• 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!

Vermont Lawmakers Propose Bill To Legalize Prostitution

Condor060 said:
So by your standard, law makers shouldn't be making laws in areas they have no personal experience in.

You shouldn't make any guns laws if you don't have own a gun
You shouldn't make any drug laws if you've never been involved in drug related crimes

I don't aspire to your definition of Common sense. Having sound judgement in practical matters is what common sense is all about.

Having a high percentage common sense thought that prostitutes who rat on their pimps will be met with retaliation isn't based in emotion and I don't need to be in the industry to figure out the obvious.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said at all. Lawmakers make laws in areas they know nothing about every day.

You are welcome to trust in your "common sense". I am welcome to discount it as irrelevant and uninformed.

In a discussion such as this one, you need to back up your claims with facts, not emotions.

You have a perspective of the "pimp"-sex worker relationship that you've developed from pop culture - "pimps" are all abusive manipulators like you see on Law and Order.

That is not reflective of reality. There are many stereotypical "pimps" out there, but that is not the only reality.
 
Last edited:
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Is the goal of legalization of sex work to "reduce the rates" of sex work?
Click to expand...

No. It is to allow (mainly) men to freely exercise their desires to purchase the bodies of (mainly) young women and men for their personal pleasure with few consequences, and to make sure those prostitutes are up to proper standards so as not to medically harm the purchasers. Hence "regulation."

Prostitute's bodies are just treated as another consumer good.
 
mrjurrs said:
You do understand that believing women are capable of making their own decisions is not exploiting them, it is empowering them.
Click to expand...

And that exact same logic can be used to do away with child labor laws.
 
Felis Leo said:
No. It is to allow (mainly) men to freely exercise their desires to purchase the bodies of (mainly) young women and men for their personal pleasure with few consequences, and to make sure those prostitutes are up to the standards of the purchasers. Hence "regulation."
Click to expand...
That's the problem. You're looking at it from the wrong angle.

It's not about the clients, it's about the workers themselves.

You are removing the agency of these (mostly) women.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
It really depends how you define "pimp".

I have a lot of friends who have been, or are currently, sex workers. All of them undertook their careers willingly, and none were trafficked.

Many of them, for safety purposes, work with agencies that provide them with bookings and security. Are those agencies "pimps"?

If you legalize sex work, but insist they all work alone, you're putting them in danger.
Click to expand...

Calling a pimp a dating or escort service doesn't change what it is. Very few of them make sex with the clients a no go...so, yes, by definition, they are pimps. They are pimps who pay the girls and take care of the investments, but pimps nonetheless.

I in no way implied that if sex work was legal that the girls should have to work alone. I even went so far as to say that if these agencies went to the trouble of getting all the paperwork in order to cover all of the legal aspects of such a relationship, they would then be legally seen as an agent and not a panderer.

People seem to not be willing to acknowledge that we call a pimp a pimp and not an agent for a pretty important reason. Legality. What pimps do by definition is illegal. Agents, generally, not so much.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
That's the problem. You're looking at it from the wrong angle.

It's not about the clients, it's about the workers themselves.

You are removing the agency of these (mostly) women.
Click to expand...

No, I am not. I repeat that I back the Swedish model: Legalize the selling of your body, criminalize the purchase.

I think anyone who truly cares about young men and women to allow them to do whatever they wish with their bodies, but not leave room for exploitation or abuse, should do the same.
 
Democratic Fascist-progressives are working up to legalizing ALL slavery, not just sex slavery. They are tired of just having to rely on foreign slavery operations for cheap slave labor products.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Calling a pimp a dating or escort service doesn't change what it is. Very few of them make sex with the clients a no go...so, yes, by definition, they are pimps. They are pimps who pay the girls and take care of the investments, but pimps nonetheless.

I in no way implied that if sex work was legal that the girls should have to work alone. I even went so far as to say that if these agencies went to the trouble of getting all the paperwork in order to cover all of the legal aspects of such a relationship, they would then be legally seen as an agent and not a panderer.

People seem to not be willing to acknowledge that we call a pimp a pimp and not an agent for a pretty important reason. Legality. What pimps do by definition is illegal. Agents, generally, not so much.
Click to expand...

What pimps do is illegal only because prostitution is illegal.
 
Felis Leo said:
No, I am not. I repeat that I back the Swedish model: Legalize the selling of your body, criminalize the purchase.

I think anyone who truly cares about young men and women to allow them to do whatever they wish with their bodies, but not leave room for exploitation or abuse, should do the same.
Click to expand...
Go look at the headline of your article.

Sweden's model is successful in reducing sex work.

That is not the goal or purpose of legalization.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
No, it can't.

Adult women who voluntarily chose to provide sex as a service are not comparable to children.

They do not need your paternalistic "protection".
Click to expand...

Aren't they? A child desperate to feed his family offers to work. A woman desperate to feed her family offers to sell her body.

What is your reason for allowing one and denying the other?
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Legal protections are meaningless when they can be physically overpowered and abused by johns.

Why shouldn't a legal prostitute be able to use the services of a 3rd party to provide security and vetting?
Click to expand...

