Should prostitution be illegal?

[loquitur]

Yes, we have had a few laughs over Eliot Spitzer's ridiculous behavior, but that leads to a serious question: should prostitution be illegal? I have posted elsewhere that I don't think it should be, and I reiterate that here. The short reason is that each person is sovereign over his/her body and is entitled to do with it as s/he pleases.

A longer version is from Will Wilkinson, whom I find persuasive. An excerpt from his thoughts:

Every form of labor involves “selling your body,” one way or another. I see no interesting intrinsic moral distinction between brick- and other forms of laying. There is simply nothing wrong with selling or buying sexual services. There is no bright moral line between a good massage and a really good massage. The entire issue is generated by backward prudishness, a precious, misogynistic attitude toward female sexuality, and run-of-the-mill patriarchal paternalism.

* * *

Yes, some women turn to the sale of sexual services out of a lack of better alternatives. Indeed, some women turn to the sale of lettuce-picking services out of a lack of better alternatives. And bricklayers shouldn’t be permitted to individually negotiate labor contracts because they will be exploited by capital. Show me the difference. Whether orgasm delivery, lettuce picking, or bricklaying is degrading depends on the attitude of the worker toward that kind of work and her ability to sell her services with dignity on her own terms.

What do you think?

[Xazy]

It would remove a lot of the illegal girls that are forced in to the market, give us tax revenue, and help a bit with disease. I think the people who will cheat on their spouse will cheat anyways, and while I am opposed to it morally, I think we should legalize it.

[Willravel]

Well right off I have to say that forced prostitution is slavery and is automatically wrong. That basically goes without saying. And anything involving prostitution and minors is right out as well.

So this then assumes that the subject in question is a man or woman who chooses prostitution as a career, knowing the possible consequences and being fully aware going in. This is a difficult question. On the one hand, I don't necessarily approve of it, but who am I to say? It's their decision and it's not actually hurting anyone. I don't really find myself in a position to force my own subjective beliefs on people, so I guess I'd have to say go for it. So long as the men and women are treated with respect and are allowed to perform their skill on their terms, there's no harm.

I don't think I'd ever be a prostitute or use one, but I can't make a case as to why it should be illegal.

[Ustwo]

I'm on the legal side, but its the women who will fight making it legal.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I'm on the legal side, but its the women who will fight making it legal.

FINALLY some bra burning. I'm really pissed I missed that last time around.

[SirSeymour]

Nope. In fact, if regulated correctly it should have the positive effects Xazy mentions above as well as freeing some law enforcement resources (although not all) for work in other areas.

While I am not the biggest fan of traditional prostitution, I recognize that we are all prostitutes in one form or another.

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I'm on the legal side, but its the women who will fight making it legal.

Very true which I find ironic since in a very real way this a logical extension of the pro-choice movement but I think it would likely be many of those same pro-choice feminists leading the fight to keep it illegal.

[loquitur]

Will, I was specifically excluding force and minors. That's why I quoted Wilkinson's comparison to bricklayers and lettuce pickers.

[Jinn]

I think it should be legal.

I don't think I even need to justify it, as it seems like the obvious, natural conclusion. Someone hoping to keep it illegal would instead to need to justify making it such.

[JamesB]

So long as the following criteria are met, I am in favour of legalizing prostitution:

1. both parties must be 18+ and able to prove their age upon request
2. both parties are willing participants - most importantly the 'provider'
3. prostitution income must be declared and taxed as other forms of income
4. regular (3 months?) disease testing of 'provider'
5. full disclosure between both parties of past and present S.T.D.s mandatory
6. all fees/charges are agreed upon and become legally binding at the time of agreement

Aside from the above points, I see no reason to maintain prostitution as an illegal activity.

[sprocket]

My gut really says to legalize it, just like most other vices we've seen fit to outlaw (illegal drugs, anyone?) but I really havnt given much thought to it.

