Prostitution Argument (continued from “Iceland to ban porn on the web because of children”)

[4consideration]

If you say this too loudly, you might find Libertarian Party recruiters darkening your door.

That's OK. We have a lot in common. I'll even make coffee, so we can chat. But, I'm not joining anything and I won't go to any meetings.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Ya know what I like about this thread?
All these "liberals" taking the conservative position of opposing prostitution comforts me.
I get to be more liberal than they are....hah!
(I never claimed to be above pettiness.)

I am not a liberal and I am not conservative, I'm a feminist.
Being more liberal just silences issues of oppression and power in favour of men's "needs" and protecting the rights of the Johns. Even the sex industry shouldn't be exempt from criticism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Missing the point?

On purpose!

 

[crossfire]

I can see that you thought you did, but I don't think you did.

I asked why does the same right to be the sole decision maker on what happens to her body in the case of an abortion NOT APPLY as the right to be the sole decision maker on what happens her body in the choice of whether or not to engage in prostitution -- and thereby justify making it illegal.

You said because denying an abortion would be forcing her to go through a pregnancy.

I am trying to figure out what else may be there in the argument to justify WHY someone thinks they have the authority to butt-in on that issue in a person's life, but butt-out on another -- when I see that the same principle ought to apply.

WHY does personal autonomy over one's body NOT APPLY for the issue of prostitution?

You can have all the sex with consenting adults that you want. You have all the autonomy over your body in that respect. However, when you make a business out of it, that's when you start running into problems. Something that could be classified as a sexual assault on one hand could be classified as a business on the other hand. How would you like it if you complained about a sexual assault, and you were only awarded the "prevailing wage" as compensation? Making a business out of it presents all sorts of problems both for those in the business and those not in the business. What if you agreed to get intimate with someone and then changed your mind (for whatever reason--seeing oozing sores, or whatever--it doesn't matter what it is--) and then was pressed into it because you consented beforehand? Would that legally be an assault or a breach of contract?

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not a liberal and I am not conservative, I'm a feminist.
Being more liberal just silences issues of oppression and power in favour of men's "needs" and protecting the rights of the Johns. Even the sex industry shouldn't be exempt from criticism.

I certainly wouldn't want to stop anyone from criticizing what they see as wrong.
This is just an interesting issue in how it doesn't fit neatly into politics as usual.

 

[McBell]

Well, that is true. Alcohol does not require consent to be consumed, and the supply of alcohol can easily be increased to meet demand without violating human rights (forcing people into making and providing alcohol.) Similarly, people are not being forced into providing abortions against their will--a ready supply will meet the demand without coercion.

Can the same be said about prostitution? Will legalizing it increase the willing suppliers enough to meet the demand without coercion? I'm very skeptical about this.

nice diversion but the fact remains that Prohibition did absolutely nothing to reduce the demand for alcohol.

Back when abortions were illegal it being illegal did not reduce the demand for abortion clinics.

So your idea that prostitution being illegal somehow reduces the demand for prostitutes is at best wishful thinking.

 

[crossfire]

nice diversion but the fact remains that Prohibition did absolutely nothing to reduce the demand for alcohol.

Back when abortions were illegal it being illegal did not reduce the demand for abortion clinics.

So your idea that prostitution being illegal somehow reduces the demand for prostitutes is at best wishful thinking.

Here in Washington state where I live, we recently passed a law which closed all the state run liquor stores and hard alcohol is now sold in grocery stores. Guess what? Theft of liquor has skyrocketed. Simple google search:

https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&...38,d.cGE&fp=650e83a55f34ea61&biw=1366&bih=638

One story out of the bunch:
Stores seeing huge spike in liquor thefts | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News

Here is a case where making alcohol more accessible has lead to more criminal activity related to it for the sole purpose of making money. Will making prostitution more accessible through legalization also increase the criminal activity associated with it? Is that something that you would like to take the risk on? People (to serve as prostitutes) are not a commodity like bottles of liquor. Will they continue to be treated as a commodity if prostitution is legalized? Most likely yes, but now with the approval of the State.

 

[4consideration]

You can have all the sex with consenting adults that you want. You have all the autonomy over your body in that respect. However, when you make a business out of it, that's when you start running into problems.

People make a business out of the use of their bodies all the time, and it is considered legal. People who work in factories, cleaning, agriculture... well I can't really think of any type of employment that a person might have that does not involve using their bodies in the process of their business/employment. Are you personally bothered by the fact that it involves sex, and that is why other people should not be able to use their bodies in that one particular way for business purposes?

I agree that there are problems with the sex industry. There are problems and risks specific to any industry -- and with varying degrees of personal safety risk. There are many professions that carry high risk of personal injury. This is one of those professions, and currently those that engage in it illegally do so without protection they may have if it were legal.

I just don't yet see WHY choice and personal autonomy ought to apply to so many other income producing activities and abortion -- but not to prostitution. That's all.

Something that could be classified as a sexual assault on one hand could be classified as a business on the other hand. How would you like it if you complained about a sexual assault, and you were only awarded the "prevailing wage" as compensation?

The same act can be classified as either sexual assault or consensual sex now. The difference in what you are presenting is, if someone were to assert that an actual assault was consensual they would have to provide a different LIE in order to then claim it as a business matter. In either case, whether prostitution is legal or illegal, if it is not done by consent -- it is assault. Do you think that prostitution being illegal somehow provides protection from someone lying and saying "she wanted it" when that is not true?

Making a business out of it presents all sorts of problems both for those in the business and those not in the business. Would that legally be an assault or a breach of contract?

Making a business out of anything presents all sorts of problems that are related to the business of it that do not exist until it is done as a business.

A similar thing can be said about abortion.

There are some problems that exist if abortion is not legal. And, there are some problems that exist (that are different problems) that would not exist if abortion were illegal. Abortion being legal does not erradicate all problems related to unwanted pregnancy -- but it does erradicate some specific problems, for some people.

For example, there would be no political debate, or vehement arguments back and forth about whether or not tax dollars should be used to fund abortions -- if abortions were completely illegal. There are still some problems, just different ones.

I do not see the answer that there are some unwanted reprocussions that may result from legalized prostitution (refraining from making prostitution illegal) to be an answer to my question of why does personal autonomy NOT apply to prostitution, but to abortion. Is it because you think prostitution is bad behavior?

What if you agreed to get intimate with someone and then changed your mind (for whatever reason--seeing oozing sores, or whatever--it doesn't matter what it is--) and then was pressed into it because you consented beforehand?

The same question applies now, with prostitution being illegal. I have no intention of engaging in prostitution. I also have no intention of engaging in homosexual sexual activity. That does not mean that I cannot support or acknowledge another person's right to do it.

So, what if I hypothetically agreed to get intimate with someone and changed my mind? Whether or not prostitution is legal, I have the right to say "no" and to consider it wrong if a person were to push farther than I would be willing to go. If we are talking about a prostitute in that scenario, that is one of the risks a prostitute would be working within. I don't argue that possibility is not present as a risk within that profession.

Would that legally be an assault or a breach of contract?

Those are legal questions surrounding the issue of prostitution once it is legalized, and not really what I was getting at. I was asking WHY does personal autonomy not apply to prostitution, but to abortion.

But, to give my opinion on how it may work out legally, I would think that the term assault would not apply unless the customer forced himself upon the prostitute after she withdrew her consent. I would not consider it a breach of contract unless the prostitute withdrew her consent AND failed to return the money for services that she originally agreed to provide, but failed to provide. If she kept the money, and said no sex, that may constitute a breach of contract.

Contracts are breached on a regular basis, and the possibility or ambiguity surrounding breach of contract is not a valid argument for not making contracts, or for prohibiting the activities for which people enter contracts.

 

[crossfire]

I just don't yet see WHY choice and personal autonomy ought to apply to so many other income producing activities and abortion -- but not to prostitution. That's all.

Making abortion illegal makes women's bodies pawns in the struggle between state, religion, corporations, and patriarchy. Making prostitution legal would also make women's bodies pawns in the struggle between state, religion, corporations, and patriarchy. I am not a pawn. At least that is how I see it. Your mileage may vary.

 

[dust1n]

No offense, but since my link is based upon a 15 year study of the Nevada county in question....

In the rural counties outside of Las Vegas, Nevada, about 500 women work as legal independent contractors in just under 30 brothels. Colleagues and I at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas have been conducting research in these brothels for more than 15 years.



In legal brothels, employees report that they feel safe, are free to come and go, and are bound only by their contract. Of the brothel workers we surveyed, 84 per cent said that their job felt safe. Workers report that they felt safe largely because the police, employers and co-workers were there to protect them.

84%. You mean.. 21 out of 25 girl's in one brothel?

"The one person who told us about personal experience with violence said that she felt parties go bad less than 5% of the time, although this did not necessarily always result in violence. Within the brothels, 21 of 25 prostitute respondents to a survey agreed with the phrase “my job is safe.” None of the owners or managers told us about any incidents involving violence carried out against the women in the brothels."

http://esplerp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Violence-and-Legalized-Brothel-Prostitution-in-Nevada.pdf


That's 15 years of study for ya.
http://esplerp.org/wp-content/uploa...-Legalized-Brothel-Prostitution-in-Nevada.pdf

 

[dust1n]

From the same article as above:

" Indeed it was this research that convinced a Canadian judge to overturn that country’s laws criminalizing prostitution. As hard as it may be with something this controversial, perhaps as a matter of good public policy, it is time we pay attention to the evidence and rethink our approach to this age-old profession."

Look how well that's working out for Canada.

"200-300 juveniles in prostitution in Vancouver are routinely arrested on prostitution-related charges. (Youth workers, Kimberly Daum, "Sexually Exploitated Children in Canada: The Law is Not on Their Side," Opinion/Essays, 17 October 1996)

Hundreds of children under 17 years old are being exploited in the sex industry in Vancouver, Canada. Middle-aged male buyers are increasingly seeking girls as young as 11. The police are not trusted by the children, who have targeted them for arrests rather than the perpetrators. (Child advocates, Mark Clayton, "To Curb Vancouver’s Big Trade in Child Sex, Police Nab ‘Johns’," Christian Science Monitor, 1997)

Children in prostitution are charged 59 times more often than are the male buyers in Vancouver. In six years, only 6 men were charged in Vancouver for buying children in prostitution. Two were convicted. During the same time period, 354 children were charged for involvement in prostitution. (Vancouver: Predator and Pedophile Paradise, a study by John Turvey, executive director of Downtown Eastside Youth Activities Society, Mark Clayton, "To Curb Vancouver’s Big Trade in Child Sex, Police Nab ‘Johns’," Christian Science Monitor, 1997) ...

Rural Canadian Mounted Police officer Lyndon Dorrington, 31 was found guilty of soliciting a prostitute after, the woman he approached revealed herself as an undercover police officer. He claimed he was doing research for a course. ("Cops Research Argument Doesn’t Fly," Calgary Herald, 8 August 1997)

"If what we're doing is so bad, then why are police officers and politicians some of our better customers?" Among the range of buyers include schoolboys to grandfathers, lawyers, top civil servants, businessmen, the laborer next door. Most are married. Some are in their 70s. All of their names are on computerized databases in escort agency offices. (One escort agency owner, Nick Pron, "Dating Services Bring Boom Times to Prostitution," Toronto Star, 1997)

Assistant Crown Attorney Agnew Johnston in Thunder Bay, Ontario, was discovered having been exploiting minors for prostitution. He has been appealing disbarment since 1994.

Canada - Facts on Trafficking and Prostitution

 

[dust1n]

I think the fact that we've made their personal choice a dangerous one by forcing it underground and then attempting to punish them for it lets these women down.

Silbert & Pines did a study in '82 that suggests a conservative estimate of the average age of recruitment for a US prostitute is 13-14. (pg. 35)
http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/pdf/Prostitutionin9Countries.pdf

How exactly does the illegality of prostitution cause prostitution to be so dangerous for adolescents by forcing it underground?

 

[4consideration]

Making abortion illegal makes women's bodies pawns in the struggle between state, religion, corporations, and patriarchy. Making prostitution legal would also make women's bodies pawns in the struggle between state, religion, corporations, and patriarchy. I am not a pawn. At least that is how I see it. Your mileage may vary.

Crossfire, I know this is an emotionally charged issue. It is tough to defend someone else's right to do something that you don't agree with.

But, you still really have not answered the original question.

"If you recognize a right of a woman to have an abortion and consider that decision none of your business, from where do you get the authority to determine that she should not be allowed to have sex for money?" My post #48.

You seem to contradict yourself in the above response. IF making abortion illegal is the same as dictating to a woman what she must or cannot do with her body -- and you see that as a violation of a right belonging only to her -- THEN, how do you justify telling her she cannot have sex for money? Where does that authority come from? The final say on prostitution (in your second sentence) rests -- with the state, religious groups, or any other group -- somewhere other than with the person involved if those other groups get to determine that prostitution will not be allowed. That is my point.

I contend that making prostitution illegal is far more likely to turn a woman that is involved in it into a pawn because it first assumes a sense of authority over her (authority by some third party.) Why is it OK for someone else to push aside the person's right to choose on the subject of prostitution, but not abortion?

As I see it, one may support prostitution being deemed illegal if they hold a view that some other group of people that "know better" have more authority over the woman (or man) in that scenario than the individual involved -- which I can see easily as occurring for people that see the issue from their religious perspective. But, I haven't yet seen you address where you think the authority comes from to make such a decision.

I contend that the same principle applies to prostitution as to abortion. If you disagree, please tell me why you think it is OK to tell someone they cannot be paid for having sex, or cannot have sex in order to be paid, even though it is their own body -- and at the same time hold the position that no one else can tell them they can't have an abortion, because it is their own body.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Reading through, a common factor that I think all agree upon is the need for more protective assistance for sex workers legal or illegal. Government registration of sex workers and their health should be the number one goal. Criminalizing the prostitute is probably not the right approach. Making pimps illegal would work well if used in combination with no taxes on sex workers, because it will encourage sex workers to register. I suggest not taxing prostitutes on their income, nor should anyone be entitled to a cut. Pimps are out. Brothels are out. We need sex workers to register their employment. You make the sex trade more trackable, and you will make it easier to find child sex traffickers.

One additional suggestion for getting sex workers to register: a government provided ID card with a pseudoname for use exclusively in sex work. This would function as a working ID when dealing with police or officials while still providing accountability. Secrecy is something the government can provide, so that is an incentive the government can offer them.

 

[crossfire]

Crossfire, I know this is an emotionally charged issue. It is tough to defend someone else's right to do something that you don't agree with.

But, you still really have not answered the original question.

"If you recognize a right of a woman to have an abortion and consider that decision none of your business, from where do you get the authority to determine that she should not be allowed to have sex for money?" My post #48.

Like I said earlier, if a legal adult wants to have sex for money, and they are the only one profiting from it, I don't have much of a beef with that. I don't have a problem with consenting adults having sex. My beef is with making a business out of it, with contracts and such, in that it will not only throw a monkey wrench into sexual harassment laws and sexual assault laws, but it also makes a for-profit commodity out of human beings. A person may have autonomy over their body, but they cannot legally sell themselves into slavery, for example. Does not being able to sell oneself into slavery affect your personal autonomy? No, you can still go hang out with whomever you want and be their lackey all you like. You just can't turn yourself into a commodity, because you own yourself, and that ownership cannot be legally transferred.

You seem to contradict yourself in the above response. IF making abortion illegal is the same as dictating to a woman what she must or cannot do with her body -- and you see that as a violation of a right belonging only to her -- THEN, how do you justify telling her she cannot have sex for money? Where does that authority come from?

Like I said, if it is just her getting the money, I don't really have a beef with that. By making it into a business where others profit, then you are turning yourself into a commodity.

The final say on prostitution (in your second sentence) rests -- with the state, religious groups, or any other group -- somewhere other than with the person involved if those other groups get to determine that prostitution will not be allowed. That is my point.