She is still the one selling her services. They are merely profiting by doing all of the other things.

That said, the second a worker becomes OBLIGATED to perform those services at the behest of the "agency", it becomes something completely different, and illegal, by the way.
 
Felis Leo said:
Aren't they? A child desperate to feed his family offers to work. A woman desperate to feed her family offers to sell her body.

What is your reason for allowing one and denying the other?
Click to expand...

For the same reason that it's legal to buy cigarettes and alcohol, and legal to gamble for adults, but not children.
 
danielpalos said:
I agree. Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitutions. We should be solving simple poverty via existing legal and physical infrastructure. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is market friendly and solves that simple form of poverty in our market based economy.
Click to expand...
What in the past 50 years in North America suggests to you that the countless taxes, tariffs, and fines introduced have "solved" or are "solving" poverty? Or for that matter, addiction, wealth inequality, or declining mental health?

Is there an alternate reality out yonder where the poor are getting richer, the addicts are shrinking in number, and mental and physical wellness are improving?

We tax these things not because we expect taxation to "solve" problems, but because we're acknowledging they've grown to the extent that governments in a (relatively) free society can't police them anymore. Hence why not profit from vice? Ergo the illegal crack/cocaine epidemic of the 1980's becomes the legal (and most profitable) prescription drug epidemic of the 21st Century. The scandalous "Playboy" magazines of the 1950's become a profitable empire of pornography and prostitution in 2020. The illegal worker exploitation of the 1930's becomes the legal and profitable legion of Chinese sweatshops (with bonus tariff revenues) of today. The lying tabloids of the 1970's become million-dollar-per-day taxes on tech monoliths like Facebook for disseminating "fake news" in our great era.

Unfortunately tax revenues from cancer sticks (i.e. cigarettes) are currently stagnant, but vaping, marijuana, obesity, carcinogenic foods, and who knows what else will soon take care of that, and let's tax the whole lot of them too.

Does the total number of miserable, dying, exploited, addicted people ever drop in the long term? No. But at least we've got a windfall of taxes to pay 30 cents on the dollar for our projected social welfare costs for the next 30 years.

Legalizing prostitution is giving up. I'm not necessarily arguing that governments shouldn't give up, but let's call a spade a spade. This proposal is nothing more glamorous or "market friendly" than giving up and hoping it will cut our losses.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
She is still the one selling her services. They are merely profiting by doing all of the other things.

That said, the second a worker becomes OBLIGATED to perform those services at the behest of the "agency", it becomes something completely different, and illegal, by the way.
Click to expand...
When I was a teenager, I worked as a temp for a little while.

I was the one providing the service - but I wouldn't have gotten the job without the temp agency that got me the job, and they no doubt took a chunk of the money.

I don't disagree - the second the voluntary aspect of the service is removed, it becomes a crime. But that doesnt mean that temp agencies should be illegal.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Go look at the headline of your article.

Sweden's model is successful in reducing sex work.

That is not the goal or purpose of legalization.
Click to expand...

It is for me. I want to reduce harm to young men and women overall. And the only way to reduce harm to young men and women is to reduce the rate of prostitution overall.

The goal and purpose of across-the-board legalization is to allow men to purchase the bodies of young men and women. You say it is to help the providers of sex. But it really empowers the purchaser and lets them off the hook.

Let me illustrate it thusly: What would be the penalty for a man who goes to a licensed brothel in which it is later found out that young women are trafficked? He does not know for certain there are trafficked girls there, but he does not care if there were. What criminal penalties, if any, would he face realistically?
 
COTO said:
What in the past 50 years in North America suggests to you that the countless taxes, tariffs, and fines introduced have "solved" or are "solving" poverty? Or for that matter, addiction, wealth inequality, or declining mental health?

Is there an alternate reality out yonder where the poor are getting richer, the addicts are shrinking in number, and mental and physical wellness are improving?

We tax these things not because we expect taxation to "solve" problems, but because we're acknowledging they've grown to the extent that governments in a (relatively) free society can't police them anymore. Hence why not profit from vice? Ergo the illegal crack/cocaine epidemic of the 1980's becomes the legal (and most profitable) prescription drug epidemic of the 21st Century. The scandalous "Playboy" magazines of the 1950's become a profitable empire of pornography and prostitution in 2020. The illegal worker exploitation of the 1930's becomes the legal and profitable legion of Chinese sweatshops (with bonus tariff revenues) of today. The lying tabloids of the 1970's become million-dollar-per-day taxes on tech monoliths like Facebook for disseminating "fake news" in our great era.

Unfortunately tax revenues from cancer sticks (i.e. cigarettes) are currently stagnant, but vaping, marijuana, obesity, carcinogenic foods, and who knows what else will soon take care of that, and let's tax the whole lot of them too.

Does the total number of miserable, dying, exploited, addicted people ever drop? No. But at least we've got a windfall of taxes to pay 30 cents on the dollar for our projected social welfare costs for the next 30 years.

Legalizing prostitution is giving up. I'm not necessarily arguing that governments shouldn't give up, but let's call a spade a spade. This proposal is nothing more glamorous or "market friendly" than giving up and hoping it will cut our losses.
Click to expand...
If legalizing sex work is "giving up" in the culture war, I'm all for it.
 
Felis Leo said:
It is for me. I want to reduce harm to young men and women overall. And the only way to reduce harm to young men and women is to reduce the rate of prostitution overall.

The goal and purpose of across-the-board legalization is to allow men to purchase the bodies of young men and women. You say it is to help the providers of sex. But it really empowers the purchaser and lets them off the hook.

Let me illustrate it thusly: What would be the penalty for a man who goes to a licensed brothel in which it is later found out that young women are trafficked? He does not know for certain there are trafficked girls there, but he does not care if there were. What criminal penalties, if any, would he face realistically?
Click to expand...


No, this isn't about "reducing harm".

This is about you thinking you know better than them. It's paternalism.

You want sex work to be reduced because you think it's bad, and don't care what the people involved think, because you know better.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
That's not what I said at all. Lawmakers make laws in areas they know nothing about every day.

You are welcome to trust in your "common sense". I am welcome to discount it as irrelevant and uninformed.

In a discussion such as this one, you need to back up your claims with facts, not emotions.

You have a perspective of the "pimp"-sex worker relationship that you've developed from pop culture - "pimps" are all abusive manipulators like you see on Law and Order.

That is not reflective of reality. There are many stereotypical "pimps" out there, but that is not the only reality.
Click to expand...

I am only knowingly being ridiculous to make a point.

I am not against prostitution. What two people decide in their own privacy is their own business.

I am not against making prostitution legal in any state.

But no matter how many people you may know in the industry, human trafficking is involved in prostitution. I would venture to guess in the US its biggest advocate.

If we move to make it legal, more people will participate and we will ultimately move to encourage more human trafficking. Thats common sense.

So why not take the promoters of human trafficking out of the equation?
 
Condor060 said:
I am only knowingly being ridiculous to make a point.

I am not against prostitution. What two people decide in their own privacy is their own business.

I am not against making prostitution legal in any state.

But no matter how many people you may know in the industry, human trafficking is involved in prostitution. I would venture to guess in the US its biggest advocate.

If we move to make it legal, more people will participate and we will ultimately move to encourage more human trafficking. Thats common sense.

So why not take the promoters of human trafficking out of the equation?
Click to expand...

I agree with you on almost all of your point here.

But by laying down an absolute prohibition on 3rd parties being involved will not just "take the promoters of trafficking" out of the equation - it will also make life more difficult and dangerous for sex workers.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
No, this isn't about "reducing harm".

This is about you thinking you know better than them. It's paternalism.

You want sex work to be reduced because you think it's bad, and don't care what the people involved think, because you know better.
Click to expand...

And the only reason you want prostitution legalized is because you want to be able to purchase the bodies of trafficked young girls as cheaply as possible without legal consequence under the fig leaf of "empowering women". See, I can play mind-reader and lie about your motivations as well. But I would prefer to have good-faith discussions and debates and not have to lower myself into the tarpit of personal attack.

I told you before: I want to reduce harm. If I were either a dyed-in-the-wool moralist who put my personal morality ahead of the lives of actual people, OR I wanted to make sure sex workers got their "just desserts" I would fight to keep the status quo, keep prostitution illegal, and let prostitutes continue to be murdered by their Johns. But I do not. Hence why I back the Swedish Model for legalizing sex work but keeping solicitation criminalized.

If you think reducing prostitution and evening the power imbalance between prostitutes and their clients is wrong-headed, tell me why.
 
Last edited:
bullseyelqcs said:
No, that is almost correct.

What pimps do is illegal because they are forcing someone to do something.

If prostitution was legal, pimping would still be illegal.
Click to expand...

Where do you get the impression that all "pimps" are "forcing" their workers to do anything?

Once again, it comes down to how you define "pimp".
 
Felis Leo said:
And the only reason you want prostitution legalized is because you want to be able to purchase the bodies of trafficked young girls as cheaply as possible without legal consequence. See, I can play mind-reader and lie about your motivations as well.
Click to expand...

You can lie about me all you want. But I didnt lie about your motivations - you admitted them to me.

You want prostitution to decrease. Because you think its bad.


But I would prefer to have good-faith discussions and debates and not have to lower myself into the tarpit of personal attack.
Click to expand...

If you want a good-faith discussion, you need to be open to what I'm saying. I haven't attacked you personally, I have challenged your perspective. If you prefer to take offense, that's on you.

I told you before: I want to reduce harm. If were either a dyed-in-the-wool moralist who didn't care about harm, OR I wanted to make sure sex workers got their "just desserts" I would fight to keep the status quo, keep prostitution illegal, and let prostitutes continue to be murdered by their Johns. But I do not. Hence why I back the Swedish Model for legalizing sex work but keeping solicitation criminalized.
Click to expand...

You want to reduce harm, and you don't care about the people who will actually be affected by it because you know better than them.

That's paternalism.

The way to reduce harm is to normalize sex work. Not build a maze of laws around it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom