9 ms·

Prostitution is a victimless crime. Why is it that two people can't agree to exchange sex for money? You can't legislate morals into existence (not saying prost

Prostitution is a victimless crime. Why is it that two people can't agree to exchange sex for money? You can't legislate morals into existence (not saying prostitution is immoral, but people who want to outlaw it probably do). The world's oldest profession will probably be outlawed for some time to come because adding support for prostitution to your platform is political suicide. EDIT: Since I don't want to reply to everyone individually: I am not condoning prostitution as a career. I am saying that criminalizing prostitution hurts all parties involved. There is a common misconception that wanting to repeal a law means you support whatever that law outlawed. I don't think prostitution should be illegal. The rule of law is not a place to push morality. There is no reason for the government to interfere in a consensual transaction between two people. If a pimp is forcing a prostitute to sell themselves, that's called slavery, and it is illegal. Selling a prostitute to someone else against their will is illegal, and it is called human trafficking. Simply selling your body harms no third party against their will.

tedks 12y ago
The world's oldest profession is farming. While harm reduction is a great thing, legalizing prostitution would have a hugely detrimental effect on the fight against human trafficking and the status of women in general. The idea that women's bodies can be commodified and sold to men is the foundation of patriarchy, and as long as prostitution exists we'll never have a free society. It's also laughable to say that prostitution is ever some fantasy rational economic exchange. Women are forced into prostitution, either by being literally enslaved, or by economics.
- thaumasiotes 12y ago
  > The world's oldest profession is farming. Where in the world did you get this idea? Farming postdates the human species. Prostitution predates it by a long, long way.
- jrockway 12y ago
  What about men that pay for sex with other men? The whole patriarchy dynamic is gone then.
  - quantized 12y ago
    The patriarchy doesn't even provably exist. It's just a bogeyman feminists like to throw out when they have nothing of substance to say.
  - baddox 12y ago
    Or women who pay for sex with men, or women who pay for sex with other women.
- quantized 12y ago
  Everyone's body and mind is commodified. That's what employment is. Prostitution is just one instance of it.
- throwawayornot 12y ago
  pretty sure folks were trading sex before agriculture...
  - Mz 12y ago
    Other animals, including say monkeys and chimps, have also been shown to readily and willingly trade sex for material gain (usually food).
- no_wave 12y ago
  By putting restrictions on what women can use their bodies for, aren't you (we) claiming ownership over them?
- lisper 12y ago
  > legalizing prostitution would have a hugely detrimental effect on the fight against human trafficking That is just ridiculous. The fact that prostitution is illegal is the reason there is a trade in human sex slaves. Legalizing prostitution doesn't result in human sex-worker trafficking any more than legalizing professional sports results in athlete trafficking.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    That's libertarian bullshit. Prostitution is regulated in Thailand, and there is a tremendous amount of human trafficking. Even in a legal market, it's cheaper to get the product for free.
    - kjksf 12y ago
      It seems like you're talking about straight up abductions and slavery, which is illegal regardless of status of prostitution. According to http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/thailand http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/thailand: "Trafficking victims in Thailand are found employed in maritime fishing, seafood processing, low-end garment production, and domestic work." By your logic Thailand should ban maritime fishing, seafood processing and domestic works.
    - briandh 12y ago
      Prostitution in Thailand is technically illegal and practically murky [1]. It does not support your assertion. [1] http://www.thailawforum.com/sex-crimes-in-thailand-part2.html http://www.thailawforum.com/sex-crimes-in-thailand-part2.htm...
    - lisper 12y ago
      Prostitution is NOT legal in Thailand, it's just that the law against it is not enforced. If you want an example of a country where prostitution is actually legal you have to look at the Netherlands, where there is very little if any human trafficking. Nevada is another example. (And, by the way, I'm not a libertarian.)
      - 12y ago
- throwawayornot 12y ago
  we are all of us "forced into [call it] prostitution, either by being literally enslaved, or by economics." choose your poison!
- jedberg 12y ago
  > Women are forced into prostitution, either by being literally enslaved, or by economics. But some women want to engage in that profession and can't due to (mostly male) lawmakers preventing them. So it really swings both ways. And further, prostitution isn't just women. It's mostly women, but not only women.
- Mz 12y ago
  The reality is that since women make, on average, 2/3 of what men make and most people are heterosexual, most sexually active women are sleeping with someone who makes quite a lot more money than they do. Because if you flip that around, it means men make on average 1.5 times what women make. For that and a very long list of other reasons, most women are de facto trading their bodies for money in some sense, to some degree, almost every time they have sex. So I have kind of a big problem with your idea that prostitution is per se some big moral problem here.
  - bostik 12y ago
    I think your comment deserves more upvotes, and I gave mine. The fact that the comment above may make people uncomfortable is perhaps the best reason to prevent it from being buried. (For the record, and in case it makes a difference in interpretation: I am married.)
  - heylefty 12y ago
    > The reality is that since women make, on average, 2/3 of what men make False. The actual reality is that, when adjusted for skill and seniority, women make just as much as men. This is one of the most malicious feminist lies out there, eclipsed only by the 1 in 3/4/5 rape lie.
  - tedks 12y ago
    Yes, this is a critical issue at the core of feminist struggle. Read some Dworkin.
    - Mz 12y ago
      I don't see it that way. I have read quite a lot and thought quite a lot on the subject. But I don't imagine you really want me to give you my 2 cents worth since you seem to be coming from an (unfounded and rather disrespectful) assumption that I am ignorant. I mean, you could have asked had I read Dworkin rather than framing your remark like you are sure I haven't, which is kind of an insulting, dismissive thing to do. And, upon googling, gee, if you mean THIS Dworkin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin, then: no thanks. I happen to like men and sex, I worked hellaciously hard to get there and I am not interested in drinking deeply of her rage. Her apparent thesis -- that porn is linked to rape and violence against women -- flies in the face of statistics that internet porn apparently reduces incidence of rape and, from a quick skim of the Wikipedia page, I get the impression she was pretty angry and dissatisfied with life. I generally try to get my advice from bon vivants, not embittered cynics.
- icebraining 12y ago
  While harm reduction is a great thing, legalizing prostitution would have a hugely detrimental effect on the fight against human trafficking and the status of women in general. Based on what evidence are you claiming this? Women are forced into prostitution, either by being literally enslaved, or by economics. Sure. But they are enslaved whether prostitution is illegal or not. To claim that the criminalization solves that problem would be laughable; all it does it sweep it under the rug, by forcing prostitutes to hide and avoid help, with fear of being imprisoned. Here in Portugal we decriminalized all drug use. And you know what? It seems that when people can ask for help without fearing they'll end up behind bars, they actually do it more! If we want to end prostitution, we must attack the root of the problem, which you so well pointed out: the literal enslavement of women, and the economic situations that lead them to it. Criminalizing it solves nothing, it's just one more case of a policy that makes people feel good about themselves while they screw those they wanted to help.
- SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
  > legalizing prostitution would have a hugely detrimental effect on the fight against human trafficking The opposite is potentially true, because if it's decriminalized, it will also be regulated. Which means that everyone involved could be required to have their IDs on file, and could also require medical exams where doctors could ask whether they are there against their will. When it's underground, it's less visible, and therefore easier for human trafficking to go undetected. [1] Human trafficking is clearly not a victimless crime, and all attempts should be made to stop it, but keeping prostitution illegal doesn't help, and probably instead hurts, that cause. >Women are forced into prostitution, either by being literally enslaved, or by economics. "Forced" means they had no other options. You'd rather they or their families starved, then? Work on fixing the underlying economic realities that are "forcing" people into a profession against their will. Don't try to outlaw something that will continue exist no matter what laws are passed. It's as futile as the War on Drugs. [1] It's also worth noting that human trafficking doesn't always involve sex work. There was a case in Boulder, Colorado a few years back where people were lured to the US under false pretenses and they were forced to work in a chain of Thai restaurants without pay.
- ameister14 12y ago
  I disagree; perhaps the idea that women's bodies can be commodified and sold to men BY MEN is a foundation of patriarchy, but the simple sale of sexual physical services isn't. I can sell you my labor, the product of my labor, or actions I can take upon your body (massage, for example). Why is sex different? I'm not talking operations-wise, I'm saying that excluding the slavery and pimping, what exactly is inherently wrong with the act itself? What separates sexual activity from other activity as something that 'is the foundation of the patriarchy?'
  - makomk 12y ago
    Not only that, the whole argument that somehow "women's bodies [are] commodified and sold to men" when they have sex in exchange for money is ridiculously objectifying. It completely ignores the actions, desires and views of the women involved in the trade and reduces them to passive objects that are bought and sold. It's not the industry that's doing this, or their clients, or even the patriarchy - it's feminist activists that claim to be fighting the objectification of women.
- baddox 12y ago
  > legalizing prostitution would have a hugely detrimental effect on the fight against human trafficking and the status of women in general. Why? There's no need to traffic humans for prostitution if prostitution is legal. > The idea that women's bodies can be commodified and sold to men is the foundation of patriarchy What about the idea that men can pass laws forbidding women to do certain things with their own bodies? If a woman can choose to have an abortion, why can't she choose to have sex for money?
  - IanCal 12y ago
    > Why? There's no need to traffic humans for prostitution if prostitution is legal. By this logic, there should be nobody brought to a country to do a job legal in that country. Are you happy making that equivalent claim, or changing your view given a counter example?
    - baddox 12y ago
      > By this logic, there should be nobody brought to a country to do a job legal in that country. Isn't that the case? Presumably humans that are trafficked for forced labor are paid below minimum wage and exposed to bad working conditions that are illegal.
      - IanCal 12y ago
        I'm not sure what you're arguing here. You said that there wouldn't be anyone trafficked for prostitution if it was legal, but humans are trafficked to work in fields like construction.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Why? There's no need to traffic humans for prostitution if prostitution is legal. There'd almost certainly be reduced demand to traffic humans for prostitution if it was legal but trafficking humans was not, compared to the situation where both are illegal, but that's not the same as no demand.
- jusben1369 12y ago
  I find prostitution to be a very sad thing. I believe that many women are forced into it. Either overtly, by physically violent boyfriends/pimps who threaten to beat them, or more subtly by being raised in an environment with few options and/or becoming addicted to drugs. I would like for it to be non existent but it's pretty apparent that it's always going to be part of our society for the foreseeable future. I therefore want it legalized and regulated. The majority of the problems around prostitution are because it's run by criminal elements and not the State. Do you want to ensure basic physical protections for prostitutes? Create well managed brothels where they are safe. Next step up. Want to ensure they have reasonable health and nutrition? Pull them out of the shadows and let brothel's or the state offer benefits and look after their ladies around nutrition, rehab, keeping more of what they earn (economic interests align!) Final step - want to offer them a way out? It's hard when they're hiding in the shadows. Decriminalize it and you can target the industry with new skills/training/work opps etc. If you're against prostitution I think the worse thing you can do is want it outlawed.
  - tedks 12y ago
    What makes you think that legalization will offer any of that? It's a little absurd how when it comes to things like taxis or hotels or the Internet infrastructure regulation is a horrible thing that does nothing but cause pain, but when men want to rape women (because that is what it is, to have sex with someone who is forced into it, that is rape, that is what prostitution is), all of a sudden regulation becomes a silver bullet. I'm for harm reduction, but I'm also against normalizing rape, and teaching generations of men that rape is an okay, totally acceptable, shiny and regulated commodity. That's not acceptable for any sane, moral human.
    - ZeroGravitas 12y ago
      Making something illegal is regulation. I'm sure there are hardcore libertarians who think that all you need to do is legalise it and market forces will take care of everything else. The situation is so messed up currently that that would almost certainly be an improvement. But I'd be happy to see the same level of regulation we see for selling cigarettes, nightclubs, places that serve food, dangerous factories etc. because I'm pro sane levels of regulation for many things. Also, as covered elsewhere in the thread if you think doing something in exchange for money is "force" then you've written off most of modern society.
- hnriot 12y ago
  This is total crap. You can't possibly say that women are forced in prostitution. For some it's a choice between making $x or making $100x, that's not enslaving, but just a personal choice by the woman. "as prostitution exists we'll never have a free society." The whole idea of a free society is total bullshit anyway. While I totally agree with you that human trafficking is despicable, it doesn't change the equation, if the end product is legally sold (or rented by the hour more accurately) or illegally doesn't change the demand or the supply. We will never have a free society because it's an impossibility, humans are not evolved enough, nor are we devoid of vices like greed. A free society of automatons maybe, but not humans. And as for your comment about farming, that's also wrong. Farming is a relatively recent profession, no older than 10k years. You think women didn't exchange protein for sex before that? If you do then you're dead wrong.
- yxhuvud 12y ago
  [citation needed] Exactly how would it affect the fight against any of those? Why would trafficking in sex workers be more exposed to trafficking than any other kind of slavery, except because it is illegal in most places? If legal, why would trafficking be able to compete with legal alternatives? As for the idea of selling bodies, why are you equalizing the women with their bodies and thereby making them into objects instead of seeing them as people that perform services? I thought the whole point of feminism was to see and treat women as agents with the same self determination as men have - so why are you reducing sex workers to simply their body and gender? And yes, some women are forced into prostitution. But some are not - some choose it because they like it and some choose it because it is a lot better than any of their available alternatives. Why do you think that it is ok to deemancipate those women?
DoubleMalt 12y ago
There is the troubling fact that many prostitutes are not in the business of their own free will. Of course if you analyze the incentives and option of everybody involved, it is clear that the criminalization of it compounds the problem. What puzzles me immensely is that in progressive countries like Sweden the push against prostitution is almost worse (although with the angle that the buyers are criminalized), and that feminist women don't see that decriminalization would have a mostly empowering fact for the prostitutes (who are mostly female). I can see that it is an icky subject for many and how people who fight against the objectification of women might fall in the trap of thinking that selling your time for a fee might contribute to that. However pimping out my brain for trying to make people spend their money on ingame purchases is way ickier to me.
- quantized 12y ago
  > many prostitutes are not in the business of their own free will How many? What percentage? Citation needed. Weasel words will get you nowhere.
  - DoubleMalt 12y ago
    You are right, I should not have used many but the nondescript "some". However my argument that this problem would be lessened by decriminalization does not depend on a specific percentage.
- bostik 12y ago
  > There is the troubling fact that many prostitutes are not in the business of their own free will. Others have already waved the wikipedia card, but I feel that there is one aspect which deserves clarification. Above all, we should divide prostitutes into two groups: sex workers (who have, for whatever reason, chosen the profession); and the victims of human trafficking. In my mind, trafficking is no different from slavery. It's a vile thing. A sex worker, on the other hand, can choose to have a pimp -- but one is not required. I have absolutely no problem with law enforcement cracking down on trafficking. Those people are not selling their services out of their own will. But trying to mandate morality by law makes my hair stand out. I happen to believe that indiscriminately cracking down on all forms of prostitution is simply a waste of resources. The similarity between aggressive pro-lifers (who want to impose their own views on how women can use their bodies) and anti-prostitution zealots is not that big. Control in the name of morality ... or just in the name of their personal delusion. Makes little practical difference.
rayiner 12y ago
> Prostitution is a victimless crime. Only in the same sense as selling organs or babies (or conspiring to fix prices) is a victimless crime. There are instances where society legitimately chooses to make certain consensual interactions illegal because of the implications that conduct has for everyone else. As 'tedks points out below, turning sex into a commodity has real implications for the status of women in society as a whole. Moreover, as with selling organs or selling babies, there's a strong belief that such transactions are usually only technically voluntary, and are driven by economic duress more than anything else.
- quantized 12y ago
  All employment is driven by economic duress. Few would work if they didn't have to.
  - olefoo 12y ago
    Therefore; work is evil and it is morally imperative that we create a society where it is unnecessary. Money is an artifact of scarcity. From each according their desires, to each according to an equitable resource distribution heuristic prioritised on a Maslovian basis. Let the machines labor so that humanity may be free. facetiousness factor: 0.5 < n < 0.95
  - hnriot 12y ago
    Once we have androids for this task I wonder what will happen to the sex industry. What are the moral implications of buying a female android companion in the 2045 edition of Amazon.com
    - quantized 12y ago
      What are the moral implications of buying a Roomba now? Same difference.
    - heylefty 12y ago
      What are the moral implications of buying a Roomba from Amazon now? Same thing.
sliverstorm 12y ago
It's outlawed because, while it may be a victimless crime, it's not a victimless industry.
- heylefty 12y ago
  If each instance of the supposed crime is victimless, where do the supposed victims come from?
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    Collateral damage? If an 18 year old girl consents to prostitute herself, she isn't a victim of a "crime of prostitution". But if she was kidnapped as a child from her home country and traffiked to become a prostitute, she is considered a victim of the "industry of prostitution". None of the crimes against her were prostitution. But the crimes against her were committed in the name of prostitution.
    - heylefty 12y ago
      A victim of human trafficking is not a victim of prostitution. Nor is such victimization any sort of collateral damage, it is direct. Furthermore, the legalization of prostitution will reduce human trafficking (and therefore victimization by it) by providing a safer and higher quality alternative in any and all cases.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Well, criminalizing the victims surely helps /s
- yxhuvud 12y ago
  Other industries that have had a lot of victims have been made safe with workplace safety standards and unions. Why would that be a worse solution?
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    Maybe it can be done that way. My interpretation is that the outlawing of prostitution is an old law from long ago when we didn't have the precision for regulation and safety, and it hasn't been revisited yet. Perhaps due to people's personal ethical beliefs.
IanCal 12y ago
> Why is it that two people can't agree to exchange sex for money? It depends very heavily on the balance of power. You're talking about it like two people with equal bargaining power coming to a agreement they're both happy with. If that's the case then great, that's fine. I don't think that's universal though, or even particularly common. However we have a large number of rules to stop exploitative working environments across all industries, and something as physical and emotional as sex should have similar or stronger guarantees around. There should be ways of creating safe environments and regulations that allow prostitution, but saying that "prostitution is a victimless crime" seems very off. We can probably create situations where it is, at worst, no more objectionable than someone working an office job they hate. However, I hardly think that's a good explanation of the current situation in many countries.
- heylefty 12y ago
  There is never a balance of power between the employer and the employee. If there were, the employee wouldn't have to work for the employer, since he'd have just as much money and influence in the first place. Your argument condemns all employment.
  - saraid216 12y ago
    I'm okay with that condemnation. Do you have a real refutation?
    - heylefty 12y ago
      I thought it was obvious, but I'll spell it out for you. A worldview that would seek to ban all employment without proposing some alternative method of partitioning the world's limited resources is nonsensical.
  - IanCal 12y ago
    > If there were, the employee wouldn't have to work for the employer, since he'd have just as much money and influence in the first place. So the employer needs no employees? > Your argument condemns all employment. Only exploitative employment.
IgorPartola 12y ago
> You can't legislate morals into existence Oh, but you can and it has been done. The repeal of DOMA was the first time the US Supreme Court has actually addressed this issue and said that laws cannot be based solely on morality. However, as long as you have morality + something else, you can have laws that would criminalize prostitution. I am mostly with you on this issue, but the details of all of this are much more complex than "let's just make it all legal".
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
btian 12y ago
Yeah, just like selling alcoholic beverages on Sunday morning is a victimless crime. I think governments can be pretty illogical at times.
- tluyben2 12y ago
  Not from the US; what does this refer to?
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    Many states regulate when you can buy alcohol in a store. See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law

tedks 12y ago

The world's oldest profession is farming. While harm reduction is a great thing, legalizing prostitution would have a hugely detrimental effect on the fight against human trafficking and the status of women in general. The idea that women's bodies can be commodified and sold to men is the foundation of patriarchy, and as long as prostitution exists we'll never have a free society. It's also laughable to say that prostitution is ever some fantasy rational economic exchange. Women are forced into prostitution, either by being literally enslaved, or by economics.

thaumasiotes 12y ago
> The world's oldest profession is farming. Where in the world did you get this idea? Farming postdates the human species. Prostitution predates it by a long, long way.
jrockway 12y ago
What about men that pay for sex with other men? The whole patriarchy dynamic is gone then.
- quantized 12y ago
  The patriarchy doesn't even provably exist. It's just a bogeyman feminists like to throw out when they have nothing of substance to say.
- baddox 12y ago
  Or women who pay for sex with men, or women who pay for sex with other women.
quantized 12y ago
Everyone's body and mind is commodified. That's what employment is. Prostitution is just one instance of it.
throwawayornot 12y ago
pretty sure folks were trading sex before agriculture...
- Mz 12y ago
  Other animals, including say monkeys and chimps, have also been shown to readily and willingly trade sex for material gain (usually food).
no_wave 12y ago
By putting restrictions on what women can use their bodies for, aren't you (we) claiming ownership over them?
lisper 12y ago
> legalizing prostitution would have a hugely detrimental effect on the fight against human trafficking That is just ridiculous. The fact that prostitution is illegal is the reason there is a trade in human sex slaves. Legalizing prostitution doesn't result in human sex-worker trafficking any more than legalizing professional sports results in athlete trafficking.
- rayiner 12y ago
  That's libertarian bullshit. Prostitution is regulated in Thailand, and there is a tremendous amount of human trafficking. Even in a legal market, it's cheaper to get the product for free.
  - kjksf 12y ago
    It seems like you're talking about straight up abductions and slavery, which is illegal regardless of status of prostitution. According to http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/thailand http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/thailand: "Trafficking victims in Thailand are found employed in maritime fishing, seafood processing, low-end garment production, and domestic work." By your logic Thailand should ban maritime fishing, seafood processing and domestic works.
  - briandh 12y ago
    Prostitution in Thailand is technically illegal and practically murky [1]. It does not support your assertion. [1] http://www.thailawforum.com/sex-crimes-in-thailand-part2.html http://www.thailawforum.com/sex-crimes-in-thailand-part2.htm...
  - lisper 12y ago
    Prostitution is NOT legal in Thailand, it's just that the law against it is not enforced. If you want an example of a country where prostitution is actually legal you have to look at the Netherlands, where there is very little if any human trafficking. Nevada is another example. (And, by the way, I'm not a libertarian.)
    - 12y ago
throwawayornot 12y ago
we are all of us "forced into [call it] prostitution, either by being literally enslaved, or by economics." choose your poison!
jedberg 12y ago
> Women are forced into prostitution, either by being literally enslaved, or by economics. But some women want to engage in that profession and can't due to (mostly male) lawmakers preventing them. So it really swings both ways. And further, prostitution isn't just women. It's mostly women, but not only women.
Mz 12y ago
The reality is that since women make, on average, 2/3 of what men make and most people are heterosexual, most sexually active women are sleeping with someone who makes quite a lot more money than they do. Because if you flip that around, it means men make on average 1.5 times what women make. For that and a very long list of other reasons, most women are de facto trading their bodies for money in some sense, to some degree, almost every time they have sex. So I have kind of a big problem with your idea that prostitution is per se some big moral problem here.
- bostik 12y ago
  I think your comment deserves more upvotes, and I gave mine. The fact that the comment above may make people uncomfortable is perhaps the best reason to prevent it from being buried. (For the record, and in case it makes a difference in interpretation: I am married.)
- heylefty 12y ago
  > The reality is that since women make, on average, 2/3 of what men make False. The actual reality is that, when adjusted for skill and seniority, women make just as much as men. This is one of the most malicious feminist lies out there, eclipsed only by the 1 in 3/4/5 rape lie.
- tedks 12y ago
  Yes, this is a critical issue at the core of feminist struggle. Read some Dworkin.
  - Mz 12y ago
    I don't see it that way. I have read quite a lot and thought quite a lot on the subject. But I don't imagine you really want me to give you my 2 cents worth since you seem to be coming from an (unfounded and rather disrespectful) assumption that I am ignorant. I mean, you could have asked had I read Dworkin rather than framing your remark like you are sure I haven't, which is kind of an insulting, dismissive thing to do. And, upon googling, gee, if you mean THIS Dworkin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin, then: no thanks. I happen to like men and sex, I worked hellaciously hard to get there and I am not interested in drinking deeply of her rage. Her apparent thesis -- that porn is linked to rape and violence against women -- flies in the face of statistics that internet porn apparently reduces incidence of rape and, from a quick skim of the Wikipedia page, I get the impression she was pretty angry and dissatisfied with life. I generally try to get my advice from bon vivants, not embittered cynics.
icebraining 12y ago
While harm reduction is a great thing, legalizing prostitution would have a hugely detrimental effect on the fight against human trafficking and the status of women in general. Based on what evidence are you claiming this? Women are forced into prostitution, either by being literally enslaved, or by economics. Sure. But they are enslaved whether prostitution is illegal or not. To claim that the criminalization solves that problem would be laughable; all it does it sweep it under the rug, by forcing prostitutes to hide and avoid help, with fear of being imprisoned. Here in Portugal we decriminalized all drug use. And you know what? It seems that when people can ask for help without fearing they'll end up behind bars, they actually do it more! If we want to end prostitution, we must attack the root of the problem, which you so well pointed out: the literal enslavement of women, and the economic situations that lead them to it. Criminalizing it solves nothing, it's just one more case of a policy that makes people feel good about themselves while they screw those they wanted to help.
SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
> legalizing prostitution would have a hugely detrimental effect on the fight against human trafficking The opposite is potentially true, because if it's decriminalized, it will also be regulated. Which means that everyone involved could be required to have their IDs on file, and could also require medical exams where doctors could ask whether they are there against their will. When it's underground, it's less visible, and therefore easier for human trafficking to go undetected. [1] Human trafficking is clearly not a victimless crime, and all attempts should be made to stop it, but keeping prostitution illegal doesn't help, and probably instead hurts, that cause. >Women are forced into prostitution, either by being literally enslaved, or by economics. "Forced" means they had no other options. You'd rather they or their families starved, then? Work on fixing the underlying economic realities that are "forcing" people into a profession against their will. Don't try to outlaw something that will continue exist no matter what laws are passed. It's as futile as the War on Drugs. [1] It's also worth noting that human trafficking doesn't always involve sex work. There was a case in Boulder, Colorado a few years back where people were lured to the US under false pretenses and they were forced to work in a chain of Thai restaurants without pay.
ameister14 12y ago
I disagree; perhaps the idea that women's bodies can be commodified and sold to men BY MEN is a foundation of patriarchy, but the simple sale of sexual physical services isn't. I can sell you my labor, the product of my labor, or actions I can take upon your body (massage, for example). Why is sex different? I'm not talking operations-wise, I'm saying that excluding the slavery and pimping, what exactly is inherently wrong with the act itself? What separates sexual activity from other activity as something that 'is the foundation of the patriarchy?'
- makomk 12y ago
  Not only that, the whole argument that somehow "women's bodies [are] commodified and sold to men" when they have sex in exchange for money is ridiculously objectifying. It completely ignores the actions, desires and views of the women involved in the trade and reduces them to passive objects that are bought and sold. It's not the industry that's doing this, or their clients, or even the patriarchy - it's feminist activists that claim to be fighting the objectification of women.
baddox 12y ago
> legalizing prostitution would have a hugely detrimental effect on the fight against human trafficking and the status of women in general. Why? There's no need to traffic humans for prostitution if prostitution is legal. > The idea that women's bodies can be commodified and sold to men is the foundation of patriarchy What about the idea that men can pass laws forbidding women to do certain things with their own bodies? If a woman can choose to have an abortion, why can't she choose to have sex for money?
- IanCal 12y ago
  > Why? There's no need to traffic humans for prostitution if prostitution is legal. By this logic, there should be nobody brought to a country to do a job legal in that country. Are you happy making that equivalent claim, or changing your view given a counter example?
  - baddox 12y ago
    > By this logic, there should be nobody brought to a country to do a job legal in that country. Isn't that the case? Presumably humans that are trafficked for forced labor are paid below minimum wage and exposed to bad working conditions that are illegal.
    - IanCal 12y ago
      I'm not sure what you're arguing here. You said that there wouldn't be anyone trafficked for prostitution if it was legal, but humans are trafficked to work in fields like construction.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Why? There's no need to traffic humans for prostitution if prostitution is legal. There'd almost certainly be reduced demand to traffic humans for prostitution if it was legal but trafficking humans was not, compared to the situation where both are illegal, but that's not the same as no demand.
jusben1369 12y ago
I find prostitution to be a very sad thing. I believe that many women are forced into it. Either overtly, by physically violent boyfriends/pimps who threaten to beat them, or more subtly by being raised in an environment with few options and/or becoming addicted to drugs. I would like for it to be non existent but it's pretty apparent that it's always going to be part of our society for the foreseeable future. I therefore want it legalized and regulated. The majority of the problems around prostitution are because it's run by criminal elements and not the State. Do you want to ensure basic physical protections for prostitutes? Create well managed brothels where they are safe. Next step up. Want to ensure they have reasonable health and nutrition? Pull them out of the shadows and let brothel's or the state offer benefits and look after their ladies around nutrition, rehab, keeping more of what they earn (economic interests align!) Final step - want to offer them a way out? It's hard when they're hiding in the shadows. Decriminalize it and you can target the industry with new skills/training/work opps etc. If you're against prostitution I think the worse thing you can do is want it outlawed.
- tedks 12y ago
  What makes you think that legalization will offer any of that? It's a little absurd how when it comes to things like taxis or hotels or the Internet infrastructure regulation is a horrible thing that does nothing but cause pain, but when men want to rape women (because that is what it is, to have sex with someone who is forced into it, that is rape, that is what prostitution is), all of a sudden regulation becomes a silver bullet. I'm for harm reduction, but I'm also against normalizing rape, and teaching generations of men that rape is an okay, totally acceptable, shiny and regulated commodity. That's not acceptable for any sane, moral human.
  - ZeroGravitas 12y ago
    Making something illegal is regulation. I'm sure there are hardcore libertarians who think that all you need to do is legalise it and market forces will take care of everything else. The situation is so messed up currently that that would almost certainly be an improvement. But I'd be happy to see the same level of regulation we see for selling cigarettes, nightclubs, places that serve food, dangerous factories etc. because I'm pro sane levels of regulation for many things. Also, as covered elsewhere in the thread if you think doing something in exchange for money is "force" then you've written off most of modern society.
hnriot 12y ago
This is total crap. You can't possibly say that women are forced in prostitution. For some it's a choice between making $x or making $100x, that's not enslaving, but just a personal choice by the woman. "as prostitution exists we'll never have a free society." The whole idea of a free society is total bullshit anyway. While I totally agree with you that human trafficking is despicable, it doesn't change the equation, if the end product is legally sold (or rented by the hour more accurately) or illegally doesn't change the demand or the supply. We will never have a free society because it's an impossibility, humans are not evolved enough, nor are we devoid of vices like greed. A free society of automatons maybe, but not humans. And as for your comment about farming, that's also wrong. Farming is a relatively recent profession, no older than 10k years. You think women didn't exchange protein for sex before that? If you do then you're dead wrong.
yxhuvud 12y ago
[citation needed] Exactly how would it affect the fight against any of those? Why would trafficking in sex workers be more exposed to trafficking than any other kind of slavery, except because it is illegal in most places? If legal, why would trafficking be able to compete with legal alternatives? As for the idea of selling bodies, why are you equalizing the women with their bodies and thereby making them into objects instead of seeing them as people that perform services? I thought the whole point of feminism was to see and treat women as agents with the same self determination as men have - so why are you reducing sex workers to simply their body and gender? And yes, some women are forced into prostitution. But some are not - some choose it because they like it and some choose it because it is a lot better than any of their available alternatives. Why do you think that it is ok to deemancipate those women?

DoubleMalt 12y ago

There is the troubling fact that many prostitutes are not in the business of their own free will. Of course if you analyze the incentives and option of everybody involved, it is clear that the criminalization of it compounds the problem. What puzzles me immensely is that in progressive countries like Sweden the push against prostitution is almost worse (although with the angle that the buyers are criminalized), and that feminist women don't see that decriminalization would have a mostly empowering fact for the prostitutes (who are mostly female). I can see that it is an icky subject for many and how people who fight against the objectification of women might fall in the trap of thinking that selling your time for a fee might contribute to that. However pimping out my brain for trying to make people spend their money on ingame purchases is way ickier to me.

quantized 12y ago
> many prostitutes are not in the business of their own free will How many? What percentage? Citation needed. Weasel words will get you nowhere.
- DoubleMalt 12y ago
  You are right, I should not have used many but the nondescript "some". However my argument that this problem would be lessened by decriminalization does not depend on a specific percentage.
bostik 12y ago
> There is the troubling fact that many prostitutes are not in the business of their own free will. Others have already waved the wikipedia card, but I feel that there is one aspect which deserves clarification. Above all, we should divide prostitutes into two groups: sex workers (who have, for whatever reason, chosen the profession); and the victims of human trafficking. In my mind, trafficking is no different from slavery. It's a vile thing. A sex worker, on the other hand, can choose to have a pimp -- but one is not required. I have absolutely no problem with law enforcement cracking down on trafficking. Those people are not selling their services out of their own will. But trying to mandate morality by law makes my hair stand out. I happen to believe that indiscriminately cracking down on all forms of prostitution is simply a waste of resources. The similarity between aggressive pro-lifers (who want to impose their own views on how women can use their bodies) and anti-prostitution zealots is not that big. Control in the name of morality ... or just in the name of their personal delusion. Makes little practical difference.

