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]

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.
Im sorry When I said it's a private contract I meant it's only meant for 2 people. Where as prostitution is more of a public contract. Meaning she has multiple, multiple, multiple partners. I believe you asked what I thought the difference between gold digging and prostitution. I was pointing out the differences, hope this clears up any confusion on my behalf

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.
I think it does matter, as it is one of my argument supporters.
If we were discussing something on science would you not use an already existing "law" to try and prove your point?

There's plenty of gray language in existing contracts "completed to satisfaction", "Contractor will make reasonable effort to complete The Work in the allotted 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.
Right my point exactly. It would be to difficult to determine the correct choice in choosing a side in a "rough" sex disagreement. It would be to difficult to determine the correct choice in a "rape package" disagreement. If it were legalized I fear the prostitutes would often get the shaft end of the deal. Kinda like in football when a coach trys to get a call of unnessary roughness on the QB. The QB hardly ever gets the call on him, something like 8% of the time he gets called on it.
Someone would probably read this and say "they already get the bad end".
I agree and I point out that they shouldn't be doing it anyways, as it is against the law.

uh? 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"?
Ok the professions you listed don't involve sex. I'll try to explain exactly what I mean.
Practicing prostitution is agreeing to be stigmatized, Correct?
It's also agreeing to deny societys idea of morality, correct?
When a person agrees to prostitution she is nothing more than a label
You can agree that people aren't born as prostitutes right? But rather it's something they choose?
Im assuming when a person chooses prostitution they realize they've crossed a point of no return. They themselves realize it, it's something internal. Anyways once they cross the line and agree to the stigma, and deny societys idea of morality, they in essence become someone else. Hence the 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.
The prostitute Becomes the product under contract. And yes products can be made to service "us" .

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.
My point was you cannot have a law without the majority. There is a need for the majority. It may be small or whatever but it is still need for the whole process to work.

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.
You say control only goes so far as the fee-based contract allows it.
I agree, the prostitute I believe under contract would give total control to the client. Sex changes everything, plain and simple.

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.


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.
I also would not like it. I was trying to illustrate im not an automaton. I feel legalizing it would be morally wrong. It's outlawed in 38 states (I believe) and I hope it stays that way.
I agree that we must choose our own paths, but I feel that some paths shouldn't exist.

[ST88]

There's plenty of gray language in existing contracts "completed to satisfaction", "Contractor will make reasonable effort to complete The Work in the allotted 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.
Right my point exactly. It would be to difficult to determine the correct choice in choosing a side in a "rough" sex disagreement. It would be to difficult to determine the correct choice in a "rape package" disagreement. If it were legalized I fear the prostitutes would often get the shaft end of the deal. Kinda like in football when a coach trys to get a call of unnessary roughness on the QB. The QB hardly ever gets the call on him, something like 8% of the time he gets called on it.
Someone would probably read this and say "they already get the bad end".
I agree and I point out that they shouldn't be doing it anyways, as it is against the law.

Oy vey. You can't argue against a transaction because administering it would be "too hard". This is government asserting its right to be lazy.

Practicing prostitution is agreeing to be stigmatized, Correct?

No.

It's also agreeing to deny societys idea of morality, correct?

No.

When a person agrees to prostitution she is nothing more than a label

This is a great leap in logic even if I were to agree to the above two assertions. Prostitution is not a political choice, it's usually a simple matter of cold hard economics.

You can agree that people aren't born as prostitutes right? But rather it's something they choose?

Sure. As is true for most other professions.

Im assuming when a person chooses prostitution they realize they've crossed a point of no return. They themselves realize it, it's something internal.

This is not something you can assert until it is demonstrable. There is the possibility of leaving the life of a prostitute and going on to an otherwise "normal" life. I don't see how there is a line of no return crossed. Even Christians say that Mary Magdelene is in Heaven despite her life of iniquity.

Anyways once they cross the line and agree to the stigma, and deny societys idea of morality, they in essence become someone else. Hence the abandonment of self.

I can't follow you down that rabbit hole. The "self" you speak of does not disintegrate or get left on a trash heap somewhere.

You know, cops have a term they use when there is a crime involving prostitutes or junkies. NHI. It stands for No Human Involved, and it means that they don't feel they have to work the case very hard. I know where this comes from, and I'm not unsympathetic, but I can't go as far as to say that these people aren't people.

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.
The prostitute Becomes the product under contract. And yes products can be made to service "us".

I see where you're coming from on this one, but you're wrong. The product that provides the service is, in fact, a product according to the tax code, because the product can be re-used to provide the same service without purchasing additional instances of the service. But a service is performed by a person for a specific instance.

My point was you cannot have a law without the majority. There is a need for the majority. It may be small or whatever but it is still need for the whole process to work.

I don't want to belabor this point any more than you do, but there are many things that are legal that are frowned upon by the wider society, and would be illegal if the majority got their way. Fortunately, we are a nation of laws, so the majority can't exercise its will "unfairly".

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.
You say control only goes so far as the fee-based contract allows it.
I agree, the prostitute I believe under contract would give total control to the client. Sex changes everything, plain and simple.

