There are a number of places where prostitution is legal, such as the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, and parts of Nevada. My experience is that a majority of Americans view it as a universally immoral act, and a sizable minority view it as a victimless crime.
Should prostitution be legal?
What are the societal implications of legalization?
Is prostitution wrong?
Please define or explain your sense of right and wrong if you choose to answer this.
Prostitution
Moderator: Moderators
-
Regular_Guy
- Student
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:22 am
- Location: texas
Post #21
I don't see what's closer to slavery than being forced to have all your power subverted for however length of time. A free man should not be able to enlist in the armed forces or to sign a contract. The man's intent is not pleasure but political or money. In essence he sells his liberty to promote the political agenda of the government of the day or to make money. Does that seem wrong to you?
Surely you can see the difference between prostitution and goverment. Your question should be rewritten into two questions. Something to the effect of:
****
1.How can you agree with what the goverment does and disagree with what prostitution would do?
2. Don't you see the contradiction/fallacy?
****
How can society exist without goverment?
Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest(mills)
What the goverment does is different from what prostitution does.
A goverment is necessary for the well being of the community, prostitution is not.
Surely you can see the difference between prostitution and goverment. Your question should be rewritten into two questions. Something to the effect of:
****
1.How can you agree with what the goverment does and disagree with what prostitution would do?
2. Don't you see the contradiction/fallacy?
****
How can society exist without goverment?
Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest(mills)
What the goverment does is different from what prostitution does.
A goverment is necessary for the well being of the community, prostitution is not.
Post #22
How is this exchanging money for liberty? Assuming it were legal, the prostitute is engaging in economic activity that is no more heinous than being a hairdresser or a massage therapist. But because the economic activity involves sex, it has these overtones about who has the power. Prostitution, as it exists now, is more like ceding liberty to another individual, as you describe. But regulated, legal prostitution would not be like this.Regular_Guy wrote:I think it was john stuart mill that wrote: a free man cannot sell himself into slavery because this is contradictory; the act defeats the purpose of him being free. I don't see what's closer to slavey than being forced to have all your power subverted for however length of time. A free women should not be able to do this. the women's intent is not pleasure, but money. In essence she sell her liberty to earn a living. Which seems wrong to me.
Which is why your argument only works in reverse. You are not only depriving the women who wish to become prostitutes from engaging in this activity legally the freedom to do so, you are also relegating those who do not wish to do so into slavery by criminalizing it and allowing a criminal element and mindset to dictate what the rules are.
-
Regular_Guy
- Student
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:22 am
- Location: texas
Post #23
How is this exchanging money for liberty?
Im not to familiar with all the details in prostitution but im pretty sure the person paying the hooker (sorry this was the only word that came to mind) isn't necessarily paying for just "sex". The customer is is paying for the hooker's time. Within the time purchased the hooker now has to submit herself to the customer. She now has to abide by the customers set of "rules". Can you imagine all the lawsuits?
Legalizing prostitution would be THE stepping stone into a steady decline of the society we know.
Where would it end? If a man or woman can sell themselves for an hour or two, why couldn't they sell themselves for a life time? (ala slavery)
Assuming it were legal, the prostitute is engaging in economic activity that is no more heinous than being a hairdresser or a massage therapist.
I disagree
But because the economic activity involves sex, it has these overtones about who has the power. Prostitution, as it exists now, is more like ceding liberty to another individual, as you describe. But regulated, legal prostitution would not be like this.
You can't say that for certain.
Which is why your argument only works in reverse. You are not only depriving the women who wish to become prostitutes from engaging in this activity legally the freedom to do so, you are also relegating those who do not wish to do so into slavery by criminalizing it and allowing a criminal element and mindset to dictate what the rules are.
,the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest(mills)
Keeping the notion that the whole "civil war" thing happened for a reason
is the mindset.
It's criminalized because it's wrong. Black and white with no grey.
IMO of course
Im not to familiar with all the details in prostitution but im pretty sure the person paying the hooker (sorry this was the only word that came to mind) isn't necessarily paying for just "sex". The customer is is paying for the hooker's time. Within the time purchased the hooker now has to submit herself to the customer. She now has to abide by the customers set of "rules". Can you imagine all the lawsuits?
Legalizing prostitution would be THE stepping stone into a steady decline of the society we know.
