- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 48,281
- Reaction score
- 25,273
- Location
- Western NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Giving in and giving up is a sign of weakness. We are weak if we legalize it.
What?
Giving in and giving up is a sign of weakness. We are weak if we legalize it.
However by not having prostitution in the legal arena puts those gals/men in the position of being around other criminals by default, rather than by choice. I have no doubt that if a woman could be and feel and know that what she was doing wasn't illegal, she'd not have a pimp who would jack her up on drugs and sell her to abusive assholes. It's the fact that it's illegal to start with that puts them in an environment where it's essentially unavoidable; they will be exposed to and made a part of other criminal activities.Prostitution, like vandalism, tends to create a climate for other criminal offenses.
In contrast to what the proponents claim, there is
Most enforcement actions are directly due to citizens complaints, so evidently, those living around it have concluded that there are social impacts.
Citizen complaints lead to prostitution arrests : News : CarolinaLive.com
Citizen complaints lead to prostitution arrests - WFSB 3 Connecticut
Five arrested in undercover prostitution sting in Gainesville - The Independent Florida Alligator: Crime
My guess is that prostitution, like vandalism, creates an environment for furhter criminal activity.
Other social impacts include:
- AIDS CDC - Sex Workers - Other Risks - Risk - HIV/AIDS At the end of the day, a certain percentage of the hookers and the hooked dont alot of personal discipline and thus are not known to be interested in precautions.
- Exploitation of women http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/493040/IPOL-FEMM_ET(2014)493040_EN.pdf Evidently the Dutch policy on prostitution has not created a heaven of happy hookers as traffickers view the Netherlands as a having business potential.
Prostitution, like vandalism, tends to create a climate for other criminal offenses.
In contrast to what the proponents claim, there is
Most enforcement actions are directly due to citizens complaints, so evidently, those living around it have concluded that there are social impacts.
Citizen complaints lead to prostitution arrests : News : CarolinaLive.com
Citizen complaints lead to prostitution arrests - WFSB 3 Connecticut
Five arrested in undercover prostitution sting in Gainesville - The Independent Florida Alligator: Crime
My guess is that prostitution, like vandalism, creates an environment for furhter criminal activity.
Other social impacts include:
- AIDS CDC - Sex Workers - Other Risks - Risk - HIV/AIDS At the end of the day, a certain percentage of the hookers and the hooked dont alot of personal discipline and thus are not known to be interested in precautions.
- Exploitation of women http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/493040/IPOL-FEMM_ET(2014)493040_EN.pdf Evidently the Dutch policy on prostitution has not created a heaven of happy hookers as traffickers view the Netherlands as a having business potential.
At the end of the day, the current practice works fine:
-Hooking is illegal
-local municipalities, in response to local conditions, decide how stringently those laws are enforced. Enforcement can vary from fairly strict to pretty token.
Both.
Because the State should not facilitate environments that increase social costs (actively spread STDs).
The State should also not facilitate environments that lead to the exploitation of its citizens (even if the exploitation is "willing").
It does not matter whether it is prostitution, usurous loans, or exploitive labor contracts that are "voluntary".
Please note, this does not mean that I am advocating a Bloomberg nanny state.
For that matter, I am not personally exploited by usurous loans or loan sharking either- does that mean they should also be legal? Or, can the State forbid certain loan arrangements?
why does society need to "get involved" when it is no ones business but the ones agreeing to the contracts?
It should be legal and regulated like any other business. This is a women's safety issue to me. Illegal prostitution leads to abuse, disease, crime, and human trafficking. It just makes NO SENSE to me to make prostitution illegal.
So does legal prostitution, as the Netherlands has been discovering.
Why do you look at things in terms of extremes? Do we allow doctors to practice in the middle of the park in public view? Do you think prostitutes and johns dont prefer privacy?
People cannot even drink and smoke in public in most places....and those are legal.
And why do I have to approve of prostitution to support it's legalization? Of course I wouldnt....there are millions of jobs I would hate.