Really, it depends on the conract. But does the client have the right to do anything at all that he wants to do? Of course not. He can't murder her, so there is a line. He can't beat her up and steal her money, so there is a line. Other lines will depend on what the two parties agree to beforehand.

I agree that we must choose our own paths, but I feel that some paths shouldn't exist.

The paths are going to exist whether we want them to or not. There are no roadblocks big enough that people won't go around them in one way or another, even for the dangerous paths. What we should be deciding is if we are going to help them or punish them.

[concerro]

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.
I think it does matter, as it is one of my argument supporters

.
If we were discussing something on science would you not use an already existing "law" to try and prove your point?

Using the law in this argument does not work. In this case we are trying to decide whether something should be legal. By trying to use the existing law you are trying to say it should be illegal because it is already illegal. Using that logic would mean that once a law is made it should stay that way.

There's plenty of gray language in existing contracts "completed to satisfaction", "Contractor will make reasonable effort to complete The Work in the allotted 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.

Right my point exactly. It would be to difficult to determine the correct choice in choosing a side in a "rough" sex disagreement. It would be to difficult to determine the correct choice in a "rape package" disagreement. If it were legalized I fear the prostitutes would often get the shaft end of the deal. Kinda like in football when a coach trys to get a call of unnessary roughness on the QB. The QB hardly ever gets the call on him, something like 8% of the time he gets called on it.
Someone would probably read this and say "they already get the bad end".
I agree and I point out that they shouldn't be doing it anyways, as it is against the law.

The contract could simply state this, and that are not allowed, and when the womn says a certain designated codeword then the client has to stop. You need to remember we are debating whether or not it should be legal, not whether or not we should be participating in it even if it is not legal

uh? 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"?

Ok the professions you listed don't involve sex. I'll try to explain exactly what I mean.
Practicing prostitution is agreeing to be stigmatized, Correct?
It's also agreeing to deny societys idea of morality, correct?
When a person agrees to prostitution she is nothing more than a label
You can agree that people aren't born as prostitutes right? But rather it's something they choose?
Im assuming when a person chooses prostitution they realize they've crossed a point of no return. They themselves realize it, it's something internal. Anyways once they cross the line and agree to the stigma, and deny societys idea of morality, they in essence become someone else. Hence the abandonment of self.

Most people of debate sites and people I know in person dont care about if another person engages in prostitution, but most people wont admit this publicly because of what someone else might say, "society's idea of morality" does not define a person. It changes all the time. An exmaple is that a lot of the things done on tv today would not pass in the 50's and 60's. There are also different levels of society. There are things that are ok on a national level, but the small community you live in may not accept. If a person decides to become a prostitute they were already that person, but they just did not reveal it until that point. An example is that I might be gay, and you might see me kiss another man. In that situation I was always gay but until the moment I kissed the other guy I never acted on it.

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.

The prostitute Becomes the product under contract. And yes products can be made to service "us" .

A prostitute using her bosy to give you pleasure is a service just like a massage therapist. The massage therapist uses thier hand, and the prostitute uses her entire body, but neither one is the product.

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.

You say control only goes so far as the fee-based contract allows it.
I agree, the prostitute I believe under contract would give total control to the client. Sex changes everything, plain and simple.

Why do you beleive she would agree to a contract without restrictions. Just becuase the woman is a prostitute that does not mean she has to be stupid. She just has decided that is the best way for her to make a living.

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.


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.

I also would not like it. I was trying to illustrate im not an automaton. I feel legalizing it would be morally wrong. It's outlawed in 38 states (I believe) and I hope it stays that way.
I agree that we must choose our own paths, but I feel that some paths shouldn't exist.

there is no reason prostitution should be illegal. If you date a woman or just pay her for sex you are still paying for it. The only difference is with a prostitute you pay up front and you dont have to go through the process of getting to to the her, and pretending that you like her just to get sex( I am not saying all men do this), and she does not have to pretend to like you becuase you have a nice job(I am not saying all women do this). The woman does not have to end up crying to her best friend because you only wanted sex. Sometimes a man wants sex with no relationship. The prostitute gives him that and he does not have to take advantage of some woman to get what he wants. [/quote]

[Regular_Guy]

There's plenty of gray language in existing contracts "completed to satisfaction", "Contractor will make reasonable effort to complete The Work in the allotted 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.
Right my point exactly. It would be to difficult to determine the correct choice in choosing a side in a "rough" sex disagreement. It would be to difficult to determine the correct choice in a "rape package" disagreement. If it were legalized I fear the prostitutes would often get the shaft end of the deal. Kinda like in football when a coach trys to get a call of unnessary roughness on the QB. The QB hardly ever gets the call on him, something like 8% of the time he gets called on it.
Someone would probably read this and say "they already get the bad end".
I agree and I point out that they shouldn't be doing it anyways, as it is against the law.

Oy vey. You can't argue against a transaction because administering it would be "too hard". This is government asserting its right to be lazy.
Wether we like it or not, sometimes our goverment can be lazy. Prostitution isn't an open and shut case. It's more trouble then what it's worth. The goverment will postpone addressing it for as long as possible.
Or in our case "little by little"

Practicing prostitution is agreeing to be stigmatized, Correct?

