Discussion of rape simply muddies this issue.

Money-wise, this is like most illicit activities (drugs, weapons, ect...) When made legal, the supply and demand curve shifts, and the ready availability of prostitutes (drugs, weapons) changes prices. In the specific case of prostitution, there would likely still be a premium placed on the service, due to social bias, and there would also be the potential for price changes due to regulation / taxation. Widescale legalized prostitution would probably be subject to intense regulation scrutiny, much as the cited case in Nevada is.

Wanted to hit this point a bit back as well, since the dirty / dangerous jobs show a similar reasoning as being used towards prostitution, but without the extremism. The point as I understand it was that these are undesirable occupations which people would not choose given a choice. (Also "industry work" is really vague, so I've taken it to mean heavy industry work.)

First off, dangerous jobs are legal, they are generally well regulated, and they often pay a premium based upon the conditions (danger in their case). They have experienced numerous scandals and problems during their history, and social economic forces have acted over time to correct the problems. All of these things are similar to a legalized form of prostitution (looking at areas like Amsterdam / Nevada)

People regularly choose to work dangerous jobs and are often proud of their association with the job. They cite various reasons, but some like the extra pay, some like the thrill, and some just like the type of work. Some would choose these types of work over jobs which require years of school and study. (Anecdotally, I know several foundry and mining workers who hold this view) Given the option in a free market, reasonable people pursue work which may be undesirable to the public at large.

Finally, these jobs and workers exist because of a need in society, their work is as important as normal 9-5 jobs, and will exist until that need goes away. If we attempt to reduce the number of workers in this field, then the cost of finding laborers to perform the work will increase, or they will be found from a different source.

In the case of prostitution, people will always want to have sex, and there will always be those who can't get enough, yet have money. If it is illegal, then prices are high, there is no transparency, dangerous conditions are not corrected, and workers are more often exploited. If it is legal, efforts to convince natives to not enter the industry are irrelevant, as this will simply force the suppliers to search elsewhere for workers (immigrants, black market)

I'm sorry but this is not a hentai movie, get that retarded shit out of here.

The argument that sex is super-powerful because people get upset about rape doesn't hold water. Rape isn't horrifying because it involves sex; it's horrifying because it violates a person's control over their own body. That's why we prosecute date-rapists who drug women and rape them in their sleep. The victim may not even remember the actual rape or derive any direct harm from the experience; it's the violation that horrifies. It has nothing to do with the sex and everything to do with being pulled around on somebody else's puppet strings.

I think I am probably the only person in this thread who knows someone who was an actual prostitute. She is perfectly fine, had a very normal childhood, and because she worked for a legal escort service (despite performing illegal acts), she was kept safer and healthier than her street-walking sisters.

This wasn't some downtrodden minority or broken woman. It was someone who realized her pussy could print money because she was pretty and had could use it. She made the choice to become a prostitute to help raise her kids and give them the things she had as a youth because honestly, she was a little too dumb to make that kind of money in a fancy career.

And there are a lot of girls like her. A lot. Nobody should be forcefully put into the position that some prostitutes can find themselves in, but if a woman wants to consciously make that choice then they should be allowed to and they should be fucking protected. Just like people who become cops, or miners, any of the other innumerable dangerous jobs. End of story. Fuck your moral outrage or whatever pedestal you seem to be placing sex and/or women on.

By the way, her story about when she got hired by Charlie Sheen is fucking classic.

You realise most academics think Noam Chomsky is sort of out of his mind these days, yeah? You and KP keep running off at the mouth about things like the plight of the downtrodden woman and the suffering of the poor people being damaged by this. What you are is the victim of a sad, and far too common, problem: You're educated retarded.

You quote a single study and act like you've solved the problem. You're talking social theory, at BEST we're taking shots in the dark as anthropologists and sociologists. A single study is a drop in a bucket of water. Go read Kulick's books on the Brasilian transvesti prostitutes, or Taboo, or his paper on prostitution in Sweden. How about Cauthen's legalizing prostitution work in his ethics? Do you know anything of Sweden's system of selling sex being legal, but buying it being illegal? You know what happened? The prostitutes got pissed.

Why? Because they chose a vocation that was legal, and now the government was meddling in it for their own good. They didn't want the help, but damnit, the moral highground demanded that they save those poor hookers. Who didn't need or want saving.

You want legal systems based on morality. You can't have it. Morality is a personal choice, and if you don't want to fuck for money, from either side of the c-note, then you don't have to. But the fact you want to legislate it so you can feel slightly less icky is so condescending it hurts. Look at how Germany handles legalized prostitution. Do some fucking research on the subject before you start shooting off at the mouth.

You mentioned how cultures react to prostitution. There are whole parts of the world, white man, who don't think sex is a big deal. The idea of sex for money being degrading would be HILARIOUS to a group like the Muinane. It's just sex. It's fun. Move on with your life, True Believer. You don't understand what the social theory says about this because you haven't read it. A large section of the modern world has legalized prostitution, and as you want to keep slapping around the Dutch for shutting down part of the red light district, allow me to educate you: The problem in Holland wasn't the legalized prostitution, it was poorly policed parts of the city dealing in children instead of grown adults. Legalized prostitution is doing very well in Holland, they just closed the places that weren't by the book and hired more inspectors.

Those crazy dutch.

I did some ethnography with prostitutes, and my favourite anecdote was from a Swedish woman. She, along with some 5000 others in her country, was a licensed physical therapist who would have sex with her clients (who were largely disabled or otherwise unable to go out and hire a prostitute themselves) for money, often as a form of therapy. She found an improvement ration in her client's mental state that destroyed prescription drug use. She can't do that anymore with Sweden's new laws. She has a lot of money, many job options, and she chooses to be a prostitute because it's safe in a legalized, and well run environment.

You know why Vegas is a shambles? Because it's one oasis in a desert of intolerance. It's not policed properly and there is no societal structure in place in the US to support a legalized sex industry because of ignorant fucking morallly presumptuous jokes like the two of you. Read some books, get some life experience, and stop thinking your arguments are even remotely valid.

Everyone has the right to an opinion, but unless it's informed, no one is required to take you seriously.

"Fucking is legal. Selling is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?"

http://images.eonline.com/eol_images...rge.062308.jpg

P.S.

If you think sex is life changing, you haven't had it with more than three people. Just saying.

Prostitution actually isn't legal in Vegas, but it sure as fuck goes on.

Because come on, it's Vegas. We just call them escorts and look the other way when they start sucking.

Well of course, with anything illicit, there's a fee you pay due to the illegal nature of the product. No doubt prostitutes will take a hit by both the legality of their new job and the increased competition, as well as the overhead for providing a product in a safe environment (std screenings, etc), and of course the wages will all be reported to the IRS for taxation.

On the other hand, with legality comes a larger (and more frequent) customer base. Though certain women will be making less money than they would in a black market, they would be working more frequently. Not to mention the extraordinary cuts that a pimp would take out of a prostitute's profits would probably mitigate the cuts that a government-licensed brothel would take. Overall a woman may find herself making more.

Don't forget that not every prostitute makes $150 an hour. Depending on your clientele and your services, you could be making vastly more or less. High priced callgirls are paid significantly more not because they're beautiful or they'll do a hot lunch, but because they'll be discreet. I wouldn't expect this to change.

Reno would be a very good case study on the differences in take-home a licensed prostitute would make over illegal ones in other areas.

edit: Don't forget that for many people, security while performing your job is worth more than its weight in gold. Prostitutes working Reno may prefer the security of not getting killed by truck drivers over making 20% less than their counterparts elsewhere.

Legalized prostitution in certain places, no?

Not within city limits, Deni.

I think the closest town to Vegas for legal whores is Pahrump

Okay, in my being very tired and overworked by school right now, by Vegas I meant Nevada.