Where would it end? If a man or woman can sell themselves for an hour or two, why couldn't they sell themselves for a life time? (ala slavery)
Assuming it were legal, the prostitute is engaging in economic activity that is no more heinous than being a hairdresser or a massage therapist.
I disagree
But because the economic activity involves sex, it has these overtones about who has the power. Prostitution, as it exists now, is more like ceding liberty to another individual, as you describe. But regulated, legal prostitution would not be like this.
You can't say that for certain.
Which is why your argument only works in reverse. You are not only depriving the women who wish to become prostitutes from engaging in this activity legally the freedom to do so, you are also relegating those who do not wish to do so into slavery by criminalizing it and allowing a criminal element and mindset to dictate what the rules are.
,the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest(mills)
Keeping the notion that the whole "civil war" thing happened for a reason
is the mindset.
It's criminalized because it's wrong. Black and white with no grey.
IMO of course
Post #24
I, too, am not familiar with "hooker" methodology. I am only familiar with the transaction through the popular media and what you hear in police reports. As far as I can tell, it is only about sex, and the only rule is that you do what your pimp tells you to do. The "client" does not have carte blanche to do what he wishes, and there is no reason to suppose that the client of a legal prostitute would either.Regular_Guy wrote:How is this exchanging money for liberty?
Im not to familiar with all the details in prostitution but im pretty sure the person paying the hooker (sorry this was the only word that came to mind) isn't necessarily paying for just "sex". The customer is is paying for the hooker's time. Within the time purchased the hooker now has to submit herself to the customer. She now has to abide by the customers set of "rules". Can you imagine all the lawsuits?
There's a Borscht Belt joke that goes something like this: "A Lady of the Night comes up to me one evening and says to me, 'I'll do anything you want for $300.' So I says to her, 'Paint my house.'" I think you'd agree that this goes beyond the jurisdiction of the prostitute.
How is this different from golddigging or marrying for money?Regular_Guy wrote:Legalizing prostitution would be THE stepping stone into a steady decline of the society we know.
Where would it end? If a man or woman can sell themselves for an hour or two, why couldn't they sell themselves for a life time? (ala slavery)
This is a moral judgment on your part, not a legal one.Regular_Guy wrote:Assuming it were legal, the prostitute is engaging in economic activity that is no more heinous than being a hairdresser or a massage therapist.
I disagree
Youbetcha I can. The illegal prostitute has absolutely no recourse if something goes wrong. She stays with a pimp for protection, period. The legal prostitute has every avenue available to her (or him) that any other small business person does: small claims court, litigation, calling the police, seeing a doctor, etc. Legalization means having the leverage to act on the radar screen with the full protection of whatever legal authority governs it.Regular_Guy wrote:But because the economic activity involves sex, it has these overtones about who has the power. Prostitution, as it exists now, is more like ceding liberty to another individual, as you describe. But regulated, legal prostitution would not be like this.
You can't say that for certain.
This doesn't apply.Regular_Guy wrote:,the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest(mills)
And of course, because it's wrong (even assuming it's wrong), this doesn't mean it should be made illegal. Slavery should be illegal because there is a victim. And not that this is equivalent, but willing servitude is another matter entirely.Regular_Guy wrote:Keeping the notion that the whole "civil war" thing happened for a reason
is the mindset.
It's criminalized because it's wrong. Black and white with no grey.
IMO of course
-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #25
No. If it were legalized, the sex trade would come under regulations similar to other professions. Health standards, Hygiene standards. Rules about what can or cannot be done.Regular_Guy wrote:How is this exchanging money for liberty?
Im not to familiar with all the details in prostitution but im pretty sure the person paying the hooker (sorry this was the only word that came to mind) isn't necessarily paying for just "sex". The customer is is paying for the hooker's time. Within the time purchased the hooker now has to submit herself to the customer. She now has to abide by the customers set of "rules". Can you imagine all the lawsuits?
The same way that if I can sell my programming services to my clients does not make me into a slave.Regular_Guy wrote:Where would it end? If a man or woman can sell themselves for an hour or two, why couldn't they sell themselves for a life time? (ala slavery)
Not good enough. You have to provide a reason and some evidence.Regular_Guy wrote:Assuming it were legal, the prostitute is engaging in economic activity that is no more heinous than being a hairdresser or a massage therapist.