rayiner 12y ago

> Prostitution is a victimless crime. Only in the same sense as selling organs or babies (or conspiring to fix prices) is a victimless crime. There are instances where society legitimately chooses to make certain consensual interactions illegal because of the implications that conduct has for everyone else. As 'tedks points out below, turning sex into a commodity has real implications for the status of women in society as a whole. Moreover, as with selling organs or selling babies, there's a strong belief that such transactions are usually only technically voluntary, and are driven by economic duress more than anything else.

quantized 12y ago
All employment is driven by economic duress. Few would work if they didn't have to.
- olefoo 12y ago
  Therefore; work is evil and it is morally imperative that we create a society where it is unnecessary. Money is an artifact of scarcity. From each according their desires, to each according to an equitable resource distribution heuristic prioritised on a Maslovian basis. Let the machines labor so that humanity may be free. facetiousness factor: 0.5 < n < 0.95
- hnriot 12y ago
  Once we have androids for this task I wonder what will happen to the sex industry. What are the moral implications of buying a female android companion in the 2045 edition of Amazon.com
  - quantized 12y ago
    What are the moral implications of buying a Roomba now? Same difference.
  - heylefty 12y ago
    What are the moral implications of buying a Roomba from Amazon now? Same thing.

sliverstorm 12y ago

It's outlawed because, while it may be a victimless crime, it's not a victimless industry.

heylefty 12y ago
If each instance of the supposed crime is victimless, where do the supposed victims come from?
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Collateral damage? If an 18 year old girl consents to prostitute herself, she isn't a victim of a "crime of prostitution". But if she was kidnapped as a child from her home country and traffiked to become a prostitute, she is considered a victim of the "industry of prostitution". None of the crimes against her were prostitution. But the crimes against her were committed in the name of prostitution.
  - heylefty 12y ago
    A victim of human trafficking is not a victim of prostitution. Nor is such victimization any sort of collateral damage, it is direct. Furthermore, the legalization of prostitution will reduce human trafficking (and therefore victimization by it) by providing a safer and higher quality alternative in any and all cases.
icebraining 12y ago
Well, criminalizing the victims surely helps /s
yxhuvud 12y ago
Other industries that have had a lot of victims have been made safe with workplace safety standards and unions. Why would that be a worse solution?
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Maybe it can be done that way. My interpretation is that the outlawing of prostitution is an old law from long ago when we didn't have the precision for regulation and safety, and it hasn't been revisited yet. Perhaps due to people's personal ethical beliefs.

IanCal 12y ago

> Why is it that two people can't agree to exchange sex for money? It depends very heavily on the balance of power. You're talking about it like two people with equal bargaining power coming to a agreement they're both happy with. If that's the case then great, that's fine. I don't think that's universal though, or even particularly common. However we have a large number of rules to stop exploitative working environments across all industries, and something as physical and emotional as sex should have similar or stronger guarantees around. There should be ways of creating safe environments and regulations that allow prostitution, but saying that "prostitution is a victimless crime" seems very off. We can probably create situations where it is, at worst, no more objectionable than someone working an office job they hate. However, I hardly think that's a good explanation of the current situation in many countries.

heylefty 12y ago
There is never a balance of power between the employer and the employee. If there were, the employee wouldn't have to work for the employer, since he'd have just as much money and influence in the first place. Your argument condemns all employment.
- saraid216 12y ago
  I'm okay with that condemnation. Do you have a real refutation?
  - heylefty 12y ago
    I thought it was obvious, but I'll spell it out for you. A worldview that would seek to ban all employment without proposing some alternative method of partitioning the world's limited resources is nonsensical.
- IanCal 12y ago
  > If there were, the employee wouldn't have to work for the employer, since he'd have just as much money and influence in the first place. So the employer needs no employees? > Your argument condemns all employment. Only exploitative employment.

IgorPartola 12y ago

> You can't legislate morals into existence Oh, but you can and it has been done. The repeal of DOMA was the first time the US Supreme Court has actually addressed this issue and said that laws cannot be based solely on morality. However, as long as you have morality + something else, you can have laws that would criminalize prostitution. I am mostly with you on this issue, but the details of all of this are much more complex than "let's just make it all legal".

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

btian 12y ago

Yeah, just like selling alcoholic beverages on Sunday morning is a victimless crime. I think governments can be pretty illogical at times.

tluyben2 12y ago
Not from the US; what does this refer to?
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  Many states regulate when you can buy alcohol in a store. See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law