Why not legalize prostitution?

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Midna

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

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

...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.

Originally Posted by Tamburlaine

I should hope that in the future both coal mining, industry work, and prostitution can be left behind.

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 was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Grail

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.

I'm sorry but this is not a hentai movie, get that retarded shit out of here.

no homo

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Tamburlaine

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)

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?"



P.S.

If you think sex is life changing, you haven't had it with more than three people. Just saying.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Secret Squirrel

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.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Tentacle Rapist

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.

Legalized prostitution in certain places, no?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Not within city limits, Deni.

I think the closest town to Vegas for legal whores is Pahrump

I was speaking idiomatically.

Okay, in my being very tired and overworked by school right now, by Vegas I meant Nevada.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Bath House Pang House

The victim may not even remember the actual rape or derive any direct harm from the experience; it's the violation that horrifies.

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Worm

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 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.

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)?

Quote:

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.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

Baby, you just haven't met my finger yet.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

I was hoping I didn't have to mention that, because Pang specifically focused on the loss of control. But yes, obviously.

Originally Posted by a lurker

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)?

It wouldn't be, of course.

Also:

Originally Posted by YOU MAD

It's the loss of control, the loss of the power, a stranger (or relative/acquaintance) dominating them and their space, the penetration of foreign objects without consent, and the ever present doubts about who they can trust.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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!

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

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

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

"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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

"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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

From what basis do you think current laws developed from?

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

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?"



P.S.

If you think sex is life changing, you haven't had it with more than three people. Just saying.

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:

Originally Posted by Bath House Pang House

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.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.