Like I've already stated, I don't have a problem with an adult doing it on their own. It is making a business out of it that I have a beef with.

I contend that making prostitution illegal is far more likely to turn a woman that is involved in it into a pawn because it first assumes a sense of authority over her (authority by some third party.)

Well duh, she's making herself into a commodity, so of course she's going to be a pawn, whether it is legal or not.

Why is it OK for someone else to push aside the person's right to choose on the subject of prostitution, but not abortion?

Like I've said for the umpteenth time, I don't have a beef if an adult does this on their own without making a business out of it.

As I see it, one may support prostitution being deemed illegal if they hold a view that some other group of people that "know better" have more authority over the woman (or man) in that scenario than the individual involved -- which I can see easily as occurring for people that see the issue from their religious perspective. But, I haven't yet seen you address where you think the authority comes from to make such a decision.

Let's see--the authority in the laws regarding human trafficking--making human beings into a commodity. It comes from the same authority that says you can't sell yourself into slavery.

I contend that the same principle applies to prostitution as to abortion. If you disagree, please tell me why you think it is OK to tell someone they cannot be paid for having sex, or cannot have sex in order to be paid, even though it is their own body -- and at the same time hold the position that no one else can tell them they can't have an abortion, because it is their own body.

Where does abortion make a commodity out of humans? The only time it makes a commodity out of humans is when it is outlawed--women are then considered to be easy-bake ovens/gestation devices.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

By making it into a business where others profit, then you are turning yourself into a commodity.

And how exactly is this different from any other job?

 

[Zoe Doidge]

I've never heard of a government operated brothel before. Seeing how there has never been one, I can only speculate on the effects.

Generally, private brothels have yielded a continuation if not a flourishing of all the negative aspects of prostitution. I wish I could say it was different, as I don't want those negative things to flourish, obviously, but all the evidence I see points directly in that direction. Some European nations, like Germany, are considering reversing the legalization.

"81% of the women in the Nevada legal brothels prostitution urgently want to escape it." If that gives you an idea.

http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/pdfs/Myths & Facts Legal & Illegal Prostitution 3-09.pdf

This can only become a problem if it’s allowed to. If legal brothels are being used for child trafficking, drug abuse etc then you have a problem with enforcement of the law, not the concept of the brothels themselves.

The problem here is you’re talking about two different things. There’s no reason for a perfectly acceptable activity like prostitution to be banned because of a statistical link between it and something that’s obviously a crime. It’s akin to banning tobacco because of a correlation between smoking cigarettes and smoking illegal drugs.

Also, how do you enforce STI checks. It certainly isn't going to help victims of sex trafficking or prostitutes, as they are obviously out the realm. And how do you test all the johns? Wouldn't there be like... hundreds of thousands a year in America. And these buildings. It sure takes a lot of governmental work and money to just make this happen.

Enforcing STI checks on the prostitutes is not at all difficult. If they work there, it’s an employment condition that they get tested on a continual basis. If they refuse they don’t get work, simple as that. Testing all the johns is obviously impractical at least for now; all you can do is enforce condom usage.

Like most new businesses it requires a large initial investment with the hope that it’ll turn a profit later on. I don’t expect that to be a problem for governments though.

How long do you think it would be before actual reductions in trafficking occurs after legalization?

I don’t see that it would have any effect on trafficking, but that’s not the point of legislating for it. I don’t believe banning things that are perfectly acceptable in order to minimise something that isn’t is the way to go. We should be going after the people that are causing the harm.

 

[crossfire]

And how exactly is this different from any other job?

Other jobs generally can't be classified as an assault for which there are existing laws against.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Other jobs generally can't be classified as an assault for which there are existing laws against.

So you think professional athletics shouldn't be legal either?

 

[Sir Doom]

So you think professional athletics shouldn't be legal either?

Especially MMA, boxing, kick-boxing, etc. Obviously, those don't represent doing something that's typically illegal.

And certainly we can forget about soldiering as a profession even though its probably the 2nd oldest profession. Firemen break into people's houses. Demolition workers bomb commercial buildings. The list goes on.