• 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.

No ****. We understand the practice is currently illegal. The theme of the topic is SHOULD it be illegal and in that sense the question is asked...how is prostitution as an activity any different than massage therapy?

For one, massage therapy has no potential to compromise public health and isn't a factor in population decline.
 
For one, massage therapy has no potential to compromise public health and isn't a factor in population decline.

Population decline is rather a progressive demand and has been proposed by scientists for some time now.
 
I think the larger question is what good is being done by attempting to eliminate it. I've never been clear on the tangible benefits of making vice decisions illegal. In every case I know of it either makes things worse or it's just a waste of time and money.

Ah, I see that the "prohibition doesn't work" banality reared its head again. Prohibition may not have worked in certain instances, but it worked in others, something that attests to the simply reality that unless a principle is inherently flawed, its application can afford various degrees of success and failure.
 
Population decline is rather a progressive demand and has been proposed by scientists for some time now.

Not to societies that are struggling to maintain a vigorous and productive population.
 
Not to societies that are struggling to maintain a vigorous and productive population.

It is a subsection of the ecology debate. Humans are the cause of the changes. Where the changes are bringing about unsustainable circumstances, you must find an answer. So far absolute catastrophes have been only local and destroyed only relatively small areas for human use or killed only a few people. This seems to be changing and there seems to be a relatively strong calculation about that we need to reduce planet's population considerably from today's level. The precise numbers depend on assumptions made concerning technology and the speed of adapting it, but from the level of 10 billions we are set to reach soon, it does mean a cull in numbers of a couple of billions to maybe 3 or even one, if things work out badly. This is said not to be a nice to have but a must do and that failing to do it, nature will do it for us.
 
For one, massage therapy has no potential to compromise public health and isn't a factor in population decline.
Sure it does. Massage Therapists have numerous health standards they must comply with. As for being a factor in population decline...how so? How does that in any way impact population or even potential population? And wouldnt properly managed legal prostitution REDUCE public health concerns?
 
The funny thing here is that even the Catholic Church, of all institutions, was willing to back this logic for a significant chunk of its history. During the Middle Ages, the Church actually accepted prostitution as a "necessary evil," of sorts, because it could be more easily refined and controlled than random people simply cruising the streets looking for sex.

Frankly, given the state of a lot of modern society, I find it increasing hard to argue with their logic. A lot of the "hook-up culture," and even a substantial chunk of the MRA movement ('pick-up artists' and the like), for example, would disappear virtually overnight with legalized prostitution. They never really caught on in a lot of Europe for that exact reason. It'd also probably do wonders for things like STDs and unwanted pregnancy, because regulated prostitutes could actually be made to use protection.

Prostitution is not only done more commonly by the poor, but it breeds poverty. Who would want whore houses near them if prostitution was legalized? The communities where they popped up would likely become poorer, which only breed more prostitution and more poverty. It also likely wouldn't decrease hook-up culture at all, but just provide another legal outlet to get sex.
 
Prostitution is not only done more commonly by the poor, but it breeds poverty. Who would want whore houses near them if prostitution was legalized? The communities where they popped up would likely become poorer, which only breed more prostitution and more poverty. It also likely wouldn't decrease hook-up culture at all, but just provide another legal outlet to get sex.

That doesn't happen where I live. The areas near the legalized red light districts in Antwerp, Brussels and Gent are doing fine.
 
For one, massage therapy has no potential to compromise public health and isn't a factor in population decline.

Making prostitution illegal means that any medical intervention and regulation of the sex workers will be far harder to do.

Legal sex workers will have a lot of health srcutiny. Surely that would be better?
 
Prostitution is not only done more commonly by the poor, but it breeds poverty. Who would want whore houses near them if prostitution was legalized? The communities where they popped up would likely become poorer, which only breed more prostitution and more poverty. It also likely wouldn't decrease hook-up culture at all, but just provide another legal outlet to get sex.

You are wrong.

The cheap back street whore houses which are opperating in Sheffield do so in the cheap poor districts.

The expensive establishments working in the posh areas don't advertise so much and presumably want the ambiance to be posh and exclusive. They mow the lawn.
 
