should prostitution be legal?

[Exaltist Ethan]

Not only would I say prostitution is a victimless crime, I would say both parties involved actually benefit from the transaction. I agree that we should legalize and regulate it to some degree, but I don't understand why it needs to be taxed. I get the fact that everything is taxed and I guess the taxes could be used to help regulate it, but if there are taxes involved in prostitution, they should be low to help incentivize the mutual benefitable transactions to occur. I hate to think that when someone is buying sex services they're having sex with the state rather than the person involved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's just one video. There are many. Btw, none of the guys are arrested for prositution, they are arrested for solicitation

Yes, when a guy buys that is "solicitation" when a woman sells that is prostitution. But you are just being a bit pedantic here When a guy gets busted for attempting to hire a prostitute the penalty is the same no matter what you call it. At any rate it appears that they were getting the john to make the first offer. So no entrapment.

One way that police activity can slightly lower prostitution rates is to have both sides be too afraid to make that first move.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's weird. It says the objective is to reduce prostitution. That would be like attempting to reduce car accidents by making selling cars legal but punishing people who buy them.

It's because illegalizing the purchase punishes men (customers who exploit women).
To illegalize selling would punish women (sellers exploited by men).
(This is what some feminists have told me.)
Other apparent underlying assumptions....
- It's overwhelmingly men buying from women.
- The reverse is uncommon.

I find that attitude authoritarian, puritanical,
dysfunctional, sexist, wasteful, & it creates
crime where there should be none.

 

[We Never Know]

It's because illegalizing the purchase punishes men (customers who exploit women).
To illegalize selling would punish women (sellers exploited by men).
(This is what some feminists have told me.)
Other apparent underlying assumptions....
- It's overwhelmingly men buying from women.
- The reverse is uncommon.

I find that attitude authoritarian, puritanical,
dysfunctional, sexist, wasteful, & it creates
crime where there should be none.

Legal to sell but illegal to buy. That seems it would hurt the seller

 

[Alien826]

It's because illegalizing the purchase punishes men (customers who exploit women).
To illegalize selling would punish women (sellers exploited by men).
(This is what some feminists have told me.)
Other apparent underlying assumptions....
- It's overwhelmingly men buying from women.
- The reverse is uncommon.

Yes I 've heard that one. The assumption is that there are poor victimized women who are being hurt by men. Did you ever see the program about the brothel in Nevada? The women seemed to be perfectly happy with what they were doing. And $1000 for an hour? Who is being exploited now?

I find that attitude authoritarian, puritanical,
dysfunctional, sexist, wasteful, & it creates
crime where there should be none.

Agreed.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Having once, long ago (close to the dark ages) been a prostitute myself, I am all in favour of legalization. And along with it, protections for sex workers, including regular medical exams, safe places to work and so forth.

When the Childen's Aid abandoned me -- as a very good looking, gay, 17 year-old -- on the streets of Toronto, I knew of no other way to feed myself and stay warm in winter. The Children's Aid never taught kids back then such things as money handling, opening a bank account, and so forth. We were protected until we suddenly weren't, and that was it. Believe me, it wasn't a nice thing to be doing for me, and I soon began doing everything I could to get out of that business, which took a couple of years.

As you can imagine, with that background, I have some appreciation and sympathy even today for sex workers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Legal to sell but illegal to buy. That seems it would hurt the seller

That is the idea, it harms the seller, but does not make them a criminal. The idea is to limit supply of customers since they are the only ones that would face consequences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I 've heard that one. The assumption is that there are poor victimized women who are being hurt by men. Did you ever see the program about the brothel in Nevada? The women seemed to be perfectly happy with what they were doing. And $1000 for an hour? Who is being exploited now?

Agreed.

Yes, high end hookers are not being exploited. But the average man is not going to go to them. They will go to the streets. Personally I would always rather "take care of my own laundry" than letting almost anyone handle it. I do not have the mindset to pick up street prostitutes. The few that I have ever seen would have made the act impossible.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That is the idea, it harms the seller, but does not make them a criminal. The idea is to limit supply of customers since they are the only ones that would face consequences.

Still, it's all utter nonsense.

Looked at as a purely human, commercial transaction, I don't see one party "using" the other, but rather both parties getting what they need in an agreed trade. C'mon, there are men (and women!) who, after losing a spouse, or a leg, or through some other misfortune, have lost the confidence to go and seek another partner. They may feel old (and they might BE old), or unattractive (and again BE unattractive), but still feel that longing for romantic (and romantically physical) relations with another human. It is a strong, strong, nearly imperative drive, inflicted on us by nature herself. And on the other side may be someone who is, for whatever reason (not my business) unable to pay for their needs through finding other work, or employing other talents. And they may find this a perfectly satisfying way for them to earn their own way.

Why not? Nobody likes dealing with human bodily wastes, but people are paid to do just that in hospices all over the world. Why should I be able to pay some lowly charwoman to clean up after me, just because I don't want to do it myself, but not be able to pay someone to satisfy my sexual needs?

Humans, largely due to religion, in my view, have a very, very fraught relationship to their own sexuality.

 

[Heyo]

Not only would I say prostitution is a victimless crime, I would say both parties involved actually benefit from the transaction. I agree that we should legalize and regulate it to some degree, but I don't understand why it needs to be taxed. I get the fact that everything is taxed and I guess the taxes could be used to help regulate it, but if there are taxes involved in prostitution, they should be low to help incentivize the mutual benefitable transactions to occur. I hate to think that when someone is buying sex services they're having sex with the state rather than the person involved.

If prostitution is just work like any other work, it should be taxed like any other work.

 

[Curious George]

Still, it's all utter nonsense.

Looked at as a purely human, commercial transaction, I don't see one party "using" the other, but rather both parties getting what they need in an agreed trade. C'mon, there are men (and women!) who, after losing a spouse, or a leg, or through some other misfortune, have lost the confidence to go and seek another partner. They may feel old (and they might BE old), or unattractive (and again BE unattractive), but still feel that longing for romantic (and romantically physical) relations with another human. It is a strong, strong, nearly imperative drive, inflicted on us by nature herself. And on the other side may be someone who is, for whatever reason (not my business) unable to pay for their needs through finding other work, or employing other talents. And they may find this a perfectly satisfying way for them to earn their own way.

Why not? Nobody likes dealing with human bodily wastes, but people are paid to do just that in hospices all over the world. Why should I be able to pay some lowly charwoman to clean up after me, just because I don't want to do it myself, but not be able to pay someone to satisfy my sexual needs?

Humans, largely due to religion, in my view, have a very, very fraught relationship to their own sexuality.

And if some landlord wants to rent to someone an unsafe, uninhabitable home for some amount of money, and some family for whatever reason, (not our business) unable to provide for their needs finds the rate and the accommodations acceptable, who are we to stand in the way of this purely human, commercial transaction?

 

[Curious George]

Yes, high end hookers are not being exploited.

I think that is an assumption.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And if some landlord wants to rent to someone an unsafe, uninhabitable home for some amount of money, and some family for whatever reason, (not our business) unable to provide for their needs finds the rate and the accommodations acceptable, who are we to stand in the way of this purely human, commercial transaction?

Well, you've deliberately tried to pose a difficult problem. I'm not sure what your reasons are, nor where you plan to go with it, but let me give it a try....

What would your alternative be? Simple question, isn't it? The family who can't provide for their needs, if they are not permitted to rent the accommodation at a rate they agree to, will be left with....what? Nowhere to live, right? Is that better for them?

See, I can tell you -- when I was 17, and left by the Children's Aid on the streets of Toronto, that winter, I slept in a garage, with no coat, covered in newspaper to try and keep warm, on both Christmas and New Years eves. How do you think I felt? But do you think it would have been better had I not been permitted to lie down anywhere, nor cover myself with anything at all against the cold?

You seem to think we can make "rules" that will make everything better for everyone, but can you...really? When a family can't find acceptable accommodation, are you suggesting that they should take none at all -- or be prevented from taking something less than desirable? And what will you offer instead, and how do you think you can make them pay for it?

It's a great thing to be so certain of what's good and bad...but you might consider what you would do when the good is not achievable. Remember, there was a time when begging could get you locked up in the stocks, but if you couldn't beg, you couldn't eat or feed your family. It's an easy thing to say people "ought to be able to do" this or that -- not quite so easy as to turn that into a reality.

 

[Revoltingest]

And if some landlord wants to rent to someone an unsafe, uninhabitable home for some amount of money, and some family for whatever reason, (not our business) unable to provide for their needs finds the rate and the accommodations acceptable, who are we to stand in the way of this purely human, commercial transaction?

The reason it's uninhabitable is that when you moved
out, you stole the pipes & wires to sell as scrap copper.
No security deposit return for you!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think that is an assumption.

I would say that it is a reasonably drawn conclusion. What makes you think that they might be exploited?

 

[Curious George]

Well, you've deliberately tried to pose a difficult problem. I'm not sure what your reasons are, nor where you plan to go with it, but let me give it a try....

What would your alternative be? Simple question, isn't it? The family who can't provide for their needs, if they are not permitted to rent the accommodation at a rate they agree to, will be left with....what? Nowhere to live, right? Is that better for them?

See, I can tell you -- when I was 17, and left by the Children's Aid on the streets of Toronto, that winter, I slept in a garage, with no coat, covered in newspaper to try and keep warm, on both Christmas and New Years eves. How do you think I felt? But do you think it would have been better had I not been permitted to lie down anywhere, nor cover myself with anything at all against the cold?

You seem to think we can make "rules" that will make everything better for everyone, but can you...really? When a family can't find acceptable accommodation, are you suggesting that they should take none at all -- or be prevented from taking something less than desirable? And what will you offer instead, and how do you think you can make them pay for it?

It's a great thing to be so certain of what's good and bad...but you might consider what you would do when the good is not achievable. Remember, there was a time when begging could get you locked up in the stocks, but if you couldn't beg, you couldn't eat or feed your family. It's an easy thing to say people "ought to be able to do" this or that -- not quite so easy as to turn that into a reality.

We are talking about difficult problems, aren’t we?

Let try to help. That a person in our society are unable to provide their basics needs is not something that is none of our business. In fact, it is our responsibility. A person should not be forced by necessity to engage in “commercial transactions” in which they are exploited. I do not support exploitation and I do not think we, as a society, ought to do so.

So, if we have a person unable to provide for their necessities, then our society should assist them.

I would expect that given your experience you would recognize this and not seek to allow others to exploit the poor, homeless and hungry.

 

[Curious George]

I would say that it is a reasonably drawn conclusion. What makes you think that they might be exploited?

Because “high end” doesn’t necessarily mean that they are paid well, have not been manipulated, have a choice, or are not abused. I am having a really hard time understanding why you would think that what you said was not an assumption.

 

[Curious George]

The reason it's uninhabitable is that when you moved
out, you stole the pipes & wires to sell as scrap copper.
No security deposit return for you!

Sure, and I got a good price (more than my deposit). But the only reason I felt inclined to do so, was that the wiring was already fully exposed and so bad it would have caused a fire if someone tried to use it. Further the pipes were never connected to a water line, so no water could have ran through them anyway. Shame on them for renting a home with such conditions.

Additionally, while I was looking for scrap I found several sites of friable asbestos and black mold. Luckily I only rented for a day, otherwise I would worry about my exposure.

That landlord was some cranky old engineer, that has several other flop houses that he rents by the hour, I am wondering if I could use some more scrap.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because “high end” doesn’t necessarily mean that they are paid well, have not been manipulated, have a choice, or are not abused. I am having a really hard time understanding why you would think that what you said was not an assumption.

I have heard interviews with the workers. They are not ashamed. They have legal protection of the law. If they feel they are not getting their fair share they can always work elsewhere. It is a free market. Meanwhile you cannot seem to say how they could have been abused.

 

[Curious George]

I have heard interviews with the workers. They are not ashamed. They have legal protection of the law. If they feel they are not getting their fair share they can always work elsewhere. It is a free market. Meanwhile you cannot seem to say how they could have been abused.

Sure I can tell you how a person might be abused. They can be forced to have sex, they can be coerced to have sex, they can be hit, they can be degraded, they can be emotionally blackmailed, they can be… the list goes on. Or are you asking for me to tell you how each and every “high end” prostitute has been abused? Because that is very different than anything I said. You are the one that made the sweeping generalizations based on how much a Jon pays and some “interviews”. I merely said that your statement was an assumption.

So let us break this down: you heard some “high end” prostitutes in an interview somewhere, and from that you have concluded that high end prostitutes are not exploited. Never mind that the people in the interview could have lied, or the interview that you observed could have been biased, let’s just focus on how inclusive the interviews were that led you to the “reasonable” conclusion that high end prostitutes are not exploited. So let’s have it, what is the sample size we are working with here? From what locations and cultures were the samples drawn?