• 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

Should prostitution be legalized?

  • Total voters
    117
Lursa said:
Yeah, finally! Please tell me the negative social impacts? Please show how things like you listed are different for prosititution or how they could not be dealt with by regulation like every other business? You named a lot of 'exploitive' things. Pretty sure regulation would make it safer for public and women and make it less exploitive for women. Are johns being exploited?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cryptic said:
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.
Click to expand...

Any female can have an STD today. She doesn't need to be a prostitute for that. Men should have the right to take their own precautions.

Citizens complain about prostitutes all the time. Why is that a reason to keep it illegal? I didn't see in those links specifically what impact the prostitutes had on the people who complained.
 
Lursa said:
It's actually a strong tenet of Islam. True fundamentalist practitioners prefer the condemnation and punishment of sinners...that way it acts as a more realistic way to force them to obey and it also removes the temptations for them so they dont have to control themselves (or have to do so less). I've read several interviews where they explain this and they arent extremists, just 'true believers' practicing Islam.

In Christianity, God has given us free will and expects us to control ourselves and do the right thing...not have anyone force it on us. Otherwise, he could 'force' whatever behavior he wanted. And he forgives us all our sins when we accept him, even the hookers.
Click to expand...

That is true, but only if the sinner in question makes a sincere attempt to "sin no more."
 
Thorgasm said:
No, Vance, apparently through all of history, jail didn't suck bad enough. We need to be tougher and jail them harder!

:lol:
Click to expand...
And then after they have been punished to our satisfaction turn them back out to their pimp who can turn them back to the streets.

Frankly...I think the thought that some women LIKE sex and are OK with not only having sex but would be happy to make money at it scares the hell out of people. I know personally 2 very confident and successful professional (not THAT kind of 'professional') women that are very proud of their abilities to give fantastic blow jobs and LIKE doing it, and could probably make a monthly house and car payment on what they do willingly now after dinner and a movie. I'd like to say I can vouch for them...but...I cant. Cuz...just because some people like it doesnt mean we are all going to collapse our morals and values and succomb...to the...suckage. So to speak...
 
tres borrachos said:
What exactly are of-age prostitutes doing wrong that they should be jailed for?
Click to expand...
That sentence should be ended with "that many college students arent already doing for free?"
 
VanceMack said:
And then after they have been punished to our satisfaction turn them back out to their pimp who can turn them back to the streets.

Frankly...I think the thought that some women LIKE sex and are OK with not only having sex but would be happy to make money at it scares the hell out of people. I know personally 2 very confident and successful professional (not THAT kind of 'professional') women that are very proud of their abilities to give fantastic blow jobs and LIKE doing it, and could probably make a monthly house and car payment on what they do willingly now after dinner and a movie. I'd like to say I can vouch for them...but...I cant. Cuz...just because some people like it doesnt mean we are all going to collapse our morals and values and succomb...to the...suckage. So to speak...
Click to expand...
I had a friend in the Army who said if he were a woman he'd be a prostitute... because he liked sex AND you could get paid for it.
 
radcen said:
I had a friend in the Army who said if he were a woman he'd be a prostitute... because he liked sex AND you could get paid for it.
Click to expand...
I'm tellin ya....its only considered dirty and slutty because guys CANT walk into any bar in the country on any given night at any given time and declare..."OK...I'm taking someone home tonight...who's it going to be?" and have women spend the night buying them drinks and applying for the temporary duty roster.
 
tres borrachos said:
Any female can have an STD today. She doesn't need to be a prostitute for that. Men should have the right to take their own precautions.
Click to expand...

Very true, but I have a sneaking suspiscion that prostitutes are especially prone to STDs. Likewise, men who refuse to take precautions have a social impact on the rest of society (disease spreads and is costly). Legalized prostitution would increase the STD rate and assosciated cost to society as a whole. Like in the Netherlands, it would probably increase the exploitation of women (Happy Hookers are largely mythical)

Even if the citizens complaints are largely based on "I just dont like it" reasons, the State is not compelled to legalize it. The victims of say, Crack cocaine are also largely willing victims. Yet, society can restrict the sales of substances deemed harmful to both individuals and costly to society.

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.
 
Cryptic said:
Very true, but I have a sneaking suspiscion that prostitutes are especially prone to STDs. Likewise, men who refuse to take precautions have a social impact on the rest of society (disease spreads and is costly). Legalized prostitution would increase the STD rate and assosciated cost to society as a whole. Like in the Netherlands, it would probably increase the exploitation of women (Happy Hookers are largely mythical)

Even if the citizens complaints are largely based on "I just dont like it" reasons, the State is not compelled to legalize it. The victims of say, Crack cocaine are also largely willing victims. Yet, society can restrict the sales of substances deemed harmful to both individuals and costly to society.

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.
Click to expand...

I understand all of that already. Prostitutes don't have STDs because prostitution is illegal. Just like women don't have STDs because it isn't illegal for them to sleep with random men they meet in bars. People who care will take precautions. Men who don't take precautions are taking their own risks.

It doesn't answer the question why it should remain illegal. Why does anyone care what a man spends his money on, and why would anyone care what a woman accepts for reimbursement for using her body for gain?
 
tres borrachos said:
I understand all of that already. Prostitutes don't have STDs because prostitution is illegal. Just like women don't have STDs because it isn't illegal for them to sleep with random men they meet in bars. People who care will take precautions. Men who don't take precautions are taking their own risks.

It doesn't answer the question why it should remain illegal. Why does anyone care what a man spends his money on, and why would anyone care what a woman accepts for reimbursement for using her body for gain?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cryptic said:
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.
Click to expand...

So should the state make everything that may increase the risk of diseases illegal? Because any sex carries that risk. Should sex be outlawed?

How are you exploited if a man in your state has sex with a prostitute?
 
tres borrachos said:
So should the state make everything that may increase the risk of diseases illegal?
Click to expand...
Such things are best decided case by case.
tres borrachos said:
Should sex be outlawed?
Click to expand...

No, just certain sexual practices that are:
a. especially risky (prostitution) and
b. bans can be enforced in the practical sense
tres borrachos said:
How are you exploited if a man in your state has sex with a prostitute?
Click to expand...

I am referring to the prostitute participant.

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?
 
Last edited:
Cryptic said:
Such things are best decided case by case.


No, just certain sexual practices that are:
a. especially risky (prostitution) and
b. bans can be enforced in the practical sense


I am referring to the prostitute participant.

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?
Click to expand...

Prostitutes who are of legal age aren't being exploited. They do it by choice. And if a woman sleeps with a man, and he buys her dinner (a perfectly legal act), what is the difference - and how is it any more risky?

I don't think loan sharking should be illegal either. If someone chooses to borrow money at 50% interest it's not my business.

Sex is risky no matter who does it. Unless we are prepared to regulate all sex, we shouldn't be criminalizing it for women & men who choose it with payment.
 
tres borrachos said:
Prostitutes who are of legal age aren't being exploited. They do it by choice.
Click to expand...

Because just because somebody does "X" by "Choice" does not mean they are not being exploited.
tres borrachos said:
And if a woman sleeps with a man, and he buys her dinner (a perfectly legal act), what is the difference - and how is it any more risky?
Click to expand...

Volume tends to be higher with commercial prostiution. An infected street prostiute can service far more customers in cast transactions than she can using another form of exchange. In short, yes, sex in exchange for food, is a form of prostitution, but enforcement of a ban in not practical.
tres borrachos said:
I don't think loan sharking should be illegal either. If someone chooses to borrow money at 50% interest it's not my business.
Click to expand...

Here, we are at a fundamental impasse. I am not a libertarian. To a degree*, the State has an obligation to protect its citizens from their own decisions- even if they are voluntarily / "voluntarily" placing themselves at risk.

If a State fails to do this- say, allows an exploitive share cropping or exploitve loan sytems to exist because the contracts are "voluntary"), the result is not a liberatian paradise. Rather, the usual result is eventual social turmoil that results in less freedom for everyone.

* The trick is defining "to a degree" and to avoid becoming either a nanny state (Bloomberg) or a total laissez faire darwinian society ala Ayn Rand. Both are problematic in the long run and both will collapse in the long run.
 
Last edited:
Cryptic said:
Because if somebody does "X" by "Choice" does not mean they are not being exploited.

Volume tends to be higher with commercial prostiution. An infected street prostiute can service far more customers in cast transactions than she can using another form of exchange. In short, yes, sex in exchange for food, is a form of prostitution, but enforcement of a ban in not practical.


Here, we are at a fundamnetal impasse. I am not a libertarian. To a degree*, the State has an obligation to protect its citizens from their own decisions- even if they are voluntarily / "voluntarily" placing themselves at risk.

If a State fails to do this (say, allows an exploitive share cropping or exploitve loan sytems to exist because the contracts are "voluntary"), the result is not a liberatian paradise, but usually social turmoil that results in less freedom for everyone.

* The trick is defining "to a degree" and to avoid becoming either a nanny state (Bloomberg) or a laissez faire Darwinian society ala Ayn Rand. Both are problematic in the long run.
Click to expand...

If a woman chooses to be a prostitute, she isn't being exploited. If a man chooses to hire one, he isn't being exploited.

A college girl can decide to sleep with half a dozen fraternity brothers in an hour. She may have an STD - one of them may have one. Should we make it illegal?
 
tres borrachos said:
A college girl can decide to sleep with half a dozen fraternity brothers in an hour. She may have an STD - one of them may have one. Should we make it illegal?
Click to expand...

No- at least not in most cases. In rare cases people who have aids, know they have aids, and engage in promisocous, unprotected sex with out informing their partners can be jailed, but this is rare.

In the end most college students dont do this and enforcement of a ban is not practical. With commercialized sex, most do, in fact do "X" and bans are able to be enforced.

As a side note, do you really think a State has no obligation to protect its citizens from their own choices / "choices" and thus exploitive loan sharking, share cropping contracts, and other exploitive employment contracts should be legal?

I dont think such a State would be very stable and the collapse would not be pretty.
 
tres borrachos said:
If a woman chooses to be a prostitute, she isn't being exploited. If a man chooses to hire one, he isn't being exploited.

A college girl can decide to sleep with half a dozen fraternity brothers in an hour. She may have an STD - one of them may have one. Should we make it illegal?
Click to expand...

Well, history has shown us what happened when Prohibition was put into effect - I expect the same kind of response if sex is ruled illegal! :lamo:

Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:
 
polgara said:
Well, history has shown us what happened when Prohibition was put into effect - I expect the same kind of response if sex is ruled illegal! :lamo:

Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Happy Hump Day, pol!

Prohibition....ah yes!
 
Cryptic said:
Because just because somebody does "X" by "Choice" does not mean they are not being exploited.
Click to expand...
It's the illegality that encourages the criminal element and exploitation. When the victim feels desperate enough to choose to take part in an underground activity then of course there will be someone there willing to take advantage of the situation, to exploit them. Would legalization completely eliminate that? Of course not. Nothing is absolute. Bringing it out in the open would severely reduce it, however.
 
Cryptic said:
No- at least not in most cases. In rare cases people who have aids, know they have aids, and engage in promisocous, unprotected sex with out informing their partners can be jailed, but this is rare.

In the end most college students dont do this and enforcement of a ban is not practical. With commercialized sex, most do, in fact do "X" and bans are able to be enforced.

As a side note, do you really think a State has no obligation to protect its citizens from their own choices / "choices" and thus exploitive loan sharking, share cropping contracts, and other exploitive employment contracts should be legal?

I dont think such a State would be very stable and the collapse would not be pretty.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cryptic said:
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.
Click to expand...


so you dont believe adults should be adults, and should be responsible for themselves?

used car loans are done in the 24-27% rates daily....would you outlaw them?

interns work summers for businesses for little or no pay....would you outlaw them?

why does society need to "get involved" when it is no ones business but the ones agreeing to the contracts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom