Why Prostitution Should be Legal

[joe1776]

Justice is an idealized emotion. There is no not appealing to that. What a rapist takes from the victim is ideological, and emotional. It cannot be "justified". At best, it can only be avenged. The same is true, to a lesser degree, with prostitution. What is sold, and is bought, cannot be returned. It is ideological, and it is emotional. And the money cannot "justify" it any more than a fine can "justify" the damage incurred by a rape. The degrees are different, of course; I understand that. But the thing that is lost is similar, and so is the damage that comes from it's loss. It's not an object. It's an ideal that has great emotional value to us as humans.

To commodify it for sale is to commodify our humanity. Something that we should never do.

I understand that you don't approve of prostitution. What I don't understand is why you support the making of an act criminal where no one innocent is harmed. Can you explain that, please?

Is the fact that you don't approve of their actions enough to make criminals of others?

 

[Watchmen]

Not if the charts are based upon poorly defined terms. The "data" is meaningless in those situations.

"Trafficking" tends to be so broadly defined that it becomes a non-crime. That is why though there was prostitution in the Kraft case there was no trafficking. No actual crime was found in that sense of the participants.

You just don’t like the data or the results. It’s from Harvard and multiple other sources. I’ll take them over you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just don’t like the data or the results. It’s from Harvard and multiple other sources. I’ll take them over you.

Sorry, it wasn't there. I looked. It was missing. It was so poor that you could not do a copy and paste yourself.

 

[Lyndon]

I understand that you don't approve of prostitution. What I don't understand is why you support the making of an act criminal where no one innocent is harmed. Can you explain that, please?

Is the fact that you don't approve of their actions enough to make criminals of others?

because the potential harm to the prostitute is huge, likelihood of contracting Aids etc, huge reduction in sense of self worth, all this just so some complete Ahole John can get his perverted rocks off.

 

[Stevicus]

In a civil human society, some things must not be 'for sale'. A person's life, for example. A child's innocence. An individual's liberty, and dignity. And in most human societies; sexual intimacy.

I already think we sell far, far too much of ourselves and our humanity in this country and culture, for money. I do not believe we need, or should, add sexual intimacy that very long and sad list.

As to your point about liberty and dignity not being for sale - unfortunately these are choices that humans have to make every day, just so they can earn their daily bread and put a roof over their heads. Whether it's working as a maid, waitress, janitor - or similar menial jobs that society tends to look down upon. These are the kinds of jobs which a prostitute could easily take, but they pass up those kinds of jobs. Perhaps they feel there's more dignity in being a prostitute than being a waitress.

(That's also the reason why young men from disadvantaged communities go for drug dealing and/or other crime, since that brings more dignity and prestige than flipping burgers or mopping floors.)

As far as other things being not for sale - I guess that depends on a society's value system and what they consider sacred. As I noted in my earlier post, our society obviously does not consider sexual intimacy all that sacred - otherwise it would be treated as such in the popular culture.

 

[Watchmen]

Sorry, it wasn't there. I looked. It was missing. It was so poor that you could not do a copy and paste yourself.

Wrong. I gave you the links and the links within links were there. You just rejected the data.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong. I gave you the links and the links within links were there. You just rejected the data.

The data was not there. You could have copied and pasted, that is what you should have done. You don't know how to use sources properly. Not only must you link them, you need to quote parts, and if graphs are part of it copy and paste applicable graphs and charts. I saw that they could not even come to a working definition of "trafficking". There is a reason that cases like the Kraft case fail:

Robert Kraft Case Prosecutors Say There’s No Evidence of Trafficking – Rolling Stone

"When New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft was charged with soliciting a woman in connection with prostitution, it was widely reported that he had been busted as part of an anti-sex trafficking investigation into a string of massage parlors in Florida. On Friday, however, prosecutors walked back on this claim, confirming during a court hearing that there was no evidence that any sex trafficking took place at the Orchids of Asia spa in Jupiter, Florida, one of the massage parlors that was targeted in the bust."

"Assistant State Attorney Greg Kridos disputed this claim, arguing that the spa had “all the appearances” of trafficking, and that there was enough evidence to suggest that requesting the warrant was justified. He did, however, acknowledge that there was not enough evidence to suggest that the women working at the spa were doing so against their will. “No one is being charged with human trafficking. There is no human trafficking that arises out of this investigation,” he said."