No.
Are you serious! (emphasis on the exclamation point)
Your saying that a prostitute after having chosen her crime (prostitution)
never think's that other people no matter how small the number will only think of her as just another (pardon my language ) whore.

It's also agreeing to deny societys idea of morality, correct?

No.
Again, are you serious! The fact of the matter stays, if nobody thought prostitution a problem then it wouldn't be illegal, it wouldn't be a problem, we wouldn't be discussing it now.
Society's opinion of morality differs from yours greatly. They would agree that prostitution is wrong. If you need any evidence of this just take a look at the presidents approval ratings.

When a person agrees to prostitution she is nothing more than a label

This is a great leap in logic even if I were to agree to the above two assertions. Prostitution is not a political choice, it's usually a simple matter of cold hard economics.
What is the term hooker then if it is not a label?
When people see a woman hooking, they don't see mary, karen, or sandra, they see a hooker. They see a label.

You can agree that people aren't born as prostitutes right? But rather it's something they choose?

Sure. As is true for most other professions.

Im assuming when a person chooses prostitution they realize they've crossed a point of no return. They themselves realize it, it's something internal.

This is not something you can assert until it is demonstrable. There is the possibility of leaving the life of a prostitute and going on to an otherwise "normal" life. I don't see how there is a line of no return crossed. Even Christians say that Mary Magdelene is in Heaven despite her life of iniquity.
I said it was something internal. Something you or I wouldn't be able to see. We might relate but we would never fully understand it.
Closest example I can think of would be a person that has killed someone. Once someone kills someone, they cross that line, and theres no going back.. It wouldn't matter if they changed jobs, got a hair cut, removed a tattoo, or started going to church. The line was still crossed.

Anyways once they cross the line and agree to the stigma, and deny societys idea of morality, they in essence become someone else. Hence the abandonment of self.

I can't follow you down that rabbit hole. The "self" you speak of does not disintegrate or get left on a trash heap somewhere.
Think of "self" as a mental thing and not a physical thing.

You know, cops have a term they use when there is a crime involving prostitutes or junkies. NHI. It stands for No Human Involved, and it means that they don't feel they have to work the case very hard. I know where this comes from, and I'm not unsympathetic, but I can't go as far as to say that these people aren't people.
If society didn't stigmatize and didn't think of prostitution as immoral im pretty sure they(prostitutes) would be treated as humans.

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.
The prostitute Becomes the product under contract. And yes products can be made to service "us".

I see where you're coming from on this one, but you're wrong. The product that provides the service is, in fact, a product according to the tax code, because the product can be re-used to provide the same service without purchasing additional instances of the service. But a service is performed by a person for a specific instance.
Product: 1. Something produced by human or mechanical effort or by a natural process.
The product is the provider of the service for a specific instance. The woman sells the only thing she has, herself. Once she agrees to sell herself she becomes a product.

My point was you cannot have a law without the majority. There is a need for the majority. It may be small or whatever but it is still need for the whole process to work.

I don't want to belabor this point any more than you do, but there are many things that are legal that are frowned upon by the wider society, and would be illegal if the majority got their way. Fortunately, we are a nation of laws, so the majority can't exercise its will "unfairly".

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.
You say control only goes so far as the fee-based contract allows it.
I agree, the prostitute I believe under contract would give total control to the client. Sex changes everything, plain and simple.

Really, it depends on the contract. But does the client have the right to do anything at all that he wants to do? Of course not. He can't murder her, so there is a line. He can't beat her up and steal her money, so there is a line. Other lines will depend on what the two parties agree to beforehand.
Why on earth would he want to murder her? And I believe he if he wanted could beat her up. And as far as stealing goes, I wouldn't put anything past a creative mind. I believe the ONLY line would be the client can't kill the prostitute.

I agree that we must choose our own paths, but I feel that some paths shouldn't exist.

The paths are going to exist whether we want them to or not. There are no roadblocks big enough that people won't go around them in one way or another, even for the dangerous paths. What we should be deciding is if we are going to help them or punish them.

I like how you worded your last sentence. Kinda tricky hu?
What would you decide for the people who choose the path of marrying their pets. Would you help them or punish them?
You are correct in saying people will go around the road blocks to pursue their path. What will I do? I will not help or punish them, I will however disagree with their chosen path.

[Regular_Guy]

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.
I think it does matter, as it is one of my argument supporters

.
If we were discussing something on science would you not use an already existing "law" to try and prove your point?

Using the law in this argument does not work. In this case we are trying to decide whether something should be legal. By trying to use the existing law you are trying to say it should be illegal because it is already illegal. Using that logic would mean that once a law is made it should stay that way.
I think it does work in this argument, because as it stands prostitution isn't illegal everywhere. Only in 38 states (i believe) is prostitution illegal.
By using this existing law im trying to say "hey the majority thinks it illegal, they must have some good reasoning for this".
Using logic that is contrary to once a law is made it should stay that way, suggests that all laws should be changed should some fanatical person or group question their authority.

There's plenty of gray language in existing contracts "completed to satisfaction", "Contractor will make reasonable effort to complete The Work in the allotted 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.

Right my point exactly. It would be to difficult to determine the correct choice in choosing a side in a "rough" sex disagreement. It would be to difficult to determine the correct choice in a "rape package" disagreement. If it were legalized I fear the prostitutes would often get the shaft end of the deal. Kinda like in football when a coach trys to get a call of unnessary roughness on the QB. The QB hardly ever gets the call on him, something like 8% of the time he gets called on it.
Someone would probably read this and say "they already get the bad end".
I agree and I point out that they shouldn't be doing it anyways, as it is against the law.

The contract could simply state this, and that are not allowed, and when the womn says a certain designated codeword then the client has to stop. You need to remember we are debating whether or not it should be legal, not whether or not we should be participating in it even if it is not legal
Sir, I doubt any man has the ability to 'stop' via code word the seconds before *cough* he is ready to *cough* unload.
Getting into the details would be to messy for a judge or jury to decide.

uh? 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"?

Ok the professions you listed don't involve sex. I'll try to explain exactly what I mean.
Practicing prostitution is agreeing to be stigmatized, Correct?
It's also agreeing to deny societys idea of morality, correct?
When a person agrees to prostitution she is nothing more than a label
You can agree that people aren't born as prostitutes right? But rather it's something they choose?
Im assuming when a person chooses prostitution they realize they've crossed a point of no return. They themselves realize it, it's something internal. Anyways once they cross the line and agree to the stigma, and deny societys idea of morality, they in essence become someone else. Hence the abandonment of self.

Most people of debate sites and people I know in person don't care about if another person engages in prostitution, but most people wont admit this publicly because of what someone else might say, "society's idea of morality" does not define a person. It changes all the time. An example is that a lot of the things done on tv today would not pass in the 50's and 60's. There are also different levels of society. There are things that are ok on a national level, but the small community you live in may not accept. If a person decides to become a prostitute they were already that person, but they just did not reveal it until that point. An example is that I might be gay, and you might see me kiss another man. In that situation I was always gay but until the moment I kissed the other guy I never acted on it.
I didn't say publics opinion defines a person, i said public opinion of the person exists. Im sorry but if im understanding you correctly I don't agree.
Homosexuality is the way certain individuals are born. They do not choose to be gay they just are gay.
Prostitution on the other hand is different. Prostitutes aren't born prostitutes it's a lifestyle they choose.

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.

The prostitute Becomes the product under contract. And yes products can be made to service "us" .

A prostitute using her bosy to give you pleasure is a service just like a massage therapist. The massage therapist uses their hand, and the prostitute uses her entire body, but neither one is the product.
The difference between the two professions you listed is a massage therapist doesn't let you 'insert' anything into him /her, Prostitutes then becomes a product and not a service.

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.

You say control only goes so far as the fee-based contract allows it.
I agree, the prostitute I believe under contract would give total control to the client. Sex changes everything, plain and simple.

Why do you believe she would agree to a contract without restrictions. Just because the woman is a prostitute that does not mean she has to be stupid. She just has decided that is the best way for her to make a living.
The average person doesn't think the way you do. Money is an extremely powerful form of persuasion.

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.


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.

I also would not like it. I was trying to illustrate im not an automaton. I feel legalizing it would be morally wrong. It's outlawed in 38 states (I believe) and I hope it stays that way.
I agree that we must choose our own paths, but I feel that some paths shouldn't exist.

there is no reason prostitution should be illegal. If you date a woman or just pay her for sex you are still paying for it. The only difference is with a prostitute you pay up front and you don't have to go through the process of getting to to the her, and pretending that you like her just to get sex( I am not saying all men do this), and she does not have to pretend to like you because you have a nice job(I am not saying all women do this). The woman does not have to end up crying to her best friend because you only wanted sex. Sometimes a man wants sex with no relationship. The prostitute gives him that and he does not have to take advantage of some woman to get what he wants.

[/quote]
I knew someone would mention this It would seem a clever prostitute could break the law and never get caught. It's because they ask for money upfront that makes it illegal. Your saying if dating with the only intention of sex is legal why not prostitution.
Dating for sex and paying for sex aren't the same thing.

[Corvus]

[quote=""Regular_Guy"]

When a person agrees to prostitution she is nothing more than a label

This is a great leap in logic even if I were to agree to the above two assertions. Prostitution is not a political choice, it's usually a simple matter of cold hard economics

What is the term hooker then if it is not a label?
When people see a woman hooking, they don't see mary, karen, or sandra, they see a hooker. They see a label.[/quote]
How do they know that what they are looking at is a hooker? Do they have it tattooed across their foreheads? Presumably they wouldn't see a woman "hooking" any more than they'd see a masseuse procuring customers on the street. Brothels preserve anonymity.

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.
The prostitute Becomes the product under contract. And yes products can be made to service "us".

I see where you're coming from on this one, but you're wrong. The product that provides the service is, in fact, a product according to the tax code, because the product can be re-used to provide the same service without purchasing additional instances of the service. But a service is performed by a person for a specific instance.
Product: 1. Something produced by human or mechanical effort or by a natural process.
The product is the provider of the service for a specific instance. The woman sells the only thing she has, herself. Once she agrees to sell herself she becomes a product.

This is nonsense. The woman is selling a service. The price would probably vary depending on the service; e.g., the type of penetration, or whether we are talking about sex as opposed to other sexual acts.

And why do you keep referring to women? What about male prostitutes? If I become a prostitute, would I too be selling my body to women and letting them trample my own rights? I probably wouldn't get stigmatised and though not exactly strong, it's unlikely that I could be physically abused, so I think it's not too bad of an occupation for me.

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.
You say control only goes so far as the fee-based contract allows it.
I agree, the prostitute I believe under contract would give total control to the client. Sex changes everything, plain and simple.

Really, it depends on the contract. But does the client have the right to do anything at all that he wants to do? Of course not. He can't murder her, so there is a line. He can't beat her up and steal her money, so there is a line. Other lines will depend on what the two parties agree to beforehand.
Why on earth would he want to murder her? And I believe he if he wanted could beat her up. And as far as stealing goes, I wouldn't put anything past a creative mind. I believe the ONLY line would be the client can't kill the prostitute.

You are right. If I had a wife, and I beat her up, that's entirely acceptable, since we're partners already and I can just say she agreed to it beforehand, and it doesn't really matter that she says otherwise. We see this holding up in a court of law all the time.

Why does a prostitute give up the protection that would be afforded to her if she was an everyday citizen walking down the street?

[Regular_Guy]

corvus
How do they know that what they are looking at is a hooker? Do they have it tattooed across their foreheads? Presumably they wouldn't see a woman "hooking" any more than they'd see a masseuse procuring customers on the street. Brothels preserve anonymity.
Wow you must live in an area where "hooking" is non-existent. How do I know when I see a hooker? I live in a pretty average area near the down town area. Anyways prostitutes are easy to distinguish because they hang out on conners wearing little to nothing yelling things like "you looking for a good time?" "only 20.00 bucks baby" "that motel charges by the hour"
When I see them like I said "I don't see a regular girl" " I see a hooker"
.
.
.
And why do you keep referring to women? What about male prostitutes? If I become a prostitute, would I too be selling my body to women and letting them trample my own rights? I probably wouldn't get stigmatized and though not exactly strong, it's unlikely that I could be physically abused, so I think it's not too bad of an occupation for me.
I know men are also prostitutes, I keep referring only to women just because. Let it be know that I also include men in this discussion I just dent like typing women/men all the time. You say "it's unlikely that I could be physically abused". Isn't this just typical "guy" arrogance?
I agree, the public doesn't really view guy prostitutes the same way they do female prostitutes. What can I say? Yeah it's a double standard, but hey that's just the way it is.
.
.
.
You are right. If I had a wife, and I beat her up, that's entirely acceptable, since we're partners already and I can just say she agreed to it beforehand, and it doesn't really matter that she says otherwise. We see this holding up in a court of law all the time.
Nice job on twisting my words around When the guy bends down on one knee he doesn't say "I want rough sex NOW". Quite the opposite friend Something like
Guy: I love you and want to spend the rest of my life with you. please say that you'll be my wife
Girl: *gasp* O.....k yes.
And the man or woman marrying them doesn't say "and you *points to woman* will you willingly be the subject of domestic abuse?"
If you can not see the difference between marriage and prostitution you can PM me for the specifics.
.
.
.
Why does a prostitute give up the protection that would be afforded to her if she was an everyday citizen walking down the street?
That's something you'll have to ask a prostitute your self. I can guess why she (and I use this term loosely) would choose her (and I use this choice loosely) lifestyle, but in the end thats all it is on my part a.. A guess just a guess.

[Corvus]

corvus
How do they know that what they are looking at is a hooker? Do they have it tattooed across their foreheads? Presumably they wouldn't see a woman "hooking" any more than they'd see a masseuse procuring customers on the street. Brothels preserve anonymity.
Wow you must live in an area where "hooking" is non-existent. How do I know when I see a hooker? I live in a pretty average area near the down town area. Anyways prostitutes are easy to distinguish because they hang out on conners wearing little to nothing yelling things like "you looking for a good time?" "only 20.00 bucks baby" "that motel charges by the hour"
When I see them like I said "I don't see a regular girl" " I see a hooker"

The point is, it doesn't have to be that way under a system where prostitute is legal and regulated. As I say, we don't see masseuses prowling the streets. If legal, it would be expected that a prostitute not have the same rights as a busker does. That is to say, if prostitution is legal, it can be zoned in appropriate areas and prostitutes would be required to ply their trade in brothels, where employers can also ensure that they are at least paid a decent wage and given frequent health checks. We call that regulation and consider it a good thing.

And, if you admit to seeing them so often while you pass, how is letting prostitution remain illegal helping in any way, except in reinforcing that social stigma you pointed out.