You must not know of many cases then, or you are just ignorant to the facts

Actually, Prohibition Was a Success - NYTimes.com

Mark Moore, the writer for the NYtimes article you linked to, is going in the polar opposite direction of the Utopian Fallacy -- suggesting that minor demonstrations of success (restricted access to drugs reducing cases of alcohol related accidents and illnesses) is a demonstration of the totality being a success. While, yes, there was restricted access on one level, it completely ignores the increased distribution of narcotics in spite of multiple law enforcement agencies essentially give carte blanche to execute the war on drugs. He's also fallaciously relying on the idea that if a viewer is wrong about one aspect of organized crime surrounding prohibition then he must be wrong about all of them. (There's a word for that fallacy but I'm not recalling it at the moment). While it's true that organized crime did not start with prohibition or get measurably more violent, prohibition obviously did open up a new front on the black market. The writer also attempts to interject a moral assumption about those who condemn prohibition:

But the common claim that laws backed by morally motivated political movements cannot reduce drug use is wrong.

Who is Moore talking to here? Doctors and society in general are pretty much in agreement that substance abuse is bad. But by using the word "wrong" it suggests to me that Moore is coming from a place that may be coloring his objectivity.

What Moore completely sidesteps is the question of whether prohibition is a positive solution compared to the alternatives (programs that focus on drug use treatment vs incarceration is a breathtaking omission). He's also completely sidestepped the issue of the negative applications of prohibition, i.e. increased prison population and long term negative ramifications from that, broken families resulting from arrests, and prohibition laws that ignore rehabilitation altogether.

In summary, Moore holds up prohibition as the only proposed solution to the negative aspect of drug/alcohol consumption (which is "holy crap-balls" wrong), cites a few minor examples of success and ignores everything else related to the topic.
 
Sure it does. Massage Therapists have numerous health standards they must comply with. As for being a factor in population decline...how so? How does that in any way impact population or even potential population? And wouldnt properly managed legal prostitution REDUCE public health concerns?

I think it's safe to assert that the health standards to which masseuses have to comply don't compare to those of prostitution in terms of risk and their enforcement.

As for prostitution contributing to population decline, it's not necessarily the practice itself; it's more about its contribution to sexual liberalization. There's a high correlation between sexual permissiveness and population decline as numerous countries demonstrate, and while correlation doesn't equate causation, it remains sufficient statistical ground to scientifically conjecture about causal links.
 

Making prostitution illegal means that any medical intervention and regulation of the sex workers will be far harder to do.

Legal sex workers will have a lot of health srcutiny. Surely that would be better?

In principle, that is correct. In application, however, such scrutiny will be subject to various degrees of success and failure, as it'll completely rely on governance, its fallibility, and its cyclical erosion. Regulating prostitution is better than leaving it to the discretion of pimps and a surreptitious clientele, but eliminating it is superior to both.

Regardless, public health isn't the only concern related to the legalization of prostitution; population decline is just as paramount. If you examine countries suffering from population decline, sexual permissiveness will emerge conspicuous, and while correlation doesn't equate causation, it remains sufficient statistical ground to scientifically conjecture about causal links.
 
I think it's safe to assert that the health standards to which masseuses have to comply don't compare to those of prostitution in terms of risk and their enforcement.

As for prostitution contributing to population decline, it's not necessarily the practice itself; it's more about its contribution to sexual liberalization. There's a high correlation between sexual permissiveness and population decline as numerous countries demonstrate, and while correlation doesn't equate causation, it remains sufficient statistical ground to scientifically conjecture about causal links.
I think thats the point. Legalizing and legitimizing prostitution would create an improved health standard.
 
One is legal and the other is not? You may debate the validity of its illegality, but as things stand, prostitution is illegal; equating it with other legal activities is an absurdity.

That is what is being argued, the validity of prostitution being illegal. By using comparisons to legal activities, he is asking what is the criteria that makes it illegal when these other activities are legal.
 
tax prostitutes for the sake of welfare? what does that even mean?

Weed was legalized in WA state a couple of years ago. As a result WA state has many more tax dollars and the selling of weed is regulated and safe. Non-violent weed users are no longer put through our legal system saving us more tax dollars as well.

The De-criminalizing of prostitution will bring it out of the shadows.

Safety of sex workers can be assured. Rapes of sex workers go unreported because sex workers are afraid of law enforcement. That will change if prostitution is de-criminalized. Safety of those who patronize the workers can be assured because all workers will be required to be frequently tested for STD's.

The OP is right. You can't eliminate sex work. Sex workers are around for a reason. There are many who demand their services. Might as well make sure it's safe and profit from it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom