Legalizing Prostitution for 2010 World Cup
 

I've always been of the mind that prostitution should be legal as long as it's between consenting adults. In that case, why is it anybody else's business what they do with their money or body.

I really don't see any reason for government to interfere with consenting adults engaging in whatever sexual pleasures they desire.

What gets me about that BBC News quote is the "young girls" part. Makes my skin crawl to think there are underage girls out there forced into this life.

In my mind:
adult prostitution = whatever.
Human trafficking = TERRIBLE CRIME.

If marriage and dating are legal, so should prostitution.

Totally agree. However, the only way that I see legal prostitution working as a way to reduce human trafficking is if the government steps in and heavily legislates the industry - kinda like having to have a brothel license like a liquor license, and random audits to make sure everyone there is disease-free, above the age of consent and there of their own free will...

The idiot minister who said that it would reduce the number of rates has his head up his ass, though - rape isn't about sex, it's about power and violence. Prostitutes aren't the ones being raped - it's the average jane who gets robbed in her house (usually it's robbed, raped and strangled - triple threat).

I live in SA, and believe me when I say that we have one of the highest rape rates in the world, and it has NOTHING to do with there not being enough prostitutes walking the streets...

Yeah, I pretty much think that adult prostitution should be legal everywhere. In general, I think outlawing "vices" only leads to more crime, to making the vices worse, and to ever-more-unhealthy abuse of people, their rights, and their space.

I'm not saying I think prostitution is all woo-hoo great-- don't get me wrong. I don't think it's at all an optimal way for people to relate to one another sexually. But the least we can do, by legalizing it, is to try to assure that any person working as a prostitute is of legal age, doing so of their own free will, and being given safe working conditions and fair treatment.

I really don't see the problem with making prostitution legal. It works in many counties in Nevada just fine, and they go through the proper steps to make sure it's safe.

To me, it can only come out with pros. There will be a heavy reduction in prostitution-related homicides, presumably suicides, venereal diseases, children in poverty (okay, not a HEAVY reduction, but there's less chance of a hooker getting involuntarily knocked up), crime rates (no need for pimps), etc.

Come to Australia. It is already legal and licensed here.

12/0 to legalize in Tilted Sexuality, who would have thought that'd be the outcome. :-)

Seriously, the US has to get over itself. Why the government has any say in that is beyond me. I guess there is some validity to licensing and ensuring the safety of the workers, but beyond that? Stupid Puritanical country...

<rant>Much like the government getting involved when two people say they love each other, commit to a lifetime of supporting each other and participate in a religious ceremony. Guess what, now you can volunteer to get taxed differently. WTF, anyway, that's a whole 'nother conversation.</rant>

The following two quotes describe how I feel about the issue.

It's all fun and games until the pimps come and try to create an empire for themselves.

Now, the version I heard was "it's all fund and games until a train comes along and puts someone's eye out." You must have had a very interesting childhood.

As to the OP, if the local community doesn't want the headache associated with legalized prostitution - the mandatory health tests, inspections to make sure everyone is of age and being treated well, etc. - then they should be free to keep it criminalized. If they are willing to undertake the responsibility, I'm all for it. It's not for me to impose my morality on someone else.

The US is a very big place. Why does all the US have to agree with you or what you want? If the people of Smyrna, Georgia, Provo, Utah and Riverside, California don't want to legalize it, who are you to say that they're wrong?

And people are free to move to communities with laws more in line with their values. That is what I love about the United States. But sometimes I wish the country at large would realize what I bolded in The_Jazz's statement, and keep their noses out of the laws that the people of my city and state have chosen to pass that are in line with our community values.

In regards to the OP, I agree with The_Jazz--it's an issue that needs to be left up to the individual community, in regards to whether or not they want to take on those responsibilities.

While i do agree that it should be left up to the smaller communities, I personally think it should be legalized. The US government is in a lot of debt right now, and another source of taxable income would be nice to have right now. Especially with the money it's going to be paying out to former IndyMac customers.

Legalize, then tax it and regulate it. Seems fairly win-win.

Pholeus, can you tell me exactly where the US government has made it illegal?

hint: you can't because it hasn't. Prostitution is legal in Nevada and Rhode Island (although brothels aren't). The only tax that the feds would get is from income tax.

Want to try again?

Income tax is taxable income. There is a lot of illegal prostitution that goes on, and none of that is being reported or taxed. Legalizing it will provide more money for the government.

I think the biggest issue is that these are not community decisions, these are decisions that face individual's freedoms to sell or buy sex. If there's a health risk associated with it, legalize it, tax it to support the infrastructure, then maybe tax it more to make a profit for the state. You can't say, don't push morality on me, then force no prostitution where I live. You shouldn't have to move to live your life the way you want to, but if things are outlawed selectively, then you find that you do need to move to pursue that.

Odd, since I am not interested in prostitution, and never will be, but I want people to be able to live their life in a reasonable and dignified way. Legalizing it would help that, I'd think. It is still going to happen, its just going to happen out of sight and off the radar.

Sure, but the amounts would be fairly miniscule comparatively. Certainly not enough to compensate for any bailouts, which will cost billions. We're talking a few extra tens of millions here, which is a lot of money to you and me, but not the US government.

Add that to the fact that for your scheme to work, prostitution would have to be legalized in 48 states, and I think that your scheme becomes completely unworkable. In a vacuum, it's a pretty idea, but with real world ramifications, it falls apart instantly.

But if the majority don't want prositution in their communinity, again, why do YOU get to impose your morals on the majority? If I think that you should go to church, so what? I don't get to impose my morals on you; why is this any different?

Your analogy is improper. You're talking about forcing people to engage in an activity; legalizing prostitution is about allowing them to engage if they so choose. I don't think anyone here is advocating forced prostitution.

So if the government won't regulate it, it should be criminalized? Using that logic, the government should regulate how much you eat because too much is unhealthy, or criminalize it! What about alcohol consumption!? Cigarette smoking? Regulate it or criminalize it? People should determine what they do with their money and bodies, not the government.

Rent Demolition Man.

You imagine legalized prostitution as something that's not intrusive to the community, but in many respects it is, especially if that town becomes the only place where it is legalized. They'll have the bad reputation they're saddled with, and the excess baggage that comes with the customers that solicit the services of prostitutes (which usually aren't the most upstanding citizens).

If you've been in a town that has a strip club not named Scores and seen the neighborhood, I can't see how anybody would think it wouldn't be any worse if that's a localized area where prostitutes can congregate and ply their trade.

All this depends on how the prostitution is conducted. I have no argument with restricting the manner in which it is conducted, for example to comply with zoning laws that prohibit businesses in residential areas.

If that's what the community decides to do, then I'm absolutely fine with that. But if the morals of enough voters of a city or state conflict with prostitution, then they have the right to ban it. Given that 48 states have actually spoken in the negative on the subject, all the zoning and regulations in the world are a moot point.

This is a states' rights issue. Period. There is no national question here. If you don't like the rules in your state, vote to change them. But don't tell me that I have to vote for it in my state if I don't want to. If my neighbors and I don't want a legal brothel down the street, you have no authority to tell me that I'm wrong. That's my point here. You don't get to impose your morality on me any more than I do on you.

I admit that my church analogy is sloppy at best, but it was the best I could concoct at the time. I live in Chicago. I support the smoking ban, since I don't smoke and I felt that it intruded on my enjoyment in bars and restaurants. My city voted to ban the practice in bars and restaurants. My alderman knew my thoughts on the matter since I told him several times, both in email and in person. I am assuming that you don't live in Chicago (if you do, let's get together and have a beer sometime - seriously), so as a resident of another city, you're perfectly able to enact your own smoking ban or vote against one. Local rules for local issues.

Agreed. I think smoking should definitely be banned, as you're being forced to breathe it in. If two people are off fucking and one of them is paying the other one for it, it doesn't affect my health at all. But if the majority doesn't want it, I agree brothels shouldn't be allowed. I was merely saying I'm in favor of it.

Meh, people are engaging in this practice in probably every town in the US. It's like pot to me. Pot and prostitution are both illegal. How many people here couldn't find a hooker and a couple grams of bud in the next, say, two hours? Legalize it, vice laws don't work and never have. You're never going to stop people from indulging these vices. Remind me how that whole prohibition thing worked out? You can talk about an increase in tax rev. all you want. There may well be some but , IMHO, the amount saved not trying to enforce these unenforceable laws would dwarf any taxes gained. Then LE could focus on crimes like theft, burglary, rape (and all other sex offenses) and murder.

TullyMars, I couldn't agree more. Anybody who wants either of those things bad enough is going to get it, especially if they have a surplus of funds. America wastes time and money locking up prostitutes and pot smokers.

Yep, and there's more then a few folks in government who realize it's a self fulfilling need for a large(r) budget. I used to live on the northern Oregon coast. Not exactly Humbolt County California, but every summer they'd have a few helicopters with heat seeking equipment looking for pot grows. You have any idea what it costs to keep a bird like that in the air for just one hour?

A lot of jurisdictions can and do seize your home and property if you're caught growing.


In Portland Or they passed a law that any "Johns" picked up in a prostitution sting would loose their vehicle. Didn't matter if they owned it or the bank held the title. Get caught, loose your car and still make the payments. For some reason right after that stings increased about 3X, maybe more. So did police vehicle auctions. I have a friend who bought a nice Z28 from one.


Anyone who thinks money and funding doesn't figure into this is ill informed, IMHO.

Isn't buying a girl dinner so she sleeps with you kinda like prostitution anyways?

Indeed. And women who marry men for their money are glorified prostitutes. I guess you are only breaking the law if you admit that the money is indeed for a fuck and not some sort of indirect liaison to a fuck.

For that matter, pornstars get paid to fuck. Ahh, to hell with it.

No that's call gambling, another vice.

Not necessarily. Prostitution is a business, and you don't need charm, wit, or a sense of humor to bag a hooker.

Disagreed, pornstars get paid to be filmed fucking for mass distribution for sexual enjoyment. If they were simply paid to fuck the cameras wouldn't be present. ;)

The only problem with leagalizing prostitution, drugs, etc... is the effect it has on society and others. An example would be heroine addicts whom become addicted to smack, lose their jobs, and are forced to steal from people to provide the income for their habit.

That's only one example of negative effects that these habits may have on society.

Some may make the arguments that alcohol, gambling, and other legal vices in this country can have the same consequences. However, differences include how addictive these activities are, and how mind altering they are. Alcohol, for example, is less addictive, and less mind altering, than crystal meth.

I was just arguing this with my roommate, so I felt compelled to write it.

I also should mention that I don't think that prostitutes are as addictive as crystal meth. XD

I agree with someone who pointed out the nonsense about legalized prostitution reducing the rate of rape.

And I am not averse to it being legalized, but I do believe it should be regulated and HEAVILY.

And I hope that the government in S Africa really does give these women and, uh, young girls safe environments in which to work in. I'm skeptical, though. That's not something you just whip together in a year or two.

Nope. Just good negotiating skills. :thumbsup:

Then you...are not going to the right prostitutes. ;)

I agree with BOR here. Kristen/Ashley Dupree wasn't a top rated escort at 5 Diamonds (or whatever it was). She was a 3 out of 5. She's cute, but as a guy that has dinner in Chicago's Viagra Triangle (Rush and Division) about every 10 days or so, I can tell you that there are some working girls that frequent the bar at Tavern on Rush that are so outrageously hot that they're almost unapproachable. One of my favorite post-dinner games with some of my underwriters is to play "spot the working girls". It's usually pretty easy later in the night.

I'm making myself available for Kristi Yamaguchi.

That's a GREAT idea! Hey, and while you do, can you hold your breathe? I'd love to see you turn that pretty shade of blue. I think it will actually help attract her since it matches the eyelets on her skates.

same outcome, different paths.

It's a crappy argument IMO. In most cases rape has very little to do with sex. Conventional theory on this used to be rapist fell into one of three basic categories:

Power, Anger and Sadistic

Power and anger each making up about 45% of all rape while sadistic roughly 10% (don't quote me on these numbers, it's been a while) Of course these numbers and "types" don't account for things like date, spousal, prison rape etc... but there are those out there that don't place these sexual offenses in the rape category.

Rape is a power and control thing, paying a hooker to blow you usually isn't.

As for your other comments. I'd hope the regulations in place for those in the sex industry would safe guard workers at least as well as OSHA does for any other industry.

Speaking of which: Prostitution measure makes it onto S.F. ballot