• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Prostitution: Constitutional or Unconstitutional? You Decide

Constitutional or Unconstitutional?


  • Total voters
    34
Likewise, a woman can go sell her sexual services, but make it legal and pimps start running sex rings and taking advantage.

Make prostitution legal, and regulate it... and make pimping illegal, and prosecute it.

Problem solved.
 
So are we banning frivolous sex at all?

We are talking about sex for money, specifically, because pimps don't work for free.

If it's frivolous sex, then there's no financial incentive for cartels to smuggle women into other countries, and is not on-topic.
 
Make prostitution legal, and regulate it... and make pimping illegal, and prosecute it.

Problem solved.

So if prostitution were legal, you would still be against making a small business out of it?

Do you hold this opinion about any other legal service?
 
This seems to fit in with the times. Thank you, demoralization.

Now I can have a real carreer as a pimp, get my 401K, and retire in my 30s.

Now where's my *******?

*This is definitely intended sarcasm
 
We are talking about sex for money, specifically, because pimps don't work for free.

If it's frivolous sex, then there's no financial incentive for cartels to smuggle women into other countries, and is not on-topic.

Have you seen the US lately?

There's no need to smuggle anyone in. LOL - they're already here.
 
So if prostitution were legal, you would still be against making a small business out of it?

Do you hold this opinion about any other legal service?

never heard of independent contractors, I see.

As for places like The Bunny Ranch, etc.. fine... regualte them. Streetcorner pimps, prosecute.
 
Last edited:
1. characterized by lack of seriousness or sense: frivolous conduct.
2. self-indulgently carefree; unconcerned about or lacking any serious purpose.
3. (of a person) given to trifling or undue levity: a frivolous, empty-headed person.

If thats the definition of frivolous sex. Im in trouble. LOL
 
never heard of independent contractors, I see.

images


As for places like The Bunny Ranch, etc.. fine... regualte them. Streetcorner pimps, prosecute.

They do prosecute street-walkers, and it doesn't stop anything.
 
Last edited:
None of this is true. There is no evidence whatsoever that any exposure to pornography, depicting adults, real children, or fake children, encourages or leads to the abuse of children. At all. Zero. None. Don't make stuff up.

There is, however, the possibility that such desires could be (in some cases) satiated with a proxy, like porn. After all, there are plenty of guys who look at rape porn, but then don't go out and rape anyone. Their desires are fleeting, and satisfied with fantasy. Why would pedophiles be any different?

This part is actually true. And it makes sense. Even if you catch the perpetrator afterwards, they still stole someone's body parts and, you know... murdered them. So really, the problem is murderers. But at least the logic here is sound.

Those clean professionals are the norm in the counties where prostitution is legal. To suggest that "criminals" will "take over" a legal industry is to suggest that post offices are subject to the same problem. If a criminal element can infiltrate one legitimate business, they (the mafia?) can do the same for any industry. If an industry is above board, in the light, then it removes the criminal element. It doesn't increase it.

There's criminal actitvity in many fine upstanding industries. A less desirable place of employment is going to get a lot more seeds hanging around.What type of person would want to run a brothel? Most married men would be off limits. Guys with SO's would be unable to stay for various reasons. So you'd possibly get dried up old perverted geezers, or guys that didn't have enough sense to come in from the rain.

Ever see the guy who runs the bunny farm in NV? He's a perve from a way back. It's in his eyes, his persona.

I can not believe upstanding citizens would ever want to run a prostitution house. It's just not an honorable profession. People will do it, but you'd become a part of it. It would be on your face, your clothes, your soul/mind would even have a hard time shaking if off.
 
images




They do prosecute street-walkers, and it doesn't stop anything.

How am I trolling, when I addressed a direct question?

You're not very good at this, are you.

If you feel my direct answer to your question was an attempt to troll, please report me to a moderator, so they can laugh at you as I am.
 
Last edited:
Whovian said:
As for places like The Bunny Ranch, etc.. fine... regualte them. Streetcorner pimps, prosecute.

They do prosecute street-walkers, and it doesn't stop anything.
Again, you kinda suck at this. Do you not understand the difference between a streetcorner pimp, and a streetwalker?
 
Why is it that when I drop the silly-games and try have a decent conversation that I attract the trolls?

This is why it's hard to take anything seriously on this forum.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Cut the personal attacks out, be it calling someone a troll or telling them they suck, and stick to actually debating the topic
 
So, Whovian, the point remains: Nevada does prosecute street-pimps, and it doesn't stop anything.

If you have somewhere to take the debate from there I invite you to do it.
 
So, Whovian, the point remains: Nevada does prosecute street-pimps, and it doesn't stop anything.

If you have somewhere to take the debate from there I invite you to do it.

So they should stop trying?

I did not say it would stop anything. In fact, it's immaterial to the question at hand.

I simply stated that prostitution should be legalized, regulated, taxed, etc. Legal and regulated brothels, independent contractors (you prefer to call them streetwalkers). Streetpimps are, and should continue to be prosecuted.

The fact that in most places prostitution is not legal now, and the street-pimps are still there, has nothing to do with the question at hand.

It's a strawman. You appear to be good with those.
 
If anyone is interested in having a decent debate on this issue, look me up.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cut the personal attacks out, be it calling someone a troll or telling them they suck, and stick to actually debating the topic

I feel special, a moderator finally noticed one of my threads. Not sure I can handle all the Glamour that comes with it.

Moving on. Whether it's a streetwalker or a pimp is really beside the point when it comes to the base question here. Is it your constitutional right to lease your body for sex.

Okay, maybe pimps are a different topic altogether.

When it comes to pimps, I'm pretty sure we have an Amendment that makes it unconstitutional to sell another person which I'm betting any attorney worth his weight in mud would be able to adjust just slightly to include leasing/renting another person.

So, in my mind that would actually make Pimping Unconstitutional.

Wait... Does that mean that operating a brother is Unconstitutional at the Federal Level? Could it be the 10th Amendment does not apply and give the power to decide that to the states?

Does this mean the state of Nevada and specifically the city of Reno are in violation of the U.S. Constitution?

Now that in and of itself is a debate.
 
Moving on. Whether it's a streetwalker or a pimp is really beside the point when it comes to the base question here. Is it your constitutional right to lease your body for sex.

You say "moving on" but ti sounds like you're going back to the beginning. Prostitution is an industry pimping is a part of.

Okay, maybe pimps are a different topic altogether.

No more then your kidney is separate from your body.

When it comes to pimps, I'm pretty sure we have an Amendment that makes it unconstitutional to sell another person which I'm betting any attorney worth his weight in mud would be able to adjust just slightly to include leasing/renting another person.

You're not selling the person. You're selling a service, like hair cutting.

This service in particular leads to abuse.
 
I simply stated that prostitution should be legalized, regulated, taxed, etc. Legal and regulated brothels, independent contractors (you prefer to call them streetwalkers). Streetpimps are, and should continue to be prosecuted.

I agree with you. However, I still disagree with you that criminalizing prostitution is unconstitutional.
 
I agree with you. However, I still disagree with you that criminalizing prostitution is unconstitutional.

On this note: the federal government does not have the right to control inner-state commerce. Which is why prostitutin is a state-issue and why it's legal in areas of Nevada.
 
On this note: the federal government does not have the right to control inner-state commerce. Which is why prostitutin is a state-issue and why it's legal in areas of Nevada.

Or the federal government hasn't decided to exert its authority to regulate prostitution.

Either way, aruging against the constitutionality of prostition is a bad way to lobby to get it legalized.

A better argument is to point out how all the positives of legalizing prostitution outweigh all the positives of keeping it illegal.
 
Or the federal government hasn't decided to exert its authority to regulate prostitution.

Either way, aruging against the constitutionality of prostition is a bad way to lobby to get it legalized.

A better argument is to point out how all the positives of legalizing prostitution outweigh all the positives of keeping it illegal.

And there aren't any social benefits at all - so that's a no-go :)
 
So your saying that those who view child porn are not likely to act on that sexual urge and there is no proof that looking at porn, specifically child porn, will lead to abusive acts towards children.

Would you like to bet on that one?

I'll be willing to put up whatever you want to risk Paschendale. Though might I suggest that you actually do a little research before you open your mouth and stick your foot in it. Perhaps becoming friends with say, I don't know... Google or Bing might even help you out a little.

Child Porn Leads Pedophiles to Commit Pedophile Acts against children study

That link might help ya out a little. To quote a section of it:

Now, as a father I don't need a study to help me out with this thing they call common sense, but since you do, there it is. It is statistically more likely to be the case than not.

To begin with, that's one fellow, who is not a doctor, against the established position of the AMA. I trust the doctors over some quack with a website. Also, the article doesn't actually SAY what you claim it does. It says that the people who seek out child porn are the same ones who have inclinations towards pedophilia. Well DUH! Also, the title you link for the article isn't its actual name. This makes sense given that the article isn't proposing that. Seems your common sense isn't so common.
 
Back
Top Bottom