"Appearance of trafficking" usually means that the women live on the premises. That is not the norm for us, but if one is socking away all the money one can and a place to sleep is offered it is not unusual for other cultures. The women were not force to work there. The government knows that sensationalism sells. So do police departments that get federal money for these sorts of work. You will see allegation after allegation of trafficking. If it is so rife there should be countless convictions and yet there are very very few.

 

[Watchmen]

The data was not there. You could have copied and pasted, that is what you should have done. You don't know how to use sources properly. Not only must you link them, you need to quote parts, and if graphs are part of it copy and paste applicable graphs and charts. I saw that they could not even come to a working definition of "trafficking". There is a reason that cases like the Kraft case fail:

Robert Kraft Case Prosecutors Say There’s No Evidence of Trafficking – Rolling Stone

"When New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft was charged with soliciting a woman in connection with prostitution, it was widely reported that he had been busted as part of an anti-sex trafficking investigation into a string of massage parlors in Florida. On Friday, however, prosecutors walked back on this claim, confirming during a court hearing that there was no evidence that any sex trafficking took place at the Orchids of Asia spa in Jupiter, Florida, one of the massage parlors that was targeted in the bust."

"Assistant State Attorney Greg Kridos disputed this claim, arguing that the spa had “all the appearances” of trafficking, and that there was enough evidence to suggest that requesting the warrant was justified. He did, however, acknowledge that there was not enough evidence to suggest that the women working at the spa were doing so against their will. “No one is being charged with human trafficking. There is no human trafficking that arises out of this investigation,” he said."

"Appearance of trafficking" usually means that the women live on the premises. That is not the norm for us, but if one is socking away all the money one can and a place to sleep is offered it is not unusual for other cultures. The women were not force to work there. The government knows that sensationalism sells. So do police departments that get federal money for these sorts of work. You will see allegation after allegation of trafficking. If it is so rife there should be countless convictions and yet there are very very few.

You’re lazy. I posted great sources. You chose to ignore.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You’re lazy. I posted great sources. You chose to ignore.

No, I read them. I explained their failures to you . If anyone was lazy it was you.

Tell me, did you post any of these "graph"?

Did you quote any data?


I showed you how it was done, surely you can do the same.

 

[PureX]

I understand that you don't approve of prostitution. What I don't understand is why you support the making of an act criminal where no one innocent is harmed. Can you explain that, please?

I have no idea who is "innocent". Or what that even means. But I do know that everyone is 'harmed' by the humiliation and dehumanization of prostitution. As I have explained.

Is the fact that you don't approve of their actions enough to make criminals of others?

No, the fact that people are being harmed is. The whole purpose of the establishment of law is to protect us from each other, and occasionally, that sometimes means protecting us from ourselves.

 

[PureX]

As to your point about liberty and dignity not being for sale - unfortunately these are choices that humans have to make every day, just so they can earn their daily bread and put a roof over their heads. Whether it's working as a maid, waitress, janitor - or similar menial jobs that society tends to look down upon. These are the kinds of jobs which a prostitute could easily take, but they pass up those kinds of jobs. Perhaps they feel there's more dignity in being a prostitute than being a waitress.

As I have already pointed out many times in this thread, these are not reasonably equivalent. Prostitution is not seen as "just a job" in any culture on Earth. So please stop trying to use this reasoning to justify it.

(That's also the reason why young men from disadvantaged communities go for drug dealing and/or other crime, since that brings more dignity and prestige than flipping burgers or mopping floors.)

Actually, it's because they cannot live on the wages paid by the jobs our society will let them have. We treat their day's labor with so little respect because of our social acceptance of corporate greed, and then we blame them for having no respect for it, in turn.

As far as other things being not for sale - I guess that depends on a society's value system and what they consider sacred. As I noted in my earlier post, our society obviously does not consider sexual intimacy all that sacred - otherwise it would be treated as such in the popular culture.

And it's getting worse, and worse, as time passes. Because the only thing that is truly sacred in our culture anymore is money. Which is exactly why I believe it would be a mistake to empower this greed yet again by making the selling of live human bodies for sexual pleasure legal.

 

[joe1776]

because the potential harm to the prostitute is huge, likelihood of contracting Aids etc, huge reduction in sense of self worth, all this just so some complete Ahole John can get his perverted rocks off.

You're making up lame excuses about potential harm to make people criminals. That's not what the criminal justice system was intended to do. If it was, mountain climbing and sky diving would be criminal acts.

 

[joe1776]

...No, the fact that people are being harmed is. The whole purpose of the establishment of law is to protect us from each other, and occasionally, that sometimes means protecting us from ourselves.

The criminal justice system is needed to protect innocent citizens from being harmed by criminals. When it "occasionally" does anything else, whatever it does is unjust.

 

[joe1776]

I have no idea who is "innocent". Or what that even means.....

I think you've identified the source of your confusion. In this context, "innocent" describes a person who has done no harm to another. Neither the John nor the prostitute has harmed anyone in the ordinary transaction. Therefore, the self-proclaimed overlords of morality who make their transaction a crime, are the only people causing harm to innocent others. Theirs is the only immoral act involved.

 

[Lyndon]

I think you need to ask some real prostitutes how often they've been harmed in thei trade, you see really out of touch with the reality of it.

 

[joe1776]

I think you need to ask some real prostitutes how often they've been harmed in thei trade, you see really out of touch with the reality of it.

I'll concede that prostitution is a risky business. The main reason that it's risky is that it's illegal. It attracts people willing to break the law. Selling liquor was a risky business in the USA during Prohibition.

In other words, by making the business illegal, you increase the risk of the prostitute having to deal with criminals. So, logically, legalizing prostitution will lessen the risk. Now, the cultural factors that would make a woman choose to make her living as a prostitute need to be dealt with but not by the criminal justice systems.of the world.

Now let me hear your argument that since it's a risky business, we should make criminals of the John and the prostitute who are not harming anyone in the usual course of their business transaction.

 

[Stevicus]

As I have already pointed out many times in this thread, these are not reasonably equivalent. Prostitution is not seen as "just a job" in any culture on Earth. So please stop trying to use this reasoning to justify it.

It's relevant to the issues of coercion and dignity, both of which have been mentioned in this thread. I didn't say it was "just a job," but that many women freely choose that "job" over many other jobs which might be available for them to do.

What about other jobs which are legal yet still involve sex work (such as stripping, cybersex, porn, etc.)? Would you consider them just as degrading and dehumanizing? Why or why not? Should they also be outlawed?

Actually, it's because they cannot live on the wages paid by the jobs our society will let them have. We treat their day's labor with so little respect because of our social acceptance of corporate greed, and then we blame them for having no respect for it, in turn.

Yes, this is true, but I was addressing your point about dignity. The bottom line is, "dignity" is in the eye of the beholder.

And it's getting worse, and worse, as time passes. Because the only thing that is truly sacred in our culture anymore is money. Which is exactly why I believe it would be a mistake to empower this greed yet again by making the selling of live human bodies for sexual pleasure legal.

The greed is already empowered. Prostitution exists, whether it's legal or not. As I said, I think you're just hung up on a technicality.

 

[joe1776]

Amnesty International, the Nobel-Prize-winning human-rights organization, provoked international controversy in 2015 by advocating the decriminalization of all adult prostitution. There are links to research included in their article on the topic.

We would like to claim to be the first to address this issue. But we are not. Other groups which support or are calling for the decriminalization of sex work include the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, International Labour Organization, the Global Alliance Against Trafficking in Women, the Global Network of Sex Work Projects, the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, Human Rights Watch, the Open Society Foundations and Anti-Slavery International.

Sex Workers' Rights are Human Rights

 

[PureX]

The criminal justice system is needed to protect innocent citizens from being harmed by criminals. When it "occasionally" does anything else, whatever it does is unjust.

There are no "innocent citizens". I don't understand why you keep bringing "innocence" up. People are greedy and selfish. They will use and abuse each other to get what they think they want if they can. This is why we agree to form governments to make laws and enforce them to protect us from each other and to mediate between us. "Innocence" has nothing to do with it. We are all greedy and selfish. It's human nature. But it's also human nature to be aware of our shortcomings, and those of others, and to want to try and overcome them if we can.

 

[PureX]

It's relevant to the issues of coercion and dignity, both of which have been mentioned in this thread. I didn't say it was "just a job," but that many women freely choose that "job" over many other jobs which might be available for them to do.

Lots of people also "freely choose" to steal things instead of paying for them. What people "freely choose" to do is irrelevant to whether or not it should be legal.

What about other jobs which are legal yet still involve sex work (such as stripping, cybersex, porn, etc.)? Would you consider them just as degrading and dehumanizing? Why or why not? Should they also be outlawed?

It's not the sexual activity that humiliates, degrades, and dehumanizes, it is the buying and selling of it, for money.