Seems like we would still have to spend a good bit of resources policing legal prostitution, and then still policing the ones who dont follow whatever regulations are in place. Lets face it, a hooker is going to get a disease eventually, no matter what the precautions... are they just going to stop hooking? No, they'll just generally go black market.

On the personal liberties side of things, its a no brainer really.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by loquitur

Will, I was specifically excluding force and minors. That's why I quoted Wilkinson's comparison to bricklayers and lettuce pickers.

Yes, I know, but I wanted to reiterate it so the thread didn't get off track.

[snowy]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I'm on the legal side, but its the women who will fight making it legal.

I'm a woman, and I fully support the legalization of prostitution.

I think the United States is entirely too puritanical in regards to its views on sex, and this is reflected in our laws governing prostitution, amongst other things. I'd rather have a safe, regulated industry that brings in tax revenue than us wasting our money trying to catch hookers, pimps, and johns.

I feel much the same about the War on Drugs.

[Ustwo]

It was as if a million wives and girl friends cried out in horror and were suddenly silenced.

[vanblah]

I have spoken with several women (including my wife and my mother) about this recently. We all agree that it's stupid that prostitution is illegal.

It won't be women fighting the legalization of prostitution. It will be the so-called "moral majority," which is made up of both sexes.

My very off-the-cuff observation would be that the legalization of prostitution might actually result in a DECREASE in marital violence.

[jewels]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

It was as if a million wives and girl friends cried out in horror and were suddenly silenced.

It's obvious that legalization would be a plus. I can't think of any argument against it. Employee, S Corp or self-employed? Taxes and licensing would be the only potential downside, but benefits, pension and the deductions would make it an easy win.

Why would women be against it if it would afford them greater protection in every sense of that word?

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by jewels443

Why would women be against it if it would afford them greater protection in every sense of that word?

Who do you think got the brothels shut down in this country in the first place?

Men?

[pig]

I'm with George Carlin: if selling is legal, and fucking is legal, then why isn't selling fucking legal? Like other crimes of morality, I see no logical justification to it. If you don't want to be a prostitute or hire a prostitute, then don't. Don't stop other people from doing what they want to do as long as no one is hurt.

The negatives that will/would arise out of the legalization of prostitution would be handled like the legalization of gambling and alcohol. Regulation, zoning, and taxation. These negative consequences say a lot about "human nature," and nothing about the act itself.

[jewels]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Who do you think got the brothels shut down in this country in the first place?

Prohibition and a strong Christian influence shut 'em down. We've evolved nearly 100 years since.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by jewels443

Prohibition and a strong Christian influence shut 'em down. We've evolved nearly 100 years since.

I think you underestimate the insecurity of the average married couple.

Single males tend to be young and therefore tend to not have a lot of money. Its not always true, you have older rich singles and young men with cash, but the real money for prostitutes are going to be married males.

Not going to happen in most places.

[Martian]

I can't but wonder what Americans (on both sides of this issue) think of countries like Canada where prostitution is legal. Our laws regarding prostitution are generally designed with specific intent, and none of them outlaw the deed itself.

1) It is illegal to profit from prostitution. This is generally interpreted to mean that it's illegal for individuals other than the prostitute to profit from prostitution, and is intended to comb at pimping and organized crime. Interestingly, this leads to contract services having to set things up in such a way that they act as 'facilitators' rather than employers, and set up introductions for a flat fee. The escorts themselves work as independent contractors and negotiate their own rates.

2) It is illegal to buy or sell any sexual services involving a minor. No brainer.

3) It is illegal to solicit publically for prostitution. Note that this doesn't apply to publications, which are deemed a private means of communication from a legal standpoint (since the reader has to make a conscious choice to buy and read said publication).

4) It is illegal to have sex in a public place. This one doesn't relate strictly to prostitution, but I've included it because both it and the above law when applied to prostitution are designed with the same intent; to combat the 'public nuisance' aspect of prostitution. These both tend to be complaint-driven laws, so if you solicit in an area where nobody cares and have sex in a reasonably secluded area, there's no problem.

5) 'Bawdy houses' are illegal. This has been a standing law since the mid 19th century and is the only one on the list that has no clear rationale behind it. A bawdy house is defined as an establishment set up and employing one or more individuals expressly for the purpose of prostitution. Interstingly, this law and the second law are causing controversy, since sex worker advocates claim that they make the trade more dangerous. In light of the case of Robert Pickton, who was recently convicted of killing six women, and stands accused of killing twenty (!) more, it would seem that reforms in sex law may be necessary to help ensure the safety of these women.

I'm just curious to know if we have anyone here who is in favour of making prostitution illegal and if so, what their take on a system like this is.

Originally Posted by sprocket

Lets face it, a hooker is going to get a disease eventually, no matter what the precautions... are they just going to stop hooking? No, they'll just generally go black market.

This may be true, but I think the US system adequately shows that there's going to be a black market for prostitution regardless. Wouldn't it be better, then, to provide a legitimate market for consumers, so that they can be protected? Also, the women in the black market (as well as those they often work for) will find it much more difficult to ply their trade when there's a legitmate market offering the same service with no repercussions and a set of standards in place. The Canadian sex industry does not, so far as I know, enforce any industry-wide standards, but even with workers going through escort services there's a more regulated industry (since the service providers themselves will in theory be required to enforce some standards in order to stay in business).

Further reading.

More further reading.

Further reading regarding the Robert William Pickton murder trials.

[Willravel]

Canada's system seems reasonable to me. Protect the public and the prostitutes.

[Martian]

Originally Posted by willravel

Canada's system seems reasonable to me. Protect the public and the prostitutes.

It's far from a perfect system. The law about bawdy houses needs to be done away with, and it'd be nice to see some actual regulation (which definitely isn't going to happen just now, but I won't get into a Canadian political discussion here). It'd also be good if the government took a more active role in protection of the workers. Still, it makes more sense than just making the whole thing illegal, as far as I'm concerned.

[Tully Mars]

Originally Posted by pig

I'm with George Carlin: if selling is legal, and fucking is legal, then why isn't selling fucking legal? Like other crimes of morality, I see no logical justification to it.

Not a fan of the morality police BS. Adults should get to choose how best to live their lives.

BTW- love that Carlin line.

[Sun Tzu]

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." - Ronald Regan

No, it should not be illegal. Niether should drugs.

[levite]

As I mentioned elsewhere, I think "vice" laws and the enforcement thereof are largely a waste of taxpayer resources. I also think that sex laws regulating anything done by two consenting people over the age of consent (I use that phrase since I am also in favor of lowering the age of consent for sex, the drinking age, and the voting age, to 16) are just excuses for puritanical and sexually repressed people to exert control over people who feel freer to express their sexuality.

Nonetheless, I do think that prostitution, being in an overlap between sex and commerce, and being associated in recent times with abuse and exploitation of the unwilling, demands some regulation of the trade, though. The laws in Canada seem pretty good to me in that respect, except for the one outlawing houses of prostitution. I actually think legal prostitution would be both safer and easier to regulate and tax if there were houses of joy.

While we're at it, I also think that most illegal drugs should be legal, and it should be legal for private citizens to distill "personal-use" amounts of alcohol.

[highthief]

There needs to be regulation - and fairly strict regulation - of the sex industry. I believe it can work in a legal fashion (in fact, it does in many jurisdictions) but by the same token, there need to be many protections for both the sex industry workers and their clientele built in.

So, no to street walking and back alley blow jobs, yes to a well regulated and well policed clean and safe sex industry.

[Tully Mars]

Originally Posted by levite

While we're at it, I also think that most illegal drugs should be legal, and it should be legal for private citizens to distill "personal-use" amounts of alcohol.

The war on drugs is a never ending bottomless money pit for the government. It can never be won and it can never be lost. It can only be continued with the tax payers willfully footing the bill. The only way it ends is if the tax payers decided they are no longer willing to support the so called "war."

According to the DOJ the average length of sentences for drug related offenses is longer then that for violent offenses:

Violent Felonies 63.0 months
Drug Felonies 75.6 months

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm

The amount of resources committed to drug prosecution is obscene. I worked parole and probation for many years. The number of times we released a violent offender to save room for a drug offender due to minimum federal sentencing was obscene. When you're releasing a rapist early because you can't release a guy caught growing pot it's hard to go home and hold down your dinner.

I'm not alone with this opinion:

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

[girldetective]

With contracts and unions for protection and fair pay, I say go for it. I think it will happen as many things to do in this country - with time and persistence, and the people involved involving themselves. I think it is already happening albeit at a very slow pace. The sex industry needs some outspoken leaders, a Che Guervera if you will. Where is World's King when you need him?

[Shauk]

There are people who shouldn't be having sex yet don't have to pay a thing for it. Seriously? who cares? what goes on between a man and a woman, including the exchange of money, is really no one's damned business. Like I said, there are worst people fucking for free.

[levite]

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

The war on drugs is a never ending bottomless money pit for the government. ...(excellent facts)...

100% true. This idiotic drug war wastes money that could go to improving public education, assisting the poor to escape from poverty, and housing the homeless-- not to mention funding a national health care system. We overcrowd our prisons with drug prisoners-- disproportionately poor people and people of color, and prioritize penalizing people for vices and addictions more than for harming others.

Not only that, but by criminalizing marijuana in especial, we prevent its widespread use as a cheap and gentle medication for people in need of such, and we prevent the growing of industrial hemp to make particle board, paper, cloth, and oil,-- all of which would be biodegradable, and have a far, far lower impact on the environment than the wood scraps, wood pulp, cotton, and petroleum we currently employ.

The DEA is a self-perpetuating money hole, and the only ones who truly benefit from this drug war are the oil, logging, paper, cotton, and pharmaceuticals industries.

[Rekna]

Legalize it, regulate it, tax it and while your at it do it for pot also.

The fact is these laws create more crime then they stop. All we do is create a black market full of corruption and danger. If it is legal it is much easier to regulate it and make it safe as was seen with prohibition. You don't see a huge black market for alcohol in this county and the crime associated with it.

[Tully Mars]

Originally Posted by levite

100% true. This idiotic drug war wastes money that could go to improving public education, assisting the poor to escape from poverty, and housing the homeless-- not to mention funding a national health care system. We overcrowd our prisons with drug prisoners-- disproportionately poor people and people of color, and prioritize penalizing people for vices and addictions more than for harming others.

Not only that, but by criminalizing marijuana in especial, we prevent its widespread use as a cheap and gentle medication for people in need of such, and we prevent the growing of industrial hemp to make particle board, paper, cloth, and oil,-- all of which would be biodegradable, and have a far, far lower impact on the environment than the wood scraps, wood pulp, cotton, and petroleum we currently employ.

The DEA is a self-perpetuating money hole, and the only ones who truly benefit from this drug war are the oil, logging, paper, cotton, and pharmaceuticals industries.

Hemp could be a viable solution for many issue in the US. But basically you can't grow it. You can but you have to apply for a special license. Last I heard, and it's been a while so I could be wrong, you have a better chance of getting a visa stamp to visit Cuba then to grow Hemp. A few are handed out each year, mostly for research. So far the federal government has turned a blind eye to the vast majority of that research.

Many of the founding fathers grew hemp. A large percentage of military uniforms were made from hemp, in WWII! Up until about 75 years ago it was a huge part of the economy for states such as Kentucky.

My apologies for the thread jack. But I do feel laws regarding prostitution are just as stupid. You want to get stone and visit a brothel, as long as you take a cab or have a buddy drive... knock yourself out. I seriously don't see much difference between smoking a bowl and doing several shots of tequila. Personally I'd rather share the road with a stoner then a drunk.

And no I'm not some pot smoking whore monger. But I certainly could be where I live, there's plenty of both to be had. Simply fact is neither work for me. Pot makes me paranoid and hungry, other then that not much. 25 years ago I saw a hooker while I was in the Navy. Being with someone who's simply interested in me for my cash doesn't exactly rock my world. Not to mention the STD thought would be rolling around in my head so much I doubt I could get it up. 25 years ago being drunk and young solved that problem. Don't see that happening now.

[SirSeymour]

Originally Posted by Rekna

The fact is these laws create more crime then they stop. All we do is create a black market full of corruption and danger. If it is legal it is much easier to regulate it and make it safe as was seen with prohibition. You don't see a huge black market for alcohol in this county and the crime associated with it.

Ah but that would be learning from our mistakes and we just don't do that very well in this country. We would much rather live the truth of the old proverb about being doomed to repeat history if we don't learn from it. Sad really...

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by levite

100% true. This idiotic drug war wastes money that could go to improving public education, assisting the poor to escape from poverty, and housing the homeless-- not to mention funding a national health care system. We overcrowd our prisons with drug prisoners-- disproportionately poor people and people of color, and prioritize penalizing people for vices and addictions more than for harming others.

Not only that, but by criminalizing marijuana in especial, we prevent its widespread use as a cheap and gentle medication for people in need of such, and we prevent the growing of industrial hemp to make particle board, paper, cloth, and oil,-- all of which would be biodegradable, and have a far, far lower impact on the environment than the wood scraps, wood pulp, cotton, and petroleum we currently employ.

The DEA is a self-perpetuating money hole, and the only ones who truly benefit from this drug war are the oil, logging, paper, cotton, and pharmaceuticals industries.

Oh if only drugs were legal, all of our problems would be solved!

The air would be fresher (well at least if you aren't around someone smoking marijuana, man that stuff reeks), the poor would no longer be poor, and our clothes would be made out of wonderous hemp.

I'd be for 100% drug legalization but only in a libertarian government.

Do what you want, but when you are stoned in the gutter starving from your various addictions, fucking get it over with and die, cheaply.

[MSD]

What is the psychological effect of prostitution on the women who participate? Sure, legalization and regulation can help with the physical health effects and coercion by pimps, but there is still the fact that it is a rather lucrative profession, and if legal, it will draw in women looking for easy money without regard for the mental toll it can take on them. I agree that we are too puritanical about just about everything in this country, and I suspect that legalizing and regulating the sex industry would be a positive change, but legalizing it is a de facto and de jure endorsement of that mindset, and I would want to be sure of a net gain before taking action.

The nagging thought in the back of my head on the issue has always been the opening of it for easy money to people who are not really capable of handling it but want the easy cash.

[Tully Mars]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Oh if only drugs were legal, all of our problems would be solved!

The air would be fresher (well at least if you aren't around someone smoking marijuana, man that stuff reeks), the poor would no longer be poor, and our clothes would be made out of wonderous hemp.

If only we could pump a couple more trillion into the war on drugs. We could imprison a few more hundred thousand citizens. Then we'd win! Then the streets would be free of people we prefer not to see. Then everyone left, those not incarcerated, would be hard workers and the US economy would boon. Hell, just employing those watching the inmates would add greatly to the economy. We can get the inmates to make widgets and that'll pay for they keep. That'll be great for everyone. Well, everyone except those people and companies currently making widgets, they'll be screwed.

Surely if we just spend a couple more trillion this will happen, just a few more trillion- I swear then you'll see results.

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I'd be for 100% drug legalization but only in a libertarian government.

Many people speak about how awful the police are until someone breaks into their house, then they call the police and want help. On the flip side many people bitch about government spending and want to pay zip in taxes, they still want the fire dept. to show up when their house is burning down. They also seem to have little problem in spending trillions on our military. Of course it seems they prefer to borrow that money from China et el.

There's always a qualifier when people speak about drastic changes to our government. All in or all out rarely works when it comes to government, IMO

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Do what you want, but when you are stoned in the gutter starving from your various addictions, fucking get it over with and die, cheaply.

You're all heart.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by MSD

What is the psychological effect of prostitution on the women who participate? Sure, legalization and regulation can help with the physical health effects and coercion by pimps, but there is still the fact that it is a rather lucrative profession, and if legal, it will draw in women looking for easy money without regard for the mental toll it can take on them. I agree that we are too puritanical about just about everything in this country, and I suspect that legalizing and regulating the sex industry would be a positive change, but legalizing it is a de facto and de jure endorsement of that mindset, and I would want to be sure of a net gain before taking action.

The nagging thought in the back of my head on the issue has always been the opening of it for easy money to people who are not really capable of handling it but want the easy cash.

I have the same reservations, but more for drugs than prostitution.

I think making it legal will be a de fact endorsement which will bring people to try/get addicted who otherwise would never have.

Maybe its just my mindset but I think handling taking money for sex is easier than handling crystal meth.

[sprocket]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I have the same reservations, but more for drugs than prostitution.

I think making it legal will be a de fact endorsement which will bring people to try/get addicted who otherwise would never have.

Maybe its just my mindset but I think handling taking money for sex is easier than handling crystal meth.

Well, drug use in the Netherlands, where just about anything and everything is legal is about the same rate as it is here. Could be for a variety of different reasons, but it does suggest that illegality doesn't dissuade people from using, and legality doesn't encourage people to use either.

I don't know how prostitution compares, but I thought I read an article recently where they said they were going to outlaw prostitution there again and shut down the Red Light districts, because it was causing more problems than it solved... but I cant seem to find it again anywhere.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

If only we could pump a couple more trillion into the war on drugs. We could imprison a few more hundred thousand citizens. Then we'd win! Then the streets would be free of people we prefer not to see. Then everyone left, those not incarcerated, would be hard workers and the US economy would boon. Hell, just employing those watching the inmates would add greatly to the economy. We can get the inmates to make widgets and that'll pay for they keep. That'll be great for everyone. Well, everyone except those people and companies currently making widgets, they'll be screwed.
Surely if we just spend a couple more trillion this will happen, just a few more trillion- I swear then you'll see results.

Its rather hard to draw a cost without a baseline. How many more lives would be destroyed taking drugs vrs the cost of enforcing the existing laws? Lets assume its drastically in favor of making them legal, thats fine, but my comments were to the flowery, idealistic, and silly comments that ending the drug war would somehow make pretty much everything better.

Many people speak about how awful the police are until someone breaks into their house, then they call the police and want help. On the flip side many people bitch about government spending and want to pay zip in taxes, they still want the fire dept. to show up when their house is burning down. They also seem to have little problem in spending trillions on our military. Of course it seems they prefer to borrow that money from China et el.

There's always a qualifier when people speak about drastic changes to our government. All in or all out rarely works when it comes to government, IMO

This has pretty much nothing to do with Libertarianism. You can still fund the military and the police and be a Libertarian, its not about no taxes, its about not using taxes to redistribute wealth and buy votes. Its about having the government do the minimum required for the state to function.

You're all heart.

I didn't put the needle in their arm, they want it legal, then be a grown up and take personal responsibility. If people can't do this then it shouldn't be legal.

[Tully Mars]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Its rather hard to draw a cost without a baseline. How many more lives would be destroyed taking drugs vrs the cost of enforcing the existing laws? Lets assume its drastically in favor of making them legal, thats fine, but my comments were to the flowery, idealistic, and silly comments that ending the drug war would somehow make pretty much everything better.

And my comments were pretty much to the insanity of doing the same thing over and over and somehow expecting different results.

Originally Posted by Ustwo

This has pretty much nothing to do with Libertarianism. You can still fund the military and the police and be a Libertarian, its not about no taxes, its about not using taxes to redistribute wealth and buy votes. Its about having the government do the minimum required for the state to function.

Libertarianism is no different then any other political philosophy, they're numerous positions within the philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

And who decides what is the "minimum required for the state to function?"

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I didn't put the needle in their arm, they want it legal, then be a grown up and take personal responsibility. If people can't do this then it shouldn't be legal.

Never said you did.