Should prositution be legal?

[Soulcorruptor]

Alright before you flock in here with the angry responses let me start off with that this came from a speech class. We have to do a persuasive speech for my speech class. When my teacher threw out this as an option and even had a female friend suggest this because she did it as well as a joke, I started looking into this and ended up settled up on doing this for my speech. I am also posting this to hear your counter arguments as to why it should not be legal, as part of my speech is to try and think of the counter arguments. So this serves also to give me ideas on what questions I should do my best to answer. So with that out of the way let me pose now my ideas as to why it should be legal, but please not I am not trying to glorify it or glamorize it. It's just an issue for a largely victimless crime.

1. For this largely victimless crime 90,000 arrest are made annually in the US nations top 16 cities. From those arrest 125 million is spent on that.

Since I had to cite sources here is the section from my speech addressing this. Crime, Law & Social Change 32:83–102, 1999. © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands RONALDWEITZER Department of Sociology, George Washington University, Washington, DC20052,. At least 90,000 arrests are made annually for violation prostitution, that’sabout 10x the size of this campus. To add more to this in 1985 in the nationstop 16 cities, 125 million, again 125 million was spent enforcing these laws.Think about where else that money could go. According to Counterpoint: Prostitution Should be Legalized. By: Chittom, Lynn-nore, Bourassa, Cheryl,Points of View: Prostitution, 2015 no more then six months is spent in jail onthe first offense of this crime and for repeat offenders of a second offense nomore then a year. If we take a look at that 125 million a year earlier and thenthink about it in a five year term that adds up to 625 million. Think of allthe other funding that money could be spent on like more state grants for acollege education, or improving our schooling system for a non college student.

2. If we make it a job to legalize it, it then becomes taxable. So now on top of us saving money from the arrest which for a first offense they only spend 6 months and a second even less then a year it's now revenue.

3. For this I need better intel but it can "possibly" help lower violent crimes like rape against woman. Since both parties would be consenting adults there is no case of rape. Again the word is possibly, with it being legal it opens up an avenue for some of those kinds of people. Though there of course will still be the ones that would do it for that kick despite it being legal against the unwilling.

4. Since it's considered that a large spread of STD's come from cheating husbands with prostitutes, by making it legal and making sure the prostitutes need to be clean as well as the customers seeking sex, and both parties using protection or ensuring some form is used, we lower the chance.

5. Tourist attraction. There is a place in Nevada called the "Cat House" if I remember correctly. It serves as the only legal brothel in the US, by opening others we encourage travel to other cities and coupled with other attractions can help increase spending in said cities.

6. We eliminate the pimps. By having a legal brothel in case this being the "zone" we eliminate men pimping out woman since a brothel would be their place of employment. Also by having a zone area as well with an age limit say 18+ this could help prevent underage kids from seeing this or coming into contact with it on the streets.

7. Need more research for this one as well, but by making it legal we might be able to reduce the child tracking with kids being sold into the sex trade.


Again this is just for a class assignment, I myself am honestly on the fence largely with this issue. But if we could honestly solve some of the issues above especially since this is a victimless crime and both parties would be consenting. If all this money we would save could be put to better usage especially our education system I do not see a reason why not to try and slowly test this out.

 

[Aerifa]

Its legal in my country and its a lot safer for both parties. There are legal brothels and rules and regulations to protect the women and men involved. Not to say there aren't illegal brothels that operate. But making it legal means the police crack down on those places and the ****heads who exploit underage teens, instead of wasting money and resources going after adult women who in a lot of cases are just trying to make a living

Personally I believe it should be legal, what a woman (or man) does with their body is their own business and for a lot of women it is merely a means to feed their children. A friend of mine, a single mother works in one part time so she can afford decent schooling and food and clothing for her children.

 

[DKnight]

I personally find the idea disgusting. You'd have to be pretty desperate to pay to have sex with a person who probably just finish having sex with a few other people let alone who or whatever else. If it were possible I would have it never exist just in case someone close to me got so desperate or wasted.

That Being said. I work at a higher end hotel. It is regularly used by prostitutes to increase their worth. I see them every couple of weeks either being called into rooms, or holding rooms for special visitors. If legalizing means getting them off of the streets, getting rid of pimps, and clearing them from our regular hotels, then I can see it working. (As long as it is not solicited like in Vegas)

 

[Galadín]

Is no one bothered by the fact that this is essentially the buying and selling of people? To even consider collecting taxes from this or condoning the selling of someone's body for sex is beyond me. Have we no respect for each other!?

 

[Donald Trump]

Is no one bothered by the fact that this is essentially the buying and selling of people? To even consider collecting taxes from this or condoning the selling of someone's body for sex is beyond me. Have we no respect for each other!?

It's not the buying and selling of people. The buying and selling of people is slavery. Prostitution merely involves buying the use (with conditions) of someone's time. What will take place is usually agreed on before hand, ie what kind of sex is being sold, for how long, etc. which is fairly different from slavery.
I've never found moral arguments particularly persuasive, especially when you consider what it is legal to sell, eg cigarettes and assault rifles. I think most people would agree that they're more damaging than sex.
Furthermore, because it will increase the amount of tax revenue, there will be more money to spend on feeding the poor, curing illnesses etc, although, given this is in an American context, more money to spend on drones and bombs.

For this I need better intel but it can "possibly" help lower violent crimes like rape against woman. Since both parties would be consenting adults there is no case of rape. Again the word is possibly, with it being legal it opens up an avenue for some of those kinds of people. Though there of course will still be the ones that would do it for that kick despite it being legal against the unwilling.

This doesn't make sense. I have no idea what 'it being legal against the unwilling means'.
Additionally, rape isn't about sex, it's about power. Therefore the legalisation of prostitution would not have an effect on the frequency of rape.

Since it's considered that a large spread of STD's come from cheating husbands with prostitutes, by making it legal and making sure the prostitutes need to be clean as well as the customers seeking sex, and both parties using protection or ensuring some form is used, we lower the chance.

First you'd need to show to what extent prostitution is responsible for the spread of stds. It seems counter-intuitive to me, as I would expect that at least one party would be fairly keen on the use of a condom.
I don't think you can argue that sex workers need to be 'clean', (you also might want to avoid using that word) because it would be almost impossible to enforce, as well as discriminatory.
I think your strongest argument here would be that the legalisation of prostitution would allow governmental, as well as non-governmental programmes, initiatives, etc, that deal with stds, to work more effectively with brothels etc. The current illegal status of prostitution would hamper that.

5. Tourist attraction. There is a place in Nevada called the "Cat House" if I remember correctly. It serves as the only legal brothel in the US, by opening others we encourage travel to other cities and coupled with other attractions can help increase spending in said cities.

6. We eliminate the pimps. By having a legal brothel in case this being the "zone" we eliminate men pimping out woman since a brothel would be their place of employment. Also by having a zone area as well with an age limit say 18+ this could help prevent underage kids from seeing this or coming into contact with it on the streets.

I don't think prostitution is going to attract many tourists.
Also there's a wellish-ly known study about pimps, which showed that those sex-workers who had a pimp were better off that those without.
Furthermore, kids are very aware of prostitution. There's SVU and other TV shows, there's music, ROXAAAAAAAAANE etc.

7. Need more research for this one as well, but by making it legal we might be able to reduce the child tracking with kids being sold into the sex trade.

Possibly, but unlikely, people who have sex with children rarely have sex adults.

The legalisation of prostitution would also go some way to the destigamatisation of sex-workers. There's a certain attitude that people who work as sex-workers are lesser than those that don't. This contributes to the fact that they are often the victims of crime, and that police try less hard to catch the perpetrators, case in point being Peter Sutcliffe.

 

[Soulcorruptor]

It's not the buying and selling of people. The buying and selling of people is slavery. Prostitution merely involves buying the use (with conditions) of someone's time. What will take place is usually agreed on before hand, ie what kind of sex is being sold, for how long, etc. which is fairly different from slavery.
I've never found moral arguments particularly persuasive, especially when you consider what it is legal to sell, eg cigarettes and assault rifles. I think most people would agree that they're more damaging than sex.
Furthermore, because it will increase the amount of tax revenue, there will be more money to spend on feeding the poor, curing illnesses etc, although, given this is in an American context, more money to spend on drones and bombs.



This doesn't make sense. I have no idea what 'it being legal against the unwilling means'.
Additionally, rape isn't about sex, it's about power. Therefore the legalisation of prostitution would not have an effect on the frequency of rape.

Okay I had a big typo there. It was supposed to be "it being legal for the willing" To sum it up even if you make prostitution legal, as you said rape being about "power" there will still be people that rape.


First you'd need to show to what extent prostitution is responsible for the spread of stds. It seems counter-intuitive to me, as I would expect that at least one party would be fairly keen on the use of a condom.
I don't think you can argue that sex workers need to be 'clean', (you also might want to avoid using that word) because it would be almost impossible to enforce, as well as discriminatory.
I think your strongest argument here would be that the legalisation of prostitution would allow governmental, as well as non-governmental programmes, initiatives, etc, that deal with stds, to work more effectively with brothels etc. The current illegal status of prostitution would hamper that.

Again this is where I need more research and concrete information. As sources I have read this by largely seems like an opinion that is held, as such doesn't hold much weight and why I used "Since it's considered" I should have used better wording. As for being clean, since this would be legalized it would be a job requirement. May not be using the best case example for this demonstration but think of it as a bus driver needing what is over here a Class B license which allows them to drive a larger motor system other then a car.


I don't think prostitution is going to attract many tourists.
Also there's a wellish-ly known study about pimps, which showed that those sex-workers who had a pimp were better off that those without.
Furthermore, kids are very aware of prostitution. There's SVU and other TV shows, there's music, ROXAAAAAAAAANE etc.

As a tourist attraction I am referring to the Cat House Nevada, it is known about and people do go there just to visit the legal brothel. Since you brought up the wellish-ly study I would kindly appreciate if you could link the source, since I mentioned I need better sources for my speech and needing to think of counter arguments, I would like to see how reliable that may be. To answer for the kids even though they may be aware of it, it still serves a purpose of getting it off the streets so they don't see it, as well as the general public. This also goes to a point I made before with it being off the streets and in a brothel, the time and resources mostly the peoples money and cops time, could be better spent else where and on more important things. Like better school funding or patrolling troubled neighborhoods with high rates of crime.

Possibly, but unlikely, people who have sex with children rarely have sex adults.

True this is one of the harder things to try and attempt to link facts with to prove. Also why I used the word might in there as well.

The legalisation of prostitution would also go some way to the destigamatisation of sex-workers. There's a certain attitude that people who work as sex-workers are lesser than those that don't. This contributes to the fact that they are often the victims of crime, and that police try less hard to catch the perpetrators, case in point being Peter Sutcliffe.

This is why in my speech I am hoping to present them as not being lesser people. As this is a victimless crime they have rights to be protected and in most cases then not they are held responsible instead of the ones selling them the "pimps" or as well as the buyers which should be held even more accountable.

 

[Sheechiibii]

Is no one bothered by the fact that this is essentially the buying and selling of people? To even consider collecting taxes from this or condoning the selling of someone's body for sex is beyond me. Have we no respect for each other!?

See, isn't it more disrespectful to tell someone what to do with their own body? Isn't it more disrespectful to punish someone for their own choices about their own body that is hurting nobody? Personally I think having prostitution illegal means we are dictating what people should or should not do with their own bodies and that's unacceptable to me. If someone wants to get money for having sex with people then I think the respectful thing to do is let them make their own choices rather than stand in their way and say "no, you'll use your body only in the ways I agree with and if you have the audacity to try and do what you want without hurting anyone then you'll be breaking the law and I'll punish you".

 

[Galadín]

See, isn't it more disrespectful to tell someone what to do with their own body? Isn't it more disrespectful to punish someone for their own choices about their own body that is hurting nobody? Personally I think having prostitution illegal means we are dictating what people should or should not do with their own bodies and that's unacceptable to me. If someone wants to get money for having sex with people then I think the respectful thing to do is let them make their own choices rather than stand in their way and say "no, you'll use your body only in the ways I agree with and if you have the audacity to try and do what you want without hurting anyone then you'll be breaking the law and I'll punish you".

The law is there to protect against exploitation. Sure, there are people who enter prostitution with a clear mind, goal and aim, but it's those on the edge, the people who fall through the cracks of the system, with no protection and who are incredibly vulnerable that need to be protected by this law to ensure the exploitation of their situation doesn't occur. Yes people should have the right to do as they please with their body, that doesn't mean we should let people, for example those who self harm, free reign to do such things to themselves. Yes, I do equate prostitution with such things because there are far too many people in the gutter, who literally turn to such things because they no longer care for themselves and almost degrade themselves out of spite.

I admit, I'm coming from a more emotive stand point here which is maybe not the best thing to do in a debate. In the end though, we are guided by our moral standpoints which is why (I'm guessing) things like prostitution hasn't been legalised in many countries, because whatever it is, it isn't simple and clean cut.

Lastly, there are so many things you could justify and legalise by saying "Oh, we could save money in our Justice sector if we made this crime legal!". With that argument, why not legalise the buying and selling of drugs? This way we don't have to spend money arresting the small-timers or prosecuting the drug lords, I mean hell, we could even get taxes from them! Surely there are better ways of balancing our budgets.

 

[Sheechiibii]

The law is there to protect against exploitation. Sure, there are people who enter prostitution with a clear mind, goal and aim, but it's those on the edge, the people who fall through the cracks of the system, with no protection and who are incredibly vulnerable that need to be protected by this law to ensure the exploitation of their situation doesn't occur. Yes people should have the right to do as they please with their body, that doesn't mean we should let people, for example those who self harm, free reign to do such things to themselves. Yes, I do equate prostitution with such things because there are far too many people in the gutter, who literally turn to such things because they no longer care for themselves and almost degrade themselves out of spite.

I admit, I'm coming from a more emotive stand point here which is maybe not the best thing to do in a debate. In the end though, we are guided by our moral standpoints which is why (I'm guessing) things like prostitution hasn't been legalised in many countries, because whatever it is, it isn't simple and clean cut.

Lastly, there are so many things you could justify and legalise by saying "Oh, we could save money in our Justice sector if we made this crime legal!". With that argument, why not legalise the buying and selling of drugs? This way we don't have to spend money arresting the small-timers or prosecuting the drug lords, I mean hell, we could even get taxes from them! Surely there are better ways of balancing our budgets.

But the law doesn't protect against exploitation. The law bans the selling of sex completely, and protects nobody in that industry, it just calls them all criminals and cannot do anything to help them because what they are doing is wrong in the eyes of the law. If prostitution were legal then there could be legislation and protection put in place for sex workers. As it stands now, making prostitution illegal does nothing to protect anyone and actually harms people. You speak about people falling through the cracks in the system, but there is no system. Absolutely anyone who enters into prostitution is considered a criminal, the system is illegal, and because of that there's no way to help anyone or set up any sort of rules or legislation to keep things orderly and safe.

I personally do think that the buying and selling of drugs should be legal. Because like prostitution, if people want to do it they will, and while it is illegal there is no way to make sure what they are putting in their bodies is the drug they want and not dust off someone's carpet. Making drugs legal and legislating them and putting in place ways to help people would cut out the black market trade, which is the cause of the most harm when it comes to drug use.

If someone's 'in the gutter' and they want to sell their body or do drugs, then making those things illegal and punishing those people is not going to help them or anyone. It's more likely to end up with those people dead. If drugs and prostitution were legal however, then these people would be working in a safe environment, where they could get help at any time, and where there are rules and protection there for them if they need it. Where they're not treated like criminals for simply choosing something for themselves that others might not like. You mention self harm, but that helps my case because self harm is not illegal, if someone cuts themselves they are not sent to jail, they are given help. Prostitutes and drug addicts have no help available to them because they are classed as criminals.

 

[Galadín]

But the law doesn't protect against exploitation. The law bans the selling of sex completely, and protects nobody in that industry, it just calls them all criminals and cannot do anything to help them because what they are doing is wrong in the eyes of the law. If prostitution were legal then there could be legislation and protection put in place for sex workers. As it stands now, making prostitution illegal does nothing to protect anyone and actually harms people. You speak about people falling through the cracks in the system, but there is no system. Absolutely anyone who enters into prostitution is considered a criminal, the system is illegal, and because of that there's no way to help anyone or set up any sort of rules or legislation to keep things orderly and safe.

I personally do think that the buying and selling of drugs should be legal. Because like prostitution, if people want to do it they will, and while it is illegal there is no way to make sure what they are putting in their bodies is the drug they want and not dust off someone's carpet. Making drugs legal and legislating them and putting in place ways to help people would cut out the black market trade, which is the cause of the most harm when it comes to drug use.

If someone's 'in the gutter' and they want to sell their body or do drugs, then making those things illegal and punishing those people is not going to help them or anyone. It's more likely to end up with those people dead. If drugs and prostitution were legal however, then these people would be working in a safe environment, where they could get help at any time, and where there are rules and protection there for them if they need it. Where they're not treated like criminals for simply choosing something for themselves that others might not like. You mention self harm, but that helps my case because self harm is not illegal, if someone cuts themselves they are not sent to jail, they are given help. Prostitutes and drug addicts have no help available to them because they are classed as criminals.

First off, I'll clarify that what I meant by "the system" was the Justice, Legal, Governmental and Social systems. Furthermore, legalising anything means that our society condones the behaviour. Do we want to make it an acceptable social norm for people to be selling themselves for sex or taking drugs?

The following quote puts this argument forward more aptly:
"Prostitution has been condemned as a single form of human rights abuse, and an attack on the dignity and worth of human beings"
One doesn't have to be a moralist or a prude to see the validity of that statement.

If jailing the prostitutes is raising such an outrage as to be worth considering overturning this law, why not look at Sweden's answer to this difficult situation? The following article quote quickly explains their approach.
"In 1999, Sweden made it legal to sell sex but illegal to buy it—only the johns and the traffickers can be prosecuted. This is the only approach to prostitution that's based on "sex equality," argues University of Michigan law professor Catharine MacKinnon. It treats prostitution as a social evil but views the women who do it as the victims of sexual exploitation who "should not be victimized again by the state by being made into criminals,""

In regards to the legalising of drug use, I'm at a loss. You've said that the legislating of drugs will help people obtain the proper drugs they want to put in their system, you've also stated that drug addicts have no help available to them. Are you stating then, that providing the proper drugs for users is a valid way of helping them?

Also, why would a state legalise drug use, then spend money on rehab clinics; the places where drug addicts actually do get help?

You also made the argument that "if people want to do it they will", but that isn't a legitimate reason to make drug use legal. Anyone who is going to commit a crime is going to to it anyway, that isn't a sufficient reason to abolish the law against such acts.

Lastly, getting back to the original point, by making prostitution legal we as a society are saying that it is a good and decent thing to do. Not just the selling of one's body for sex but also the buying and profiting from it. This goes for the drug use argument too.

 

[Sheechiibii]

First off, I'll clarify that what I meant by "the system" was the Justice, Legal, Governmental and Social systems. Furthermore, legalising anything means that our society condones the behaviour. Do we want to make it an acceptable social norm for people to be selling themselves for sex or taking drugs?

Then when you said the system protects people who are being exploited you were completely wrong, because the justice system as it is right now does no such thing. Wait so...you think that just because something is legal, that means that it will become an 'accepted norm'? It's legal to cover your entire body in tattoos, last I checked it's not an accepted norm to do so. It's legal to have sex with 100 people in a week, last time I checked it's not an accepted norm either. It's legal to star in porn, it's legal to drink so much alcohol that you make yourself sick and die, or smoke so much tobacco that you ruin your lungs. That doesn't make these things 'accepted norms'. So your entire point fails if that's the basis of your argument.

The following quote puts this argument forward more aptly:
"Prostitution has been condemned as a single form of human rights abuse, and an attack on the dignity and worth of human beings"
One doesn't have to be a moralist or a prude to see the validity of that statement.

No, one has to take a wholly irrational stance to say that statement is valid. How is letting someone do what they want with their own body a form of human rights abuse? Which human right does it abuse? On the other hand, forcing someone to use their body in a certain way, or not letting someone use their body in a way they want to, is absolutely a violation of their right to their own bodily autonomy. Which side of this argument is really taking away people's rights?

If jailing the prostitutes is raising such an outrage as to be worth considering overturning this law, why not look at Sweden's answer to this difficult situation? The following article quote quickly explains their approach.
"In 1999, Sweden made it legal to sell sex but illegal to buy it—only the johns and the traffickers can be prosecuted. This is the only approach to prostitution that's based on "sex equality," argues University of Michigan law professor Catharine MacKinnon. It treats prostitution as a social evil but views the women who do it as the victims of sexual exploitation who "should not be victimized again by the state by being made into criminals,""

Because that still leaves prostitution illegal, which makes no sense. You've given no reason why it shouldn't be legal so far other than 'I don't like it and I wouldn't want to do it so nobody should be allowed to'.

In regards to the legalising of drug use, I'm at a loss. You've said that the legislating of drugs will help people obtain the proper drugs they want to put in their system, you've also stated that drug addicts have no help available to them. Are you stating then, that providing the proper drugs for users is a valid way of helping them?

No, those were two separate issues. If drugs were legal then there would be a system in place dealing with the buying and selling of certain types of drugs. There would be a guarantee that what you're buying is what it says it is, compared to the situation now, where the drugs being bought are mixed with various other things (could literally be anything) and this makes taking such drugs far, far more dangerous and life threatening. When I said that drug users would have help available to them I wasn't talking about the drugs being safer (though that undoubtedly would be true and far better for everyone involved) I was talking about them not being labelled as criminals, so they are not only in a better environment, and not around dangerous black marker dealers, but also have the option of speaking to professionals and being allowed access to information about different types of drugs, how they are harmful, what their effects are, and most importantly if drug use were legal then they could tell their doctor, psychiatrist, neighbour, friends, family, that they have an issue (if they do have an issue) and they'd be in a position to get help in a way they can't while drugs are illegal.

Also, why would a state legalise drug use, then spend money on rehab clinics; the places where drug addicts actually do get help?

Not sure what you mean by this, I never mentioned anything about rehab clinics. Also: alcohol is legal, yet there are still AA clinics where people go to get help with their drinking problems, so I'm not sure what your point is here?

You also made the argument that "if people want to do it they will", but that isn't a legitimate reason to make drug use legal. Anyone who is going to commit a crime is going to to it anyway, that isn't a sufficient reason to abolish the law against such acts.

The reason I think drug use should be legal is because there's no harm in a person using drugs. If they want to do it that should be their choice. I don't believe in forcing my beliefs on other people, and taking away their right to live their life the way they choose. As long as they're not harming people. You know what does harm people? Black market drug dealers, black market sex trade: all caused by the criminality of something that is someone's own personal choice. I believe that laws should be in place to help keep people safe, not to restrict people's freedom and hurt them for doing something that causes no harm to anybody and is only a personal choice.

Lastly, getting back to the original point, by making prostitution legal we as a society are saying that it is a good and decent thing to do. Not just the selling of one's body for sex but also the buying and profiting from it. This goes for the drug use argument too.

Again: you're going to have to back that up if you want it to be taken as a reasonable argument. Society doesn't say that drinking alcohol (a poison) is a good and decent thing to do, society says that people enjoy it and it's their own bodies their damaging, and they know it, so let them. Same applies to tobacco. People know it's bad for them, but they like it so they do it and it's legal. Sex isn't some bad, horrible, terrible thing. It's pleasurable. People do it because they enjoy it. Not everyone cares if they sleep with heaps of people, and some people want to make money from it. Who am I to force them to live their life by my standards? I don't own them. Americans are always saying they're so free, but clearly many American's don't want everyone to be free, they want people to be allowed only the freedoms they agree with. It reminds me of the arguments against LGBT rights: ''it's wrong because I don't like it so nobody should be allowed to do it".

 

[Galadín]

When a law is made we try to allow people to have as much personal freedom as possible as long as nobody else gets hurt in the process. However sometimes laws must be made to prevent an individual from hurting themselves (for example; the law against suicide). The balance between personal freedom and restrictions placed upon that freedom is by necessity tipped to protect the more vulnerable members of society. In Sweden's model, the customers, pimps, etc are held accountable by law but, the prostitute who is the most vulnerable person in the situation, is not criminalised therefore making it easier for her to access vital services such as medical care, counseling, etc.

Lastly the quote:
"Prostitution has been condemned as a single form of human rights abuse, and an attack on the dignity and worth of human beings"
is one school of thought regarding the issue of prostitution. Your argument supports the second school of thought:
"sex work is a legitimate occupation; whereby a person trades or exchanges sexual acts for money and/or goods."
Both are valid and shouldn't be considered "wholly irrational".

I've pretty much said all there is to say regarding this aspect of the debate and hopefully representing the other side of the discussion was of some use to soulcorruptor.

 

[Sheechiibii]

When a law is made we try to allow people to have as much personal freedom as possible as long as nobody else gets hurt in the process. However sometimes laws must be made to prevent an individual from hurting themselves (for example; the law against suicide). The balance between personal freedom and restrictions placed upon that freedom is by necessity tipped to protect the more vulnerable members of society. In Sweden's model, the customers, pimps, etc are held accountable by law but, the prostitute who is the most vulnerable person in the situation, is not criminalised therefore making it easier for her to access vital services such as medical care, counseling, etc.

Lastly the quote:
"Prostitution has been condemned as a single form of human rights abuse, and an attack on the dignity and worth of human beings"
is one school of thought regarding the issue of prostitution. Your argument supports the second school of thought:
"sex work is a legitimate occupation; whereby a person trades or exchanges sexual acts for money and/or goods."
Both are valid and shouldn't be considered "wholly irrational".

I've pretty much said all there is to say regarding this aspect of the debate and hopefully representing the other side of the discussion was of some use to @soulcorruptor.

Consentual sex between two adults is something you see as harmful? Well that might be your view, but clearly not everyone thinks that way, and why should they be forced to live their lives according to your views on sex? Why do you think the prostitute is the most vulnerable person in the situation? Is a tattoo artist more vulnerable than the customer getting the tattoo? Is an accountant more vulnerable than the customer who seeks their services? What makes workers more 'vulnerable' than their customers?

I called it irrational because it's irrational to say that giving someone the right to do what they want with their body is taking away their rights. It's an irrational position. I notice you couldn't answer what right the quote is talking about when it says a human right is being abused. Probably because you know that two consenting adults choosing to engage in sex together is in no way a violation of either of their human rights, regardless of their motives for choosing to engage in the activity, be it for pleasure, fun, money etc.

 

[Galadín]

Consentual sex between two adults is something you see as harmful? Well that might be your view, but clearly not everyone thinks that way, and why should they be forced to live their lives according to your views on sex? Why do you think the prostitute is the most vulnerable person in the situation? Is a tattoo artist more vulnerable than the customer getting the tattoo? Is an accountant more vulnerable than the customer who seeks their services? What makes workers more 'vulnerable' than their customers?

I called it irrational because it's irrational to say that giving someone the right to do what they want with their body is taking away their rights. It's an irrational position. I notice you couldn't answer what right the quote is talking about when it says a human right is being abused. Probably because you know that two consenting adults choosing to engage in sex together is in no way a violation of either of their human rights, regardless of their motives for choosing to engage in the activity, be it for pleasure, fun, money etc.

I'm not asking people to live their lives according to my views on sex, this is a debate thread, no a pulpit from which I'm screaming my personal doctrine. I'm aware not everyone thinks that way regarding prostitution (which for the record has nothing to do with my views on sex) nor am I trying to convince anyone to change their opinions, nonetheless, the opposite view should still be represented otherwise it wouldn't be a debate.

 

[Harlequin]

I think it's incredibly naive to think of prostitution as a "victimless" crime.

Search from traditional housewife to militant feminist and you'll have more luck finding a unicorn than a woman who actually wants to be a prostitute (even in desperate times). Prostitution is an extreme reaction to adverse circumstances and beggars can't be choosers; prostitutes don't pick who they have sex with their circumstances do. From there you're hard pressed to frame it as anything other than exploitation.

You could make the argument that not every woman who has sex for money is in a position of such vulnerability, but then these women can afford to not actually be prostitutes. The definition will say they are, but in a world heavy on transactional sex they're not. They're "escorts, dancers, etc", they hand pick who they have sex with and are doing it out of greed rather than necessity. There's an old anecdote that shines a light on the grey area that is prostitution:


I tell them the old joke about the man who asks a girl if she will sleep with him for a million dollars. Of course, she says yes. He then offers her two dollars and she slaps his face, saying, ‘What do you think I am?’ He answers, ‘I know what you are. We are just haggling over the price.’

If it's legalised and legislation is brought in it won't cater to those most vulnerable. You could reasonably assume that these prostitutes would be safe to decide who they sleep with but turn away too many average (and probably a touch desperate) Joes and you're either stunning enough to charge a premium or you're out of work, which isn't an option for most prostitutes (that's why they do it). Business is business.

And so your average Joe turns to pimps whose girls will have sex for a nominal fee because if they don't he'll set them straight. Who do you think is going to go out of business first? The impossible to oust pimps who have been around almost as long as civilisation itself or a government scheme that provides a platform for prissy hoes to pick and choose who gets to have sex with them?

Prostitution throughout history has always been the final nail in a coffin made up of terrible life choices. Why should we as a society enable people to sink so low?

 

[Sheechiibii]

I'm not asking people to live their lives according to my views on sex, this is a debate thread, no a pulpit from which I'm screaming my personal doctrine. I'm aware not everyone thinks that way regarding prostitution (which for the record has nothing to do with my views on sex) nor am I trying to convince anyone to change their opinions, nonetheless, the opposite view should still be represented otherwise it wouldn't be a debate.

Yes it's a debate thread in which you are taking the position that people should be banned from doing something personal that hurts nobody just because you personally do not like it. So therefore yes, you are taking the position that people should be forced to live their lives according to your views on sex (prostitution is the buying and selling of sex after all).

Prostitution is an extreme reaction to adverse circumstances and beggars can't be choosers; prostitutes don't pick who they have sex with their circumstances do. From there you're hard pressed to frame it as anything other than exploitation.

By that same logic people don't choose to work shitty hours in a job they hate, their situation 'forces' them to because beggars can't be choosers. Should it be illegal for people to work in a minimum wage job serving burgers at McDonalds? That's exploitation according to what you've just written after all. Regardless that they want to do that job because they need money to live.

You could make the argument that not every woman who has sex for money is in a position of such vulnerability, but then these women can afford to not actually be prostitutes. The definition will say they are, but in a world heavy on transactional sex they're not. They're "escorts, dancers, etc", they hand pick who they have sex with and are doing it out of greed rather than necessity. There's an old anecdote that shines a light on the grey area that is prostitution:

A prostitute can say no to a client if they want, they're perfectly capable of doing that. If they choose not to because they want the money, how is that any different to them choosing to clean toilets, hate every minute of it, but do it anyway because they need the cash? Why do you call someone who sells sex a victim, and say they're being exploited, when they're making their own decisions just like anyone else. Just like someone who chooses to clean toilets because they need the money and have limited options.

If it's legalised and legislation is brought in it won't cater to those most vulnerable. You could reasonably assume that these prostitutes would be safe to decide who they sleep with but turn away too many average (and probably a touch desperate) Joes and you're either stunning enough to charge a premium or you're out of work, which isn't an option for most prostitutes (that's why they do it). Business is business.

I don't think you've met many prostitutes. They're rarely stunningly beautiful, usually nowhere close. Every prostitute decides who she sleeps with. Not being attracted to someone, not wanting to sleep with them, does not mean they're not still choosing to do so. Doing something you don't like is not the same as not making the choice to do it.

And so your average Joe turns to pimps whose girls will have sex for a nominal fee because if they don't he'll set them straight. Who do you think is going to go out of business first? The impossible to oust pimps who have been around almost as long as civilisation itself or a government scheme that provides a platform for prissy hoes to pick and choose who gets to have sex with them?

The reason prostitutes go to pimps is because it's the safest way for them to work. There is no government legislation they can turn to, and being self employed in such a business, where everyone is a criminal including yourself so the law doesn't care if you're mistreated, is a very risky way to go. So they go to pimps, who will protect them in return for a cut of their earnings.

Prostitution throughout history has always been the final nail in a coffin made up of terrible life choices. Why should we as a society enable people to sink so low?

Terrible life choices is your opinion, they are still the life choices of someone else, and that someone should be allowed to decide what choices they make in life. They shouldn't be forced to live life according to other people's wishes.

 

[Harlequin]

SheechiibiiAt the risk of sounding close minded, the cut and thrust of it is this: women don't want to be prostitutes, the women who do become prostitutes are prostituting themselves because they either on drugs or less commonly have a family to support (welfare??). The people who turn a profit from these women are profiteering from people's desperation and misery.Could you give us an example of a set up that could actually work? They don't pick who they sleep with their desperation does. Choice is a luxury only sluts looking for a quick buck can afford not real prostitutes.

 

[Galadín]

Sheechiibii

Prostitution is more than just the buying and selling of sex. There are also lots of other problems surrounding the issue for example human trafficking and the coercion of prostitution.

Did you know that even feminists, the champions of women's rights and individual freedom condemn prostitution as a "violent crime"? It has also been noted that prostitution is a practice that can have serious psychological and even long-term physical effects for the prostitutes. Like Harlequin stated, it's hardly a career choice most women would make.

You've already stated the argument that people should have the freedom to do as they pleased but have yet to actually come up with an argument that substantiates any reason to actually completely legalise prostitution. Indeed there is a lot of value to be placed upon individual freedoms but counter arguments stating: "Why should we as a society enable people to sink so low?" and "When a law is made we try to allow people to have as much personal freedom as possible as long as nobody else gets hurt in the process. However sometimes laws must be made to prevent an individual from hurting themselves", have been made in regards to the degree of freedom society should allow for those in need. You have yet to present any other argument beyond your original point to counter these statements.

 

[Sheechiibii]

@SheechiibiiAt the risk of sounding close minded, the cut and thrust of it is this: women don't want to be prostitutes, the women who do become prostitutes are prostituting themselves because they either on drugs or less commonly have a family to support (welfare??). The people who turn a profit from these women are profiteering from people's desperation and misery.Could you give us an example of a set up that could actually work? They don't pick who they sleep with their desperation does. Choice is a luxury only sluts looking for a quick buck can afford not real prostitutes.

People don't want to clean toilets either, so should cleaning toilets for money be illegal? Are the people who employ someone to clean their home profiteering from people's desperation and misery? After all, if people didn't need the money they wouldn't be on their hands and knees scrubbing toilets for money would they? If you say a prostitute doesn't pick who they sleep with, their desperation does, the exact same can be said of cleaning toilets: they don't choose to do it, their desperation does. I suppose we should make it illegal to do any sort of task that people don't like. Regardless of the fact that this is how earning money works: if you want cash and need cash you have to do something to earn it, and if someone wants to clean toilets for the money then what's wrong with that? If someone wants to have sex for the money then what's wrong with that?

Prostitution is more than just the buying and selling of sex. There are also lots of other problems surrounding the issue for example human trafficking and the coercion of prostitution.

Legalising prostitution means legalising prostitution. It doesn't have any effect on the criminality of human trafficking or rape.

Did you know that even feminists, the champions of women's rights and individual freedom condemn prostitution as a "violent crime"? It has also been noted that prostitution is a practice that can have serious psychological and even long-term physical effects for the prostitutes. Like Harlequin stated, it's hardly a career choice most women would make.

Feminists champian only the rights they think women should have, they're hardly bastions of freedom. They're constantly telling women what they should and should not be doing. What is violent about prostitution? The only way you could call prostitution violent is if you believe sex between two consenting adults is always violent, in which case all sex should be a 'violent crime' by that logic.

You've already stated the argument that people should have the freedom to do as they pleased but have yet to actually come up with an argument that substantiates any reason to actually completely legalise prostitution. Indeed there is a lot of value to be placed upon individual freedoms but counter arguments stating: "Why should we as a society enable people to sink so low?" and "When a law is made we try to allow people to have as much personal freedom as possible as long as nobody else gets hurt in the process. However sometimes laws must be made to prevent an individual from hurting themselves", have been made in regards to the degree of freedom society should allow for those in need. You have yet to present any other argument beyond your original point to counter these statements.

The reason prostitution should be legal is the same reason gay sex should be legal, or bdsm should be legal, or getting a tattoo should be legal. There is no reason for prostitution not to be legal. It harms nobody and is a personal choice of occupation. Criminalising it is a direct oppression of people's right to choose how they use their own body. What reason has been given for prostitution being illegal? None, just repeating over and over again 'I don't like it so nobody should be allowed to do it' is not a valid argument for why something should be illegal. Those quotes you stated are no different: 'sink so low' what does that even mean? How can you try to use that (a personal emotional response to something you personally would not choose to do) to justify taking people's rights away? How can you try to say that a prostitute is hurting themselves when they don't feel that way, when they, the person whose right to their own body is being taken away, don't agree with you?

Those statements are nonsensical when it comes to rational discussion because they are not rational, they are emotional and subjective. They are no different to the Christian who says 'homosexuality is disgusting, gay sex should be illegal', or the naturalist who says 'it's harmful to permanently mark your body, tattoos should be illegal'. You don't like prostitution, you wouldn't choose to do it: fine, nobody is forcing you to. You're the ones saying that others should be forced to follow your 'moral' beliefs and that is entirely wrong.

 

[Galadín]

What reason has been given for prostitution being illegal? None, just repeating over and over again 'I don't like it so nobody should be allowed to do it' is not a valid argument for why something should be illegal.

Actually, the reasons why prostitution is illegal in many countries have been clearly stated.

• Prostitution has been condemned as a single form of human rights abuse, and an attack on the dignity and worth of human beings.
• The case for making it against the law to buy sex begins with the premise that it's base and exploitative and demeaning to sex workers. Legalizing prostitution expands it, the argument goes, and also helps pimps, fails to protect women, and leads to more back-alley violence, not less.
• Prostitution directly contributes to the modern-day slave trade (human trafficking) and is inherently demeaning.
• Legalizing or tolerating prostitution creates greater demand for human trafficking victims.

These are not the emotive reasons or arguments against the legalisation of prostitution and have no basis in personal views.

You're the ones saying that others should be forced to follow your 'moral' beliefs and that is entirely wrong.

Laws by their very nature operate on a "majority rules" system, therefore by the making and breaking of laws based on the constitution, everyone in society is living under the premise that these laws must be followed. Unless you question the very foundation of society's law and order, basically every law that is passed is "forcing" people to follow a particular set of values. Therefore, your argument that it is "entirely wrong" is a little skewed.