Prostitution

[ST88]

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.

[Regular_Guy]

You don't need to, I checked Wikipedia, but it's a usage I'm not very familiar with. Decriminalisation or criminalisation doesn't even occur in any of my three Oxford English dictionaries. This is why I wrote legalisation and then wrote about imposing regulation, not out of an intention to deceive you, but because that's what seemed most natural to me at the time

I always use www.dictionary.com

You've been over this with ST88. The postitute chooses to have sex for money instead of whatever vague emotional rewards they would get when sex has no price. They are still in possession of their choice, and can choose not to have sex for money.

LOL ...If they choose not to have sex for money it isn't prostitution then.

Certainly. It was a little joke. Y'see, a stigmatism is not the same as a stigma. Look up stigmatism in a dictionary and then look up stigma, and then you can laugh.

stig-ma-tism (stgm-tzm)
n.

The condition of having stigmas.
stig-ma
A mark of shame or discredit
Ohhh I get it. She needs them to see what she is doing is shameful.

For argument's sake, that doesn't have anything to do with the topic, does it?

Whoa nice dodge on the question. Im simply just questioning one of the statements you made earlier. On paper things seem so clear, but in reality they hardly are. Ala legalization of prostitution. I was trying to get a point across, sorry if it wasn't clear.

The money upfront and then the agreement? Geez, prostitution would reallly be sweet! No, first would come the agreement, and then would come the payment. A person wouldn't pay the same amount for oral sex as for real sex, would they? At least I can only assume that's how it works, because I've never visited a prostitute. Presumably, neither have you

Yeah I got my words a little mixed up. But my point still stands that it is planned. You even said it our self "First would come the agreement and then would come the payment". The very fact that there is an agreement shows it's planned. If it were not planned how would there be an agreement?

But not "prostitution". More like stripping with an extra service thrown in

Sorry buddy gonna have to disagree here. Does stripping allow any type of Err.. visible masturbation by the client? NO it doesn't, having been to a few gentlemens clubs Im well aware of the rules. Even then stripping is a type of prostitution. There's a list of different types of prostitution.

Go ahead. But we don't have to base our prostitution model on the one in Nevada.

Errr....What will we base our model on then? Australia? According to practically everyone Australia is the ideal place for prostitution. If you want evidence I can get some.

[Curious]

Should prostitution be legal?

Sure, why not. If someone wants sex and another adult is willing to have sex with them for money then what is the problem? If it is within the law to meet a stranger and have sex with them and it is legal to meet a stranger and give them money why should it be illegal to combine the two acts? To use the argument that these prostitutes could be exploited ignores the fact that people are exploited in almost all lines of work.Look at sweatshops for example but they don't make producing Nike trainers illegal.(The poster wishes to express that he does not imply in any way that Nike is in any way responsible for ,or has any connection with sweatshops of any sort).

What are the societal implications of legalization?

Well it would certainly take prostitution out of the hands of organised criminals. It would also remove the street corner prostitutes and take it out of the public eye so that those easily offended, or children, would not be exposed to it (or the condoms that litter such areas). As long as there was legislation to avoid overt advertising, I really don't see any real impact except for the huge revenue it would raise in taxes.

Is prostitution wrong?
Please define or explain your sense of right and wrong if you choose to answer this.

If you want to pay for it then go for it as long as it hurts nobody. I really can't be doing with those people who seek to protect people from themselves. If it is wrong and they harm themselves due to poor moral choices then it is up to the individual to decide for themselves and pay whatever penalty (if any) that is forthcoming.I wonder how many people have ever bought their wife or girlfriend a bunch of flowers, a nice meal or paid for a night out and felt guilty about reaping the sexual rewards afterwards? Or how many women have given that little bit extra so they can have that nice new kitchen unit or fur coat.

[Corvus]

Certainly. It was a little joke. Y'see, a stigmatism is not the same as a stigma. Look up stigmatism in a dictionary and then look up stigma, and then you can laugh.

stig-ma-tism (stgm-tzm)
n.

The condition of having stigmas.
stig-ma
A mark of shame or discredit
Ohhh I get it. She needs them to see what she is doing is shameful.

:sigh: Why is it that every time I try and make a joke, people don't get it? I guess I shouldn't become a comedian. I think you should check dictionary.com again. A stigmatism is:

The condition of being affected by stigmata.

The state of a refracting or reflecting system in which light rays from a
single point are accurately focused at another point.

Normal eyesight.

I hope this is clear now.

The money upfront and then the agreement? Geez, prostitution would reallly be sweet! No, first would come the agreement, and then would come the payment. A person wouldn't pay the same amount for oral sex as for real sex, would they? At least I can only assume that's how it works, because I've never visited a prostitute. Presumably, neither have you

Yeah I got my words a little mixed up. But my point still stands that it is planned. You even said it our self "First would come the agreement and then would come the payment". The very fact that there is an agreement shows it's planned. If it were not planned how would there be an agreement?

The point is it's not exactly scripted. People come to you for different agreements. Does the point really matter any more?

But not "prostitution". More like stripping with an extra service thrown in

Sorry buddy gonna have to disagree here. Does stripping allow any type of Err.. visible masturbation by the client?

Whoever said anything about that? And why are we even discussing this? This line of the discussion began by you saying that a prostitute is some sort of voluntary slave without any rights. Now I look up and see that while stripping is acceptable, stripping and visible masturbation by the customer is not, even if the stripper agrees to it. Am I missing something? I think you too can see that a prostitute is offering a service or services much like the stripper.

[Regular_Guy]

:sigh: Why is it that every time I try and make a joke, people don't get it? I guess I shouldn't become a comedian. I think you should check dictionary.com again. A stigmatism is:

The condition of being affected by stigmata.

The state of a refracting or reflecting system in which light rays from a
single point are accurately focused at another point.

Normal eyesight.

I hope this is clear now

It was clear when you told me to check it out for myself. I just changed it around as a sort of a joke

The point is it's not exactly scripted. People come to you for different agreements. Does the point really matter any more?

The contract dictates what happens, if this isn't scripted I dont know what is. Is it still a point we need adressed? nope

Whoever said anything about that? And why are we even discussing this? This line of the discussion began by you saying that a prostitute is some sort of voluntary slave without any rights. Now I look up and see that while stripping is acceptable, stripping and visible masturbation by the customer is not, even if the stripper agrees to it. Am I missing something? I think you too can see that a prostitute is offering a service or services much like the stripper.

Stripping is just a watered down version of prostitution.
Hmm, I gave my opinion, then was questioned about it. I answered and was question about my answer. Wash rinse repeat, and here we are. Looks like were off topic

[ST88]

"Thus, though legalization would be an improvement over the current state of prostitution here in the United States, most prostitutes rights advocates feel that decriminalization would be a preferable solution, as it takes all aspects of a prostitutes work into account."[/b]

OK. Thank you for providing the research. Exactly how does this support your argument? This article directly contradicts almost everything you've said, and the above quote actually supports my position more than it does yours.

Surely, the Amsterdam model of state-run prostitution would be unacceptable in a capitalist U.S. framework. Decriminalization therefore, is indistinguishable from legalization. Prostitutes will not become wards of the state any more than strippers are now. Please provide your thinking behind this assertion that the article supports, because frankly I don't see it.

[Regular_Guy]

OK. Thank you for providing the research. Exactly how does this support your argument? This article directly contradicts almost everything you've said, and the above quote actually supports my position more than it does yours.

It comes back to your original question.

Should prostitution be legal?

I most definitely see a distinction between Legalization and Decriminalized. Your first question said "should prostitution be legal?"
My comment and argument is No it shouldn't, and to support my argument
I believe i've proven the majority of prostitutes are against legalization and are in favor of decriminalization.

Surely, the Amsterdam model of state-run prostitution would be unacceptable in a capitalist U.S. framework. Decriminalization therefore, is indistinguishable from legalization.

Amsterdam isn't the only place where prostitution is legal, thus proving there is a distinction between legalization and decriminalized.
What's the distinction??
~~~Legalization:
Legalization views prostitution as a vice that needs to be heavily contained and controlled. In places that have legalization systems, such as Amsterdam, Germany and the State of Victoria in Australia etc., sex pros must regisister at the police station, be photographed, fingerprinted and give very personal info about themselves to the police. (Anyone previously convicted of prostitution is denied a licence).
~~~Decriminalization
Decriminalization views prostitution as a legitimate and necessary business. Its implementation would entails removing prostitution related offences from the Canadian Criminal Code, for adults involved in this profession. In places that have decriminalization, such as the state of New South Wales, Australia, sex pro's may operate freely, without the threat of criminal charges and/or the state seizing their assets.

Brothel licences are not required, so sex pro's can open their own operations. Individual sex pro's do not require a licence. However if a brothel is being a true nuisance to its neighbors, it can be shut down. Which is fair. Brothels have only had to be shut down in rare instances
-Decriminalization Vs. Legalization

Canada, australia and a few others have adopted this decriminalized action.

Please provide your thinking behind this assertion that the article supports, because frankly I don't see it

Ummm. Ok i'll try to explain best I can
Let's say in a hypothetical sense instead of your original question you asked: Should this gun (model #3) be given to out to the public?
Then I would say: Hey, you know the model #3 isn't really that efficient the model #4 on the other hand has been proven to provide better/ more efficient service.
Everyone thinks about it and realizes that the #4 model is actually the better choice.
Then you ask a new question: Should this gun (model#4) be given out to the public?
Then I would say: [insert argument about how the gun (model#4) is extremely way to dangerous to be given out to the public]
You see where im going with the whole legalization, decriminalized thing?
Overall I still see them both as legalized slavery but that's just imo and I felt it necessary to state.

[Dilettante]

ST88 wrote:

Decriminalization therefore, is indistinguishable from legalization.

I'm not so sure, ST88. I must agree with Regular Guy that there is a difference. Take my own country, Spain. Prostitution is not a crime in Spain, but it's not a legally recognized job either (pimping or inducing someone to prostitute him/herself is still a crime here). No prostitute pays income revenue taxes on their activities. They are not eligible for job benefits, retirement, etc. They have no legal right to health controls by the authorities, etc. They're sort of in a legal limbo.

The debate in Spain today is between those who think prostitution is demeaning even if it's consensual, and therefore want it banned, and those who think it should be recognized as a job, even if an undesirable one, and want prostitutes to have the same legal standing as any self-employed person.

[ST88]

I most definitely see a distinction between Legalization and Decriminalized. Your first question said "should prostitution be legal?"
My comment and argument is No it shouldn't, and to support my argument
I believe i've proven the majority of prostitutes are against legalization and are in favor of decriminalization.

~~~Legalization:
Legalization views prostitution as a vice that needs to be heavily contained and controlled. In places that have legalization systems, such as Amsterdam, Germany and the State of Victoria in Australia etc., sex pros must regisister at the police station, be photographed, fingerprinted and give very personal info about themselves to the police. (Anyone previously convicted of prostitution is denied a licence).
~~~Decriminalization
Decriminalization views prostitution as a legitimate and necessary business. Its implementation would entails removing prostitution related offences from the Canadian Criminal Code, for adults involved in this profession. In places that have decriminalization, such as the state of New South Wales, Australia, sex pro's may operate freely, without the threat of criminal charges and/or the state seizing their assets.

Brothel licences are not required, so sex pro's can open their own operations. Individual sex pro's do not require a licence. However if a brothel is being a true nuisance to its neighbors, it can be shut down. Which is fair. Brothels have only had to be shut down in rare instances.

Thank you for your well-reasoned reply. You make a good case that there is a distinction between legalization and decriminalization. Let's assume that in a U.S. model, there would be a real difference. Again, I must ask how this supports your position that prostitution is wrong and should not be legalized. Decriminalization at the very least does not punish the prostitutes for choosing this path, and, correct me if I'm wrong here, you stated earlier that you believe this path should not be available. Additionally, decriminalization does not address the "slavery" issue that you brought up. (I discounted that hypothesis, it's true, but I don't see where this additional information supports you.)

Now, in the U.S. model, is there a precedent for decriminalization? Yes, the assisted-suicide law in Oregon decriminalizes the act of assisting a suicide. Now, in the American system of laws, this act means that medical suicide has been "legalized" as per this definition:

Decriminalization
The process through which the legislature legalizes an act which was formerly a crime. see, e.g. Washington v. Harold Glucksberg, 521 US 702 (1997).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/decrim.htm

As a system of laws, the U.S. model allows whatever it does not prohibit. And those things that are prohibited are de facto off the map, and those things that are not prohibited are "on the map." What this means is that decriminalization is for all intents and purposes the same as legalization. The reason that prostitutes do not pay taxes is because their activities are illegal. Decriminalization means removing the illegality, which means that they would be subject to income taxes. Now, I will say that legalization is not the same thing as regulation. Just ask the nutritional supplement market about that one. I confess ignorance to the systems of laws in other countries. So I don't have much to say about those.

Ethics are usually regulated on a private association level, except, for example, in cases like the Bar Association, in which that body has the power to revoke licenses that apply in public courts.

Let's say in a hypothetical sense instead of your original question you asked: Should this gun (model #3) be given to out to the public?
Then I would say: Hey, you know the model #3 isn't really that efficient the model #4 on the other hand has been proven to provide better/ more efficient service.
Everyone thinks about it and realizes that the #4 model is actually the better choice.
Then you ask a new question: Should this gun (model#4) be given out to the public?
Then I would say: [insert argument about how the gun (model#4) is extremely way to dangerous to be given out to the public]
You see where im going with the whole legalization, decriminalized thing?
Overall I still see them both as legalized slavery but that's just imo and I felt it necessary to state.

You know, Regular_Guy, I don't see the parallel. In the above situation, you're having me say "Should X be given out to the public" (italics mine), when that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking if the public should have the choice to purchase #3 or #4. Let everyone do their own research and decide which one is best for them. No one's advocating a state-run prostitution system, here. I was advocating for a state-regulated system in addition to legalization as a matter of public health.

[Regular_Guy]

Thank you for your well-reasoned reply. You make a good case that there is a distinction between legalization and decriminalization. Let's assume that in a U.S. model, there would be a real difference. Again, I must ask how this supports your position that prostitution is wrong and should not be legalized. Decriminalization at the very least does not punish the prostitutes for choosing this path, and, correct me if I'm wrong here, you stated earlier that you believe this path should not be available. Additionally, decriminalization does not address the "slavery" issue that you brought up. (I discounted that hypothesis, it's true, but I don't see where this additional information supports you.)

My reasoning is still unclear? I apologize , often I say things and assume other people know exactly what im talking about. Ha, typical guy I guess. My main argument against the extremes of prostitution is that it is voluntary/forced slavery. Now my reasoning for bringing up the distinction between legalized and decriminalized prostitution is, I feel that I make a better case on how much decriminalized prostitution is forced/voluntary slavery as opposed to legalized prostitution, where I feel the case is still there only not as big.

You know, Regular_Guy, I don't see the parallel. In the above situation, you're having me say "Should X be given out to the public" (italics mine), when that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking if the public should have the choice to purchase #3 or #4..

Ok my above hypothetical situation wasn't the best example of what I was trying to get across. If you see my explanation above you'll see what I mean.

Let everyone do their own research and decide which one is best for them. No one's advocating a state-run prostitution system, here. I was advocating for a state-regulated system in addition to legalization as a matter of public health

Im not really arguing with your decision. If anything your arguing with me because of my opinions and the reasoning behind them. I answered your original question's and got questioned on my answers. Which I don't mind of course .
Yes I agree everyone should look at all the sides of the problem and come to a decision based on what they feel is correct.

[lifeisboring]

Even if I don't think it's right, it's a form of job, right? It's there own choice what to do.