Tamburlaine is an idiot and I don't want to defend him, but I think you're shooting yourself in the foot with this sentence. How can the sex act be a "violation" unless there's something special about genital contact? Otherwise, it's no more a violation than drugging someone and, say, putting your finger in his/her mouth. The fact that a given individual might personally feel one to be more icky than the other would have no legal weight if the majority of America didn't share Tamburlaine's sentiments. Otherwise, the law would focus on the element of coercion/sedation instead of the sex.

See also: sexual abuse of children. I know it's a separate issue (and probably irrelevant to the behavior of adults), but the prevalent belief is that there's something special about sexual experiences that will addle a child's brain.

Anyway, since legalizing prostitution would make for a good experiment to see how much of America's sex-is-damaging attitude is cultural (as if Deni's post isn't enough), I can only assume that Tamburlaine is not only painfully paternalistic but also anti-science.

I don't know about you but I'd be pretty pissed if someone was putting their finger in my mouth while I was passed out.

There are physiological differences between fingers and penises, and between mouths and vaginas. You'd have to put your finger in her mouth in such a way that causes physical damage, that can cause disease, and can risk pregnancy.

The intent of rape is to terrify and violate a person. If the perpetrator knew his victim before the assault, why would it be inappropriate to treat this as any other form of domestic violence with increased sentencing and with measures taken to protect the victim from the perpetrator after he serves his time (restraining orders, etc)?

There are a lot of things that aren't anything special that are reserved for adults only. Why do you think we don't allow children to dictate their own educations? Nor do we hold kids responsible for the morality they had when they were younger. When I was 8 I thought the solution to AIDS was just not let anyone who has it have sex or give birth.

Baby, you just haven't met my finger yet.

I was hoping I didn't have to mention that, because Pang specifically focused on the loss of control. But yes, obviously.

It wouldn't be, of course.

Also:
I'm not saying rape isn't that bad, or that it shouldn't be that bad, or that it wouldn't be that bad with the right attitude or whatever. My point is just that America's legal and social response to rape is disproportionate to the actual severity of the "physical" elements of the crime--loss of control, invasion of personal space, bodily harm, etc. The finger example was just a silly thing to show it's not solely about lack of consent. So, how about, say, being tied up and stabbed, or held down and beaten? Terrible, traumatizing events, but well below rape in terms of social and legal sanctions, right?

And of course the reason is because rape, due to its sexual nature, is assumed to have a stronger psychological impact. But this does show that people think sex is special--magical--and not just meat sliding around. It's a particular kind of right to privacy and consent, a particular (worse) kind of violation, and for more reasons than just the risk of pregnancy and disease. That boundary would not exist unless most people believed sex is not quite so ordinary.

Pang stated that rape law is not a good indicator of such attitudes, and I disagree. To use an close analogy: indecent exposure laws are actually a quite good indicator that America thinks there is something damaging about the sight of genitalia.

It's a minor point, but I think the logic is on Tamburlaine's side for that one thing. That's all I was trying to say.

The laws may dictate for the most part, society's views on rape (and sex), but it certainly doesn't relate to all rape victims. In fact, the physical aspects of the attack, in the end, seem so trivial compared to what it does to a person emotionally. To their views on people.

Imagine if you will, the feeling you get if you've had someone break into your house. Instead change that to your body and mind. That's kind of how it is.

I am not even sure I made a point, but whatever.

This rape tangent is awfully interesting. Worthy of it's own topic? Hmm... Love to comment but my posts get too long as it is.

I think the anti-prostitution voices here are being focused on in the wrong way. People seem to get most upset at Tamburlaine for the things he says that don't even apply much to his overall opinion. I don't necessarily agree with him on all points of course. But, as I've pointed out several times already, I don't necessarily DISagree on all points with those who favor legalized prostitution.

And for myself, I'm really trying to go for the "prostitution is morally wrong" platform, but I keep getting drawn into debates on mistreatment of sex workers, exploitation, and attitudes towards sexual behaviors.