I disagree
No, but you can say for certain that it would be quite different legalized and regulated than it is now. Read some history of the experiment with prohibition in the USA.Regular_Guy wrote:But because the economic activity involves sex, it has these overtones about who has the power. Prostitution, as it exists now, is more like ceding liberty to another individual, as you describe. But regulated, legal prostitution would not be like this.
You can't say that for certain.
Back up your opinion with logic, reason and evidence and then it will be worth listening to. Until then ...Regular_Guy wrote:Which is why your argument only works in reverse. You are not only depriving the women who wish to become prostitutes from engaging in this activity legally the freedom to do so, you are also relegating those who do not wish to do so into slavery by criminalizing it and allowing a criminal element and mindset to dictate what the rules are.
,the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest(mills)
Keeping the notion that the whole "civil war" thing happened for a reason
is the mindset.
It's criminalized because it's wrong. Black and white with no grey.
IMO of course
-
Regular_Guy
- Student
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:22 am
- Location: texas
Post #26
ST88 
I, too, am not familiar with "hooker" methodology. I am only familiar with the transaction through the popular media and what you hear in police reports. As far as I can tell, it is only about sex, and the only rule is that you do what your pimp tells you to do. The "client" does not have carte blanche to do what he wishes, and there is no reason to suppose that the client of a legal prostitute would either.
Ok it seems that both you and I don't have all the facts on the just exactly what the customer is purchasing. So i will research the matter a little further and get back to you.
How is this different from golddigging or marrying for money?
In gold digging and marrying for money both partners can opt to not have sex at any time. Where as in prostitution the hooker no longer has the option of saying no to sex.
This is a moral judgment on your part, not a legal one.
Ok I agree that under the law they would be the same (you know what I mean).
Youbetcha I can. The illegal prostitute has absolutely no recourse if something goes wrong. She stays with a pimp for protection, period. The legal prostitute has every avenue available to her (or him) that any other small business person does: small claims court, litigation, calling the police, seeing a doctor, etc. Legalization means having the leverage to act on the radar screen with the full protection of whatever legal authority governs it.
Why would she call the cops? How would her case hold up in court? Will she actually have a fair trial?
Customer: Yes I purchased and signed an agreement for an hour of "rough sex". The broken arm is a result of what I paid for and what the prostitute agreed to.
She's still giving up her rights only now it's enforced by contract.
I think legalizing prostitution would take away any protection she already has(the pimp). It is not a gain by any means. The legal prostitute would have not only the customers rules to abide by but also the states.. Ie: A customer paid for an hour of sex but for whatever reasons only used 40 minutes. The customer then has a legal right to pursue those 20 minutes.
This doesn't apply.
Of course it does. It is the majority that rules. Why can't a person choose to have someone kill him?
And of course, because it's wrong (even assuming it's wrong), this doesn't mean it should be made illegal. Slavery should be illegal because there is a victim. And not that this is equivalent, but willing servitude is another matter entirely.
I think we have a different definition of the word slavery.
McCulloch
No. If it were legalized, the sex trade would come under regulations similar to other professions. Health standards, Hygiene standards. Rules about what can or cannot be done
You think the prostitues will abide by these laws? You think there wont be any loop holes? Prostitues are currently breaking the law. Suggesting that legalizing it with supposed restrictions will get them to change their "ways"
is speculation on your part. If it's not speculation can you give evidence that supports your statement.
The same way that if I can sell my programming services to my clients does not make me into a slave
No it does'nt , but selling a designated amount of your time where your "power", "freedom" is subverted is the basis for slavery.
Not good enough. You have to provide a reason and some evidence.
It was an emotional response. Sorry
I should have been clear on my statement. The only evidence is what I feel. 
No, but you can say for certain that it would be quite different legalized and regulated than it is now. Read some history of the experiment with prohibition in the USA.
Nobodys questioning wether or not it would be different should it be legalized. I assume everyone knows it would be different.
Back up your opinion with logic, reason and evidence and then it will be worth listening to. Until then ...
I thought I did Hmmmm
Either way nice hearing your opinions.
I, too, am not familiar with "hooker" methodology. I am only familiar with the transaction through the popular media and what you hear in police reports. As far as I can tell, it is only about sex, and the only rule is that you do what your pimp tells you to do. The "client" does not have carte blanche to do what he wishes, and there is no reason to suppose that the client of a legal prostitute would either.
Ok it seems that both you and I don't have all the facts on the just exactly what the customer is purchasing. So i will research the matter a little further and get back to you.
How is this different from golddigging or marrying for money?
In gold digging and marrying for money both partners can opt to not have sex at any time. Where as in prostitution the hooker no longer has the option of saying no to sex.
This is a moral judgment on your part, not a legal one.
Ok I agree that under the law they would be the same (you know what I mean).
Youbetcha I can. The illegal prostitute has absolutely no recourse if something goes wrong. She stays with a pimp for protection, period. The legal prostitute has every avenue available to her (or him) that any other small business person does: small claims court, litigation, calling the police, seeing a doctor, etc. Legalization means having the leverage to act on the radar screen with the full protection of whatever legal authority governs it.
Why would she call the cops? How would her case hold up in court? Will she actually have a fair trial?
Customer: Yes I purchased and signed an agreement for an hour of "rough sex". The broken arm is a result of what I paid for and what the prostitute agreed to.
She's still giving up her rights only now it's enforced by contract.
I think legalizing prostitution would take away any protection she already has(the pimp). It is not a gain by any means. The legal prostitute would have not only the customers rules to abide by but also the states.. Ie: A customer paid for an hour of sex but for whatever reasons only used 40 minutes. The customer then has a legal right to pursue those 20 minutes.
This doesn't apply.
Of course it does. It is the majority that rules. Why can't a person choose to have someone kill him?
And of course, because it's wrong (even assuming it's wrong), this doesn't mean it should be made illegal. Slavery should be illegal because there is a victim. And not that this is equivalent, but willing servitude is another matter entirely.
I think we have a different definition of the word slavery.
McCulloch
No. If it were legalized, the sex trade would come under regulations similar to other professions. Health standards, Hygiene standards. Rules about what can or cannot be done
You think the prostitues will abide by these laws? You think there wont be any loop holes? Prostitues are currently breaking the law. Suggesting that legalizing it with supposed restrictions will get them to change their "ways"
is speculation on your part. If it's not speculation can you give evidence that supports your statement.
The same way that if I can sell my programming services to my clients does not make me into a slave
No it does'nt , but selling a designated amount of your time where your "power", "freedom" is subverted is the basis for slavery.
Not good enough. You have to provide a reason and some evidence.
It was an emotional response. Sorry
I should have been clear on my statement. The only evidence is what I feel. No, but you can say for certain that it would be quite different legalized and regulated than it is now. Read some history of the experiment with prohibition in the USA.
Nobodys questioning wether or not it would be different should it be legalized. I assume everyone knows it would be different.
Back up your opinion with logic, reason and evidence and then it will be worth listening to. Until then ...
I thought I did Hmmmm
Either way nice hearing your opinions.-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #27
So we should not legalize alcohol because you think that the moonshiners will not abide by these laws. Have you asked the prostitutes if they want it legalized?Regular_Guy wrote:McCulloch
No. If it were legalized, the sex trade would come under regulations similar to other professions. Health standards, Hygiene standards. Rules about what can or cannot be done
You think the prostitues will abide by these laws? You think there wont be any loop holes? Prostitues are currently breaking the law. Suggesting that legalizing it with supposed restrictions will get them to change their "ways"
is speculation on your part. If it's not speculation can you give evidence that supports your statement.
If legalized, prostitution would mean providing a specified service to a client, not subverting the service provider's power and freedom.Regular_Guy wrote:
The same way that if I can sell my programming services to my clients does not make me into a slave
No it does'nt , but selling a designated amount of your time where your "power", "freedom" is subverted is the basis for slavery.
I was referring only to your comment about "it is criminal because it is wrong" which was followed by IMO. I have not seen any evidence that it is wrong so I took it to be your opinion.Regular_Guy wrote:
Back up your opinion with logic, reason and evidence and then it will be worth listening to. Until then ...
I thought I did Hmmmm
Post #28
Don't do anything I wouldn't do!Regular_Guy wrote:ST88
I, too, am not familiar with "hooker" methodology. I am only familiar with the transaction through the popular media and what you hear in police reports. As far as I can tell, it is only about sex, and the only rule is that you do what your pimp tells you to do. The "client" does not have carte blanche to do what he wishes, and there is no reason to suppose that the client of a legal prostitute would either.
Ok it seems that both you and I don't have all the facts on the just exactly what the customer is purchasing. So i will research the matter a little further and get back to you.