And why do you keep referring to women? What about male prostitutes? If I become a prostitute, would I too be selling my body to women and letting them trample my own rights? I probably wouldn't get stigmatized and though not exactly strong, it's unlikely that I could be physically abused, so I think it's not too bad of an occupation for me.
I know men are also prostitutes, I keep referring only to women just because. Let it be know that I also include men in this discussion I just dent like typing women/men all the time. You say "it's unlikely that I could be physically abused". Isn't this just typical "guy" arrogance?
I agree, the public doesn't really view guy prostitutes the same way they do female prostitutes. What can I say? Yeah it's a double standard, but hey that's just the way it is.

So can we legalise male prostitution or not? I'm eager to begin business.

You are right. If I had a wife, and I beat her up, that's entirely acceptable, since we're partners already and I can just say she agreed to it beforehand, and it doesn't really matter that she says otherwise. We see this holding up in a court of law all the time.
Nice job on twisting my words around When the guy bends down on one knee he doesn't say "I want rough sex NOW". Quite the opposite friend Something like
Guy: I love you and want to spend the rest of my life with you. please say that you'll be my wife
Girl: *gasp* O.....k yes.
And the man or woman marrying them doesn't say "and you *points to woman* will you willingly be the subject of domestic abuse?"
If you can not see the difference between marriage and prostitution you can PM me for the specifics.

Hah! No, I think I've been cynical enough in the Romantic Love topic.

Anyway, no one says that a prostitute should willingly subject to physical abuse either, as you seem to be saying. Prostitution is not a license for someone to do as they please to someone else. It's a contract to do specific sexual acts. You seem to be saying that it would be difficult to decide whether the prostitute "asked for it" or not, and therefore, we can't make that decision and prostitution should remain illegal. Other than the fact that it remaining illegal doesn't solve anything, I say such an argument is nonsense, and can be applied to any private abuse, such as "the domestic". The prostitute is not necessarily also a masochist. If you cannot tell the difference between physical abuse and intercourse or other sexual acts, then "get thee hence to a monastery!".

Why does a prostitute give up the protection that would be afforded to her if she was an everyday citizen walking down the street?
That's something you'll have to ask a prostitute your self. I can guess why she (and I use this term loosely) would choose her (and I use this choice loosely) lifestyle, but in the end thats all it is on my part a.. A guess just a guess.

But a prostitute does not give up the protection that would be afforded her if she was an everyday citizen walking the street. Yet you seem to be saying she does. I don't see why. You are saying that the prostitute is not given the same safeguards as any other worker has.

[Regular_Guy]

corvus
The point is, it doesn't have to be that way under a system where prostitute is legal and regulated.
Did you know most illegal prostitutes don't want their lifestyle legalized?
.
.
As I say, we don't see masseuses prowling the streets. If legal, it would be expected that a prostitute not have the same rights as a busker does. That is to say, if prostitution is legal, it can be zoned in appropriate areas and prostitutes would be required to ply their trade in brothels, where employers can also ensure that they are at least paid a decent wage and given frequent health checks. We call that regulation and consider it a good thing.
Your not at the other end of the regulation, so you can't say it's a "good"
thing. Try looking at all aspects of the problem before handing out a solution.
.
.
And, if you admit to seeing them so often while you pass, how is letting prostitution remain illegal helping in any way, except in reinforcing that social stigma you pointed out.
Yes, I stigmatize them whenever I see them. I feel all criminals should be stigmatized
By the stance i've taken im helping the problem rather than looking towards the solution? I don't believe I am. I believe im keeping the "greater good" in mind.
.
.
And why do you keep referring to women? What about male prostitutes? If I become a prostitute, would I too be selling my body to women and letting them trample my own rights? I probably wouldn't get stigmatized and though not exactly strong, it's unlikely that I could be physically abused, so I think it's not too bad of an occupation for me.

I know men are also prostitutes, I keep referring only to women just because. Let it be know that I also include men in this discussion I just don't like typing women/men all the time.
You say "it's unlikely that I could be physically abused". Isn't this just typical "guy" arrogance?
Your only going to sell yourself to women? Why not just do porn instead? There's more money there I believe.
I agree, the public doesn't really view guy prostitutes the same way they do female prostitutes. What can I say? Yeah it's a double standard, but hey that's just the way it is..
.
.
So can we legalise male prostitution or not? I'm eager to begin business.
We could, but thats not really the discussion topic. Also contrary to what you may think prostitution isn't totaly about sex. I think I mentioned earlier, why not just do porn? Or, since prostitution in some states is legal I suggest maybe a "move" is in order. Ohh and please after a month of legal prostituting let us/me know how it's going . As I am eggar to see if your position on this topic would change.
*note* Im not a perv , just someone who would like to further educate themselves in the matter.
.
.
Hah! No, I think I've been cynical enough in the Romantic Love topic.