Arguing about my attitudes on sex (what makes it a big deal, etc.) is getting closer to the mark, but my real thoughts (deranged as they are) can't possibly be conveyed if even just a few respectable people operate on the assumption that I find sex "dirty" or "wrong". I do enjoy when people confront me on my reasoning that trading sex for money is wrong. Hmm, maybe not enjoy, but I respect that conflict of opinions even if it's served with an extra helping of insults. I definitely understand how the pro-prostitution lobby thinks, but admittedly I haven't exactly been enlightened by the information posted in this topic. Not because I'm learning impaired, but my understanding of the counter arguments was fairly accurate to begin. I haven't really been surprised by any of the good arguments made in favor of prostitution. The only surprises were the bad ones. :)

Of course throwing an impromptu play into the midst doesn't help my cause, unless you've been following the topic with a magnifying class and can appreciate satire. Bleh, I thought it was worth at least a chuckle.

If I had to guess, I doubt very much that most of us here go through life utterly perplexed and confused about why the powers-that-be made prostitution illegal in most places. Are the people who stand in disbelief at the things I say likewise shocked by the countless others who agree with me. It is one thing to disagree, it is quite another to be completely unaware of why the other side disagrees with you.

So yeah, I think prostitution is morally wrong. I support the right for lawmakers to make laws based on these moral values. Not unconditionally. Not based on religion. Not based on one culture, but something with near universal agreement across the governing body. Does prostitution have near universal agreement in any locale? Oftentimes,'Yes' when it involves you or your loved ones. So in Joe Schmoe's house, nobody is allowed to be a prostitute. It becomes 'mostly' (but not overwhelmingly so) when applied to only to strangers. Good enough to make a law out of?

I feel like it's this natural response to prostitution being wrong that drives the current laws into place. Oh, we could go much further into the nuances about that. Lucky for me, I don't need to clarify myself because people have already answered on my behalf. Apparently "It just does" and "Sex is witchcraft!" provide a better portrait of my thoughts than the things I actually think and write. Sorry for the sarcasm. Additional apologies to the people who had the courtesy to argue about the things I've actually written. Just for the record, I'm much more sarcastic than I am bitter. Honest! :)

This is a pipe dream. You are positing the existence of some Universal Morality that transcends religious/cultural boundaries. There is no such thing.

To propose, straight-faced, that the notion of prostitution is somehow inherently offense to mankind's universal ethical fiber is to ignore several thousand years of history. The idea that sluttin' it up for cash cash dollars is somehow WRONG is very much a relatively recent development and one that I think you'll find a significant proportion of the world is still a little iffy about.

Look, it's fine and good, in principle, to make laws with a moral foundation. As somebody already pointed out in this thread, most laws have some kind of moral basis underpinning them. However, there's an important principle separating, say, laws about theft, murder, or assault and laws about prostitution or homosexuality.

This principle is the determination of harm. Stealing is illegal. Why? Because it harms the victim financially without his consent. Assault is illegal. Why? Because it harms the victim physically without his consent. Stalking is illegal. Why? Because it harms the victim psychologically without his consent.

However, there is no law against assaulting yourself. If you punch yourself in the face and give yourself a black eye, or deliberately drive your motorbike into a ditch, it's extraordinarily unlikely that police will find you very interesting. Why? Because it is accepted wisdom in most Western cultures that people have the right to do whatever they want to themselves. This is why smoking cigarettes is legal. This is why drinking liquor is legal. This is why eating sausages wrapped in cookie dough is legal.

And these are things that PROVABLY, DEMONSTRABLY can hurt you, sometimes lethally. Yet we allow them. Why? Self-determination. You have a right, in America, to intentionally stick your hand in a blender. May it be stupid to do so? Sure. But if it's your hand and your blender, hey hey. That's between you and the baffled ER staff.

Your argument hinges upon the (questionable) notion that being a prostitute may somehow result in self-harm. It does not demonstrably do so, but it may. Fair enough. But if demonstrably self-harmful behaviors remain legal, on what basis do we illegalize arguably self-harmful behaviors?

The question of whether prostitution is traumatizing for the prostitute is irrelevant when prostitution is entered into as a choice on the part of the prostitute. Adults in the United States have a right to harm themselves.

"It's bad for ya" is not a basis for law.

Well, it is illegal to commit suicide. (Not saying if I agree or not) Many narcotics are illegal as is gambling in most places. I hardly think that the government will ever allow gang members kill each other in an isolated field even if every single one of them is okay with the risk. And while you may disagree with those laws, I'm just trying to point out that there is a thought process out there that many share which states: There are some things people just shouldn't be allowed to do. Again, this is hardly conclusive and wide open to debate, but in the end when a law has to be written people weigh the issue and still end up making laws that tell people what they can and cannot do. As society's perceptions and morals evolve we are sure to see some of these laws change. This is a constant trend in history, more often than not for the better. However, society as a whole may remain steadfast on some issues and the small minority will feel infringed upon. Prostitution and drugs are interesting because the general consensus is to keep it illegal, but the amount of people who disagree is significant enough that their voices must be heard. (Not so for people who want to stick their hand in a blender) Loose comparisons and analogies may abound but each issue must be decided on its own based on what makes it unique.

My stance that I feel like prostitutes are harming themselves seems implied, but is doesn't accurately define my position nor does it hinge upon it. That same feeling of discomfort people get thinking about a family member being a prostitute gets carried over to the faceless general public by legislators. That deep seeded feeling doesn't directly address whether or not I feel an individual prostitute is harming herself because of her job. And this deep rooted moral vibe isn't the same as having a child that's gay, republican, or a poet...My natural instincts make me hope my child never becomes one of these things, but most people still have it within themselves to tolerate, accept, and love. They can even continue to love a family member who becomes a prostitute, but many do not have the capacity to tolerate that occupation or its patrons.

"It makes me uncomfortable" is definitely not a valid basis on which to hang legislation. If I could ban anything that made me uncomfortable then we'd never get to have this conversation because liberty-hating mob-rule enthusiasts would be locked up.

If all anyone offered is "It makes me uncomfortable" I'd have to agree with you. My basis begins with, but encompasses far more than just that sentiment. I'm not going to spend time repeating myself or others but the details have been put out there. I wish there were more people representing my side, but as devil's advocate; From what basis do you think current laws developed from?

And I thought I outlined how being uncomfortable with anything isn't enough to make a law out of. The thought process goes way beyond that starting point.

Precisely the same basis that lies beneath antiabortion legislation: the desire to undermine the status of women. Bans on prostitution, specifically, were designed to make it more difficult for women to live productive lives independent of a man on which to rely. If a woman has her own income, she no longer needs a man. This reduces the pool of marriageable women, which in turn increases the number of bachelors, which leads to patrilineal lines dying out — which, in a patriarchal culture, is entirely unacceptable.

Of course, nowadays we all pretend sexism is over and women can take any job they want so the ban on prostitution is largely just an anachronistic leftover which survives purely on the will of... well, people who feel it's BAD for reasons they can't quite communicate.

I posted that video for Foucault, who has the last word in the interview. Foucault posits that there is no ultimate morality, but that does not mean that people can't be exploited. Think about it. There are material reasons for the current class structure, institutions, and operations of society. If some people live in extreme wealth while other starve, there is a reason for it.

At one point, these institutions pointed towards overly violent punishments for witchcraft. I don't hold any qualms with calling those actions and institutions lies. I don't have any qualms with calling today's public schooling, the police, and prostitution lies. The reason is that people take those actions to be free and perfectly reasonable, but they stem from exploitative historical forces.

I know my views are a bit unorthodox, but they are hardly hateful like some of you guys have been painting.

Additional Spam:
So, I agree with you. But I will say it again: my only fear is that in rural areas prostitution will become the ONLY means of living for certain women. That's my only problem; but other than that legalize it all you want.