In the golddigging situation, the perpetrator is putting herself willingly at the beck and call of the sugardaddy for an extended period of time. It would make sense that there would be variations from day to day. With the prostitute, the "relationship" is immediate and inherently limited. But in either situation, they exchange something for money -- the same thing. Imagine if the golddigger said no to sex. She would be out on her ear.Regular_Guy wrote:How is this different from golddigging or marrying for money?
In gold digging and marrying for money both partners can opt to not have sex at any time. Where as in prostitution the hooker no longer has the option of saying no to sex.
Depends on the contract or the Work Agreement in each individual situation. As to why she would call the cops? I can think of a number of situations where the cops could be called. The point is that she does not have this option if her business activity is illegal.Regular_Guy wrote:Youbetcha I can. The illegal prostitute has absolutely no recourse if something goes wrong. She stays with a pimp for protection, period. The legal prostitute has every avenue available to her (or him) that any other small business person does: small claims court, litigation, calling the police, seeing a doctor, etc. Legalization means having the leverage to act on the radar screen with the full protection of whatever legal authority governs it.
Why would she call the cops? How would her case hold up in court? Will she actually have a fair trial?
Is that what the contract says? Wouldn't this be covered by workman's comp?Regular_Guy wrote: Customer: Yes I purchased and signed an agreement for an hour of "rough sex". The broken arm is a result of what I paid for and what the prostitute agreed to.
You're still assuming that she's "giving up her rights." Giving up her rights to what, exactly? To her time? To her body? How is this any different from being a physical therapist or a manicurist?Regular_Guy wrote: She's still giving up her rights only now it's enforced by contract.
Really? Does the contract say any of those things? The court can't make a determination of liability until it sees the terms under which the exchange of values, as it were, were exchanged.Regular_Guy wrote: I think legalizing prostitution would take away any protection she already has(the pimp). It is not a gain by any means. The legal prostitute would have not only the customers rules to abide by but also the states.. Ie: A customer paid for an hour of sex but for whatever reasons only used 40 minutes. The customer then has a legal right to pursue those 20 minutes.
What American government course have you been taking? It's not majority rule. It's rule by law. The Judiciary can strike down any law enacted by the majority of persons (public or Congress), if it deems the law unconstitutional. Law overrides public opinion. But the reason it doesn't apply in this argument is that we're not talking about public opinion.Regular_Guy wrote:This doesn't apply.
Of course it does. It is the majority that rules. Why can't a person choose to have someone kill him?
Yes, we do. I see slavery as the exploitation of one person by another without due compensation. What is "due compensation" you may ask? There are trades that ask a person to risk their lives & their physical well-being for their profession. You can probably think of a few also. The key ingredient is that they are paid for their dangerous work. How is "exploitation" allowed under a pay-per-hire situation? Ask coal miners. Or movie stuntmen. No one is forcing them to do the work they do, but they are paid for their trouble. Slavery implies force. Is being a solider in the Army slavery? They are not paid particularly well, they are asked to risk their lives for a larger goal, they are threatened with punishment if they try to cease their service, and they must obey all commands no matter how ludicrous they seem. Yet they entered into the Army contract voluntarily (since 1975).Regular_Guy wrote:And of course, because it's wrong (even assuming it's wrong), this doesn't mean it should be made illegal. Slavery should be illegal because there is a victim. And not that this is equivalent, but willing servitude is another matter entirely.
I think we have a different definition of the word slavery.
If you feel that prostitution is wrong, then fine. Don't participate. What is it that makes you want others not to participate when you are not affected?
-
Regular_Guy
- Student
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:22 am
- Location: texas
Post #29
McCulloch
So we should not legalize alcohol because you think that the moonshiners will not abide by these laws. Have you asked the prostitutes if they want it legalized?
I see no point in questioning wether legalizing alcohol was a good choice or not. As per your second question: No personally I have not but, a news parer collumist asked a prostitution organization the same question. Here is their answer:
:They feel that if prostitution is just legalized, it will allow the government to impose all manner of unrealistic controls, which means that the new laws will also be largely ignored
Under this system of legalization, the state controls nearly every aspect of prostitutes' work and leisure, preventing organization and often making it very hard for them to leave the trade. Most prostitutes regard legalized prostitution as legalized abuse, and would prefer to work illegally rather than submit to the abusive and humiliating ordeals of state-controlled zones, brothels, or parks : truth seeker
If legalized, prostitution would mean providing a specified service to a client, not subverting the service provider's power and freedom.