You have to resort to extremes because you have no realistic argument. You just have a moral indignation that you are trying to shore up with 'fake' reasoning.
Everyone has a right to do with their bodies what they want . So in that vein I admit I have no right to dictate.
Am not trying to play the moral card. I just simply wonder who here who supports it would like to have their teenage daughter look as it as a future profession. Is that fair enough?
It seems we all like prostitutes but none of us would like their own daughter or wife working that profession.
And if legal why couldn't one's wife do a few tricks for Christmas spending money and still be able to hold her head high.
It's an appeal to emotionalism that shouldn't be part of the issue.Everyone has a right to do with their bodies what they want . So in that vein I admit I have no right to dictate.
Am not trying to play the moral card. I just simply wonder who here who supports it would like to have their teenage daughter look as it as a future profession. Is that fair enough?
It seems we all like prostitutes but none of us would like their own daughter or wife working that profession.
And if legal why couldn't one's wife do a few tricks for Christmas spending money and still be able to hold her head high.
No, I don't think government has an obligation to protect people from their own stupid actions.
This is a free society, not a nanny state.
And such darwinian societies do not remain free very long. International communism's appeal was in part due because certain societies practiced social darwinism:
- exploitive share cropping was were permissable as the farmers were voluntary
- exploitive labor conditions permitted as workers were voluntary
- education was 100% cash and carry. Most of the exploitive could not afford it so they can't escape from the voluntary system.
Needless to say, these conditions created alot of social turmoil, which led to people looking for "solutions" that reduced freedom.
In short, a wise State protects people from themselves (to a degree). Failure to do so on a large scale, can result in alot of social turmoil. Putting limits on interest rates and banning certain exploitive "voluntary" labor contracts does not equal "nanny state".
We weren't talking about share cropping and labor conditions and education. We were talking about government protecting people from their own stupid mistakes. We disagree on the role of government.
You stated that a govenment should not protect people from their own voluntary and foolish decisions. I am stating wise government should protect people from their own decisions (to a degree).
So, yes, we do disagree on the role of government. A government that practices unrestricted social darwinism - and you appear to advocate such a government, will fail due to social turmoil. This results in a loss of freedom and capital.
We no longer have share cropper agriculture, but we do have an economic system heavily dependent on loans. Placing limits on interest- even oif signing the loan is "voluntary" does not equal "nanny state". Rather, such limits can reduce social turmoil. It was the same with certain "voluntary" share cropping arrangements.
I'm a big girl and believe I can take care of myself, you seem to think you need government to protect you from yourself.
Should prostitution be legalized?
Can you expand on that? Why shouldn't it be legalized?Absolutely not.
I'm always conflicted on how to respond to the prostitution question, since it really depends on the situation and how it's being defined. I'll start off by saying I have no moral position on this, don't really care what religion may say about this.
In many ways all casual sex is a 'transaction' so the issue (in my mind) that money transfer or barter has occurred is simply irrelevant. The true problem with prostitution is the coercion, trafficking, drugs, and the abuse by pimps. All of that is obscene and needs to be illegal.
Then you are left with sex! I live in Thailand, where there is always only 6 degrees of separation from someone you know in the 'entertainment' industry. Thai prostitution isn't (generally) dominated by coercion and pimps. It's more a case of poor women working as independent contractors so to speak, selling sex directly to customers as Bar Girls, just to make money to support their families, not generally as I fear is common in the US to support a drug habit
So I guess the real question, in a US context is: is it the sex that people have the problem with, or all the crime and abuse that surrounds the sex?
Everyone has a right to do with their bodies what they want . So in that vein I admit I have no right to dictate.
Am not trying to play the moral card. I just simply wonder who here who supports it would like to have their teenage daughter look as it as a future profession. Is that fair enough?
It seems we all like prostitutes but none of us would like their own daughter or wife working that profession.
And if legal why couldn't one's wife do a few tricks for Christmas spending money and still be able to hold her head high.