.
.
Anyway, no one says that a prostitute should willingly subject to physical abuse either, as you seem to be saying.
I think "abuse" here is objective.
.
.
Prostitution is not a license for someone to do as they please to someone else.
Are you serious? If a man gives a prostitute money and demands sex,
and the prostitute agrees, Id say the man just did as he pleases
.
.
It's a contract to do specific sexual acts. You seem to be saying that it would be difficult to decide whether the prostitute "asked for it" or not, and therefore, we can't make that decision and prostitution should remain illegal. Other than the fact that it remaining illegal doesn't solve anything, I say such an argument is nonsense, and can be applied to any private abuse, such as "the domestic".
The prostitute is not necessarily also a masochist. If you cannot tell the difference between physical abuse and intercourse or other sexual acts, then "get thee hence to a monastery!".
I would love to live in your world for just one day. You seem to live slightly out of phase with my plane. I knew this girl once who would cut herself. Why? She said that's how she got off. (I was also thinking freak)
Freaks are out there. They may not be the majority, but they exist. Making a law that would be of some benefit to them I say is the real nonsense..
.
.
But a prostitute does not give up the protection that would be afforded her if she was an everyday citizen walking the street. Yet you seem to be saying she does. I don't see why. You are saying that the prostitute is not given the same safeguards as any other worker has.
Can you please be more specific? Are you referring to a legal or illegal or if prostitution were made legal prostitute?

[ST88]

Right my point exactly. It would be to difficult to determine the correct choice in choosing a side in a "rough" sex disagreement. It would be to difficult to determine the correct choice in a "rape package" disagreement. If it were legalized I fear the prostitutes would often get the shaft end of the deal. Kinda like in football when a coach trys to get a call of unnessary roughness on the QB. The QB hardly ever gets the call on him, something like 8% of the time he gets called on it.
Someone would probably read this and say "they already get the bad end".
I agree and I point out that they shouldn't be doing it anyways, as it is against the law.

You can't argue against a transaction because administering it would be "too hard". This is government asserting its right to be lazy.

Wether we like it or not, sometimes our goverment can be lazy. Prostitution isn't an open and shut case. It's more trouble then what it's worth. The goverment will postpone addressing it for as long as possible.
Or in our case "little by little"

So it's OK to allow the rights of others to be violated because the government is too slow to protect them? This is like saying that the courts shouldn't be involved in custody disputes because the law isn't clear on which children should go where and for how long.

I have to say, it appears like you are taking your stand because you wish to protect the prostitute from these bad things that are happening to them now. I think this is a noble effort, but your solution to this problem does not fit with the reality of what is going on. I believe what you are saying is that a prostitute could be beaten up or worse and the client could say that these actions were allowable based on his understanding of the terms of the contract, so he would "get away with it" by hiding behind the law.

Well, pardon me, but what's the difference between the current situation and the presumed situation you described above. Even if I accept your logic, I don't see a difference in what actually happens to the postitute and the client in the two situations (legal & litigated vs. illegal & off the radar).

And, to make my position clear, I believe that the prostitute is better served if she has the chance to have at least a piece of the law behind her, then if she is completely left open to abuse because her economic activity isn't recognized as valid.

Practicing prostitution is agreeing to be stigmatized, Correct?

No.

Are you serious! (emphasis on the exclamation point)
Your saying that a prostitute after having chosen her crime (prostitution)
never think's that other people no matter how small the number will only think of her as just another (pardon my language ) whore.

When someone becomes a prostitute, they aren't making a statement about how "stigmatized" they wish to be. I am sure that they realize there is a stigma associated with it, which is perhaps what you meant, but the "agreement" is not there, and I think that the "agreement" part of your argument fails.

It's also agreeing to deny societys idea of morality, correct?

No.

Again, are you serious! The fact of the matter stays, if nobody thought prostitution a problem then it wouldn't be illegal, it wouldn't be a problem, we wouldn't be discussing it now.
Society's opinion of morality differs from yours greatly. They would agree that prostitution is wrong. If you need any evidence of this just take a look at the presidents approval ratings.

Again, there is no "agreement". It is true that the wider society has the moral opinion that prostitution is wrong. You are free to argue that prostitutes operate outside of societal moral opinion. But the moral opinion is an independent assertion on the part of society -- agreement or disagreement is irrelevant to what the prostitute does.

And, by the way, the President's approval ratings, as of this writing, are currently the lowest they have ever been, and are now lower than at any time during the previous administration.

When a person agrees to prostitution she is nothing more than a label

This is a great leap in logic even if I were to agree to the above two assertions. Prostitution is not a political choice, it's usually a simple matter of cold hard economics.

What is the term hooker then if it is not a label?
When people see a woman hooking, they don't see mary, karen, or sandra, they see a hooker. They see a label.

Whose fault is that? Are you saying that the prostitute willingly gives up her identity because societal values say she is? That's circular reasoning, creating definitions on the fly. If society labels her, that's society's problem, not her problem. You're arguing that societal "shame" has more relevance than law, which is ridiculous.

I'd like to stop here for a second and look at this part of your argument a bit. If society is allowed to dictate who are persons and who are not persons, we'd be stepping in ethical piles of manure quicksand all over the place. Despite her metier or her choice of lifestyle, or however you want to put it, she still gets rights to be a person. We can label label label all over the place and wag our fingers in whoever's face we want, but as a nation of laws we have to recognize that everyone has inalienable rights -- endowed by the Creator, if you like.