Selling your service is one thing, selling your body is something else.
I was referring only to your comment about "it is criminal because it is wrong" which was followed by IMO. I have not seen any evidence that it is wrong so I took it to be your opinion
Ok how about this? If it were not wrong it wouldn't be illegal.
St88
Don't do anything I wouldn't do!
In the golddigging situation, the perpetrator is putting herself willingly at the beck and call of the sugardaddy for an extended period of time. It would make sense that there would be variations from day to day. With the prostitute, the "relationship" is immediate and inherently limited. But in either situation, they exchange something for money -- the same thing. Imagine if the golddigger said no to sex. She would be out on her ear.
Marriage is a private contract where as prostitution is kinda the opposite, it's a public contract.
Gold digging isn't sleeping with multiple men, Gold digging isn't illegal, prostitution is. (not every where but you know what I mean)
Is that what the contract says? Wouldn't this be covered by workman's comp?
That's kinda what I mean. isn't the definition of rough subjective? Errr...
I mean Who's to say who's definition of the word "rough" is correct?
Workman's comp? Is this a legitimate question?
You're still assuming that she's "giving up her rights." Giving up her rights to what, exactly? To her time? To her body? How is this any different from being a physical therapist or a manicurist?
To be a prostitute is to be an object in the marketplace: thus the word prostitute does not imply a deeper identity; it is the absence of identity: the theft and subsequent abandonment of self. (w.h.i.s.p.e.r.)
Once a person becomes a an object, a thing they lose their rights.
Which rights? "That all men are created equal.." (it says men, but it means women also)
As for your 3rd question, the difference is the occupations you listed sell their services where as in prostitution they sell their body.
What American government course have you been taking? It's not majority rule. It's rule by law. The Judiciary can strike down any law enacted by the majority of persons (public or Congress), if it deems the law unconstitutional. Law overrides public opinion. But the reason it doesn't apply in this argument is that we're not talking about public opinion.
Before a law can be passed it must be voted on. If the majority rule infavor of it, it gets passed by the president who has the option to agree with the majority or not pass it at all. Majority from a point of view does rule.
I see public opinion as a major factor here.
Legal definitions and enforcement practices have been influenced by public opinion. Laws themselves have been influenced by public opinion.
Ask coal miners. Or movie stuntmen. No one is forcing them to do the work they do, but they are paid for their trouble. Slavery implies force. Is being a solider in the Army slavery? They are not paid particularly well, they are asked to risk their lives for a larger goal, they are threatened with punishment if they try to cease their service, and they must obey all commands no matter how ludicrous they seem. Yet they entered into the Army contract voluntarily
The professions you mentioned don't involve sex. I agree slavery implies force.
I believe prostitution also implies force. Legalizing prostitution implies that I have the right to make choices for others, and that implies having control over them. Control being the Key word.
Again as I've mentioned the army is necessary for the well being of the community, it's necessary for the freedoms we hold dear.
Prostitution is not.
If you feel that prostitution is wrong, then fine. Don't participate. What is it that makes you want others not to participate when you are not affected?
I would be affected! There's no denying that prostitution attracts the "wrong element". Drug lords, drug users, pimps, etc...
Not only that, I would have a general disgust for the goverment in general. How about an emotional appeal? As I see it's not moot.
How would you feel if your mother, or sister, or spouse were to choose "hooking" as a profession?
So we should not legalize alcohol because you think that the moonshiners will not abide by these laws. Have you asked the prostitutes if they want it legalized?
I see no point in questioning wether legalizing alcohol was a good choice or not. As per your second question: No personally I have not but, a news parer collumist asked a prostitution organization the same question. Here is their answer:
:They feel that if prostitution is just legalized, it will allow the government to impose all manner of unrealistic controls, which means that the new laws will also be largely ignored
Under this system of legalization, the state controls nearly every aspect of prostitutes' work and leisure, preventing organization and often making it very hard for them to leave the trade. Most prostitutes regard legalized prostitution as legalized abuse, and would prefer to work illegally rather than submit to the abusive and humiliating ordeals of state-controlled zones, brothels, or parks : truth seeker
If legalized, prostitution would mean providing a specified service to a client, not subverting the service provider's power and freedom.
Selling your service is one thing, selling your body is something else.
I was referring only to your comment about "it is criminal because it is wrong" which was followed by IMO. I have not seen any evidence that it is wrong so I took it to be your opinion
Ok how about this? If it were not wrong it wouldn't be illegal.