Im assuming when a person chooses prostitution they realize they've crossed a point of no return. They themselves realize it, it's something internal.

This is not something you can assert until it is demonstrable. There is the possibility of leaving the life of a prostitute and going on to an otherwise "normal" life. I don't see how there is a line of no return crossed. Even Christians say that Mary Magdelene is in Heaven despite her life of iniquity.

I said it was something internal. Something you or I wouldn't be able to see. We might relate but we would never fully understand it.
Closest example I can think of would be a person that has killed someone. Once someone kills someone, they cross that line, and theres no going back.. It wouldn't matter if they changed jobs, got a hair cut, removed a tattoo, or started going to church. The line was still crossed.

Earlier, you say it's an external problem. Now you're saying it's an internal problem. What would you do with a prostitute who sees nothing wrong with being one? This is blatant government paternalism, trying to save her from herself. Further, even if I were to accept the idea that prostitution is psychologically damaging, there are plenty of legal careers and lifestyles that could damage a person psychologically according to a majority of people in society (like criminal defense attorney or soldier), but we allow them to practice their chosen careers.

Anyways once they cross the line and agree to the stigma, and deny societys idea of morality, they in essence become someone else. Hence the abandonment of self.

I can't follow you down that rabbit hole. The "self" you speak of does not disintegrate or get left on a trash heap somewhere.

Think of "self" as a mental thing and not a physical thing.

For the purposes of this discussion, it can be either. We become "someone else" all the time -- our "selves" are constantly changing, and we are never the same persons from day to day. I used to work in sales, and I can tell you that I often felt like taking a shower after some of those sales calls. I am a different person because of that experience, as well I should be. "Becoming someone else" does not imply "abandonment of the self".

I think what you're trying to say is that there are experiences that we should not allow others to experience because it would be bad for them. Government, please protect me from myself. If that's the kind of government you want, with the ability to impose its own version of morality "for your own good" then fine. Two plus two only equals four if the state says it's good for you to believe that.

If society didn't stigmatize and didn't think of prostitution as immoral im pretty sure they(prostitutes) would be treated as humans.

What better way to remove the stigma, however gradually it might come, than to make it legal?

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.

The prostitute Becomes the product under contract. And yes products can be made to service "us".

I see where you're coming from on this one, but you're wrong. The product that provides the service is, in fact, a product according to the tax code, because the product can be re-used to provide the same service without purchasing additional instances of the service. But a service is performed by a person for a specific instance.

Product: 1. Something produced by human or mechanical effort or by a natural process.
The product is the provider of the service for a specific instance. The woman sells the only thing she has, herself. Once she agrees to sell herself she becomes a product.

I think our disagreement on this point is very telling. By your definition, there is no such thing as a service in any instance, because a product is always the result of a service. What's the product of a chiropractor? Relief of back pain. What's the product of an accountant? Organization of money. I'm sorry, but I can't go there with you. I see a difference between a product and a service, and I stated it above. Ask any economist about the difference between a product and a service and you will get a similar answer. In general, the government sees this distinction also because products are subject to sales tax whereas services are not. There are exceptions as there are in any part of the ridiculously complicated tax code, but this is a general rule. Strictly speaking, the prostitute does not sell her body, she sells the access to it for a specific length of time. You may call this access a product because, after all, it is a noun, and a noun is a thing. But it isn't as cut-and-dried as all that.

I think the implications of seeing her as a product or as providing a service are staggering, and I feel it is this specific point that we are arguing about throughout our conversations.

I agree, the prostitute I believe under contract would give total control to the client. Sex changes everything, plain and simple.

The client does not have total control now, why would creating a specific contract to cover the situation serve to widen the definition of what the client is allowed to do? Is there something magic about sex in general that causes the woman to disappear?

Really, it depends on the contract. But does the client have the right to do anything at all that he wants to do? Of course not. He can't murder her, so there is a line. He can't beat her up and steal her money, so there is a line. Other lines will depend on what the two parties agree to beforehand.

Why on earth would he want to murder her? And I believe he if he wanted could beat her up. And as far as stealing goes, I wouldn't put anything past a creative mind. I believe the ONLY line would be the client can't kill the prostitute.

Are you seriously arguing that the client has the right to beat up and steal the money of the prostitute based on the agreement between them?

Further, what if she describes something that she absolutely will not do for any amount of money, and he forces her to do it anyway? Is this a violation of their contract, or does she give up her rights entirely to anything he wants to do despite the terms she uttered?

You are correct in saying people will go around the road blocks to pursue their path. What will I do? I will not help or punish them, I will however disagree with their chosen path.

No. You can't stay on the sidelines on this one. Either you keep it illegal or you legalize it. You either help them by legalizing it or you punish them by keeping it illegal. I gather that you feel prostitution should not exist. In my opinion, this is a noble wish. But it does, and there is nothing you or I can do about it. If we legalize it, we can assert our authority over the process and protect her with law, should we so choose. If we do nothing, they are punished. Plain and simple.