St88
Don't do anything I wouldn't do!
In the golddigging situation, the perpetrator is putting herself willingly at the beck and call of the sugardaddy for an extended period of time. It would make sense that there would be variations from day to day. With the prostitute, the "relationship" is immediate and inherently limited. But in either situation, they exchange something for money -- the same thing. Imagine if the golddigger said no to sex. She would be out on her ear.
Marriage is a private contract where as prostitution is kinda the opposite, it's a public contract.
Gold digging isn't sleeping with multiple men, Gold digging isn't illegal, prostitution is. (not every where but you know what I mean)
Is that what the contract says? Wouldn't this be covered by workman's comp?
That's kinda what I mean. isn't the definition of rough subjective? Errr...
I mean Who's to say who's definition of the word "rough" is correct?
Workman's comp? Is this a legitimate question?
You're still assuming that she's "giving up her rights." Giving up her rights to what, exactly? To her time? To her body? How is this any different from being a physical therapist or a manicurist?
To be a prostitute is to be an object in the marketplace: thus the word prostitute does not imply a deeper identity; it is the absence of identity: the theft and subsequent abandonment of self. (w.h.i.s.p.e.r.)
Once a person becomes a an object, a thing they lose their rights.
Which rights? "That all men are created equal.." (it says men, but it means women also)
As for your 3rd question, the difference is the occupations you listed sell their services where as in prostitution they sell their body.
What American government course have you been taking? It's not majority rule. It's rule by law. The Judiciary can strike down any law enacted by the majority of persons (public or Congress), if it deems the law unconstitutional. Law overrides public opinion. But the reason it doesn't apply in this argument is that we're not talking about public opinion.
Before a law can be passed it must be voted on. If the majority rule infavor of it, it gets passed by the president who has the option to agree with the majority or not pass it at all. Majority from a point of view does rule.
I see public opinion as a major factor here.
Legal definitions and enforcement practices have been influenced by public opinion. Laws themselves have been influenced by public opinion.
Ask coal miners. Or movie stuntmen. No one is forcing them to do the work they do, but they are paid for their trouble. Slavery implies force. Is being a solider in the Army slavery? They are not paid particularly well, they are asked to risk their lives for a larger goal, they are threatened with punishment if they try to cease their service, and they must obey all commands no matter how ludicrous they seem. Yet they entered into the Army contract voluntarily
The professions you mentioned don't involve sex. I agree slavery implies force.
I believe prostitution also implies force. Legalizing prostitution implies that I have the right to make choices for others, and that implies having control over them. Control being the Key word.
Again as I've mentioned the army is necessary for the well being of the community, it's necessary for the freedoms we hold dear.
Prostitution is not.
If you feel that prostitution is wrong, then fine. Don't participate. What is it that makes you want others not to participate when you are not affected?
I would be affected! There's no denying that prostitution attracts the "wrong element". Drug lords, drug users, pimps, etc...
Not only that, I would have a general disgust for the goverment in general. How about an emotional appeal? As I see it's not moot.
How would you feel if your mother, or sister, or spouse were to choose "hooking" as a profession?
Post #30
Actually, you have it backwards. The marriage contract is a public contract. In a sense, I guess, it is both public and private. It must be public otherwise companies could not offer additional benefits to spouses. Fee-for-service contracts are private unless disclosed by agreement of both parties. I don't see where the idea of "multiple customers" has any relevance. If you could provide your reasoning on this, I would appreciate it.Regular_Guy wrote: In the golddigging situation, the perpetrator is putting herself willingly at the beck and call of the sugardaddy for an extended period of time. It would make sense that there would be variations from day to day. With the prostitute, the "relationship" is immediate and inherently limited. But in either situation, they exchange something for money -- the same thing. Imagine if the golddigger said no to sex. She would be out on her ear.
Marriage is a private contract where as prostitution is kinda the opposite, it's a public contract.
Gold digging isn't sleeping with multiple men, Gold digging isn't illegal, prostitution is. (not every where but you know what I mean)
But the reality of prostitution being illegal shouldn't matter in this question. The issue before us is whether or not it should be illegal.
There's plenty of gray language in existing contracts "completed to satisfaction", "Contractor will make reasonable effort to complete The Work in the alloted time." The standard is usually what a "reasonable person" would interpret the wording as, which itself is rather murky, but it depends on the jurisdiction.Regular_Guy wrote: Is that what the contract says? Wouldn't this be covered by workman's comp?
That's kinda what I mean. isn't the definition of rough subjective? Errr...
I mean Who's to say who's definition of the word "rough" is correct?
Workman's comp? Is this a legitimate question?
Huh? This doesn't follow. I don't know if I'm understanding you correctly, because this definition also fits models, magician's assistants, football players, and "the Human Cannonball." How is being a prostitute an "absence of identity"? And why does it lead to the "abandonment of the self"?Regular_Guy wrote:You're still assuming that she's "giving up her rights." Giving up her rights to what, exactly? To her time? To her body? How is this any different from being a physical therapist or a manicurist?
To be a prostitute is to be an object in the marketplace: thus the word prostitute does not imply a deeper identity; it is the absence of identity: the theft and subsequent abandonment of self.
Prostitution is most definitely a service-oriented profession, not a product profession. No salable products are created, but a perceived need is fulfilled. The service is not the body, the service is access to what her body can do for the client.Regular_Guy wrote: As for your 3rd question, the difference is the occupations you listed sell their services where as in prostitution they sell their body.
Though you are correct that a majority is required to pass laws, the ultimate arbiter of those laws is the judiciary. The legislative branch can pass any wacko law they want, like being able to keep someone in indefinite confinement without trial or charge. But the judiciary has the responsibility to let the legislative branch know if that law breaks the fundamental rules of the Constitution or of preceding laws. Thus, the "rule" is by law, not by the majority.Regular_Guy wrote:What American government course have you been taking? It's not majority rule. It's rule by law. The Judiciary can strike down any law enacted by the majority of persons (public or Congress), if it deems the law unconstitutional. Law overrides public opinion. But the reason it doesn't apply in this argument is that we're not talking about public opinion.
Before a law can be passed it must be voted on. If the majority rule infavor of it, it gets passed by the president who has the option to agree with the majority or not pass it at all. Majority from a point of view does rule.
As well they should be. By all means, have influence over your own government. But realize what the limitations are. Enforcement practices... eh. Not really. That's pretty much law, too. That and budget priorities.Regular_Guy wrote:I see public opinion as a major factor here.
Legal definitions and enforcement practices have been influenced by public opinion. Laws themselves have been influenced by public opinion.
So only those jobs which are necessary should be legal? Don't tell me you wouldn't lock up the people who hand paint Ionesco figurines! No, seriously, "control" goes only so far as the fee-based contract allows it to. Just like in any other profession. Otherwise we could criminalize musicians who take requests.Regular_Guy wrote:Ask coal miners. Or movie stuntmen. No one is forcing them to do the work they do, but they are paid for their trouble. Slavery implies force. Is being a solider in the Army slavery? They are not paid particularly well, they are asked to risk their lives for a larger goal, they are threatened with punishment if they try to cease their service, and they must obey all commands no matter how ludicrous they seem. Yet they entered into the Army contract voluntarily
The professions you mentioned don't involve sex. I agree slavery implies force.
I believe prostitution also implies force. Legalizing prostitution implies that I have the right to make choices for others, and that implies having control over them. Control being the Key word.
Again as I've mentioned the army is necessary for the well being of the community, it's necessary for the freedoms we hold dear.
Prostitution is not.
These elements of prostitution exist precisely because it is illegal. It attracts the criminal element because it is criminalized. By choosing to keep it illegal, you are helping to create and perpetuate the underground nature of prostitution, thereby helping to perpetuate the criminal element within it.Regular_Guy wrote:If you feel that prostitution is wrong, then fine. Don't participate. What is it that makes you want others not to participate when you are not affected?
I would be affected! There's no denying that prostitution attracts the "wrong element". Drug lords, drug users, pimps, etc...
Emotional appeals work well in politics, and sometimes in criminal law when a jury is involved. They don't make good policy for civic decisions, however. Especially when they are grounded in pop-psychology and gut-level economics.Regular_Guy wrote:Not only that, I would have a general disgust for the goverment in general. How about an emotional appeal? As I see it's not moot.
I probably wouldn't like it. How in the world is that relevant? I wouldn't want my wife to join the Marines either, but I don't want to outlaw it. But we all must choose our own paths.Regular_Guy wrote:How would you feel if your mother, or sister, or spouse were to choose "hooking" as a profession?
