9 ms·

Do you support prohibition for prostitution? What about for illegal pornography? I find that even those against prohibition support it for things they persona

Do you support prohibition for prostitution? What about for illegal pornography? I find that even those against prohibition support it for things they personally see as really really wrong. Even many of those who don't use drugs don't see pot as a major problem, only as something they don't want. And as such they don't support prohibition of it. But pick something that they do outright hate, and they will support prohibition regardless of how ineffective it may be.

bognition 12y ago
Woah, dude chill out. First of all prohibition of prostitution has been shown to create the same problems as prohibition of alcohol and drugs. Its wrongly assigns the crime to the people at the bottom of the hierarchy. Its perfectly reasonable to conceive of a system of prostitution where everything is consensual and everyone is protected, which is what we have for alcohol and what people are fighting for with drugs. Let people do what they want as long as they aren't harming other people. Child porn cannot exist under these terms. Science has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that children cannot give informed consent and therefore cannot participate in the creation of pornography consensually. So to compare prohibition of alcohol, drugs, or prostitution to prohibition of child pornography doesn't hold up.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  >Let people do what they want as long as they aren't harming other people. Take alcohol. Ideally it doesn't directly cause harm to another individual. Now remind me again how many people are killed by drunk drivers each year? Now, is this alcohols fault? Or is it the drunk driver's fault? Or is it both? Or some fourth option? Well we've now reached a point where 'harming other people' is quite a subjective standard when determining what is causing that harm and thus what can be prohibited. >Science has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that children cannot give informed consent Links? Of the limited amount of science concerning informed consent that I've read (dealing with mentally disabled individuals ability to give informed consent), most teens would easily meet the standards set for a mentally disabled adult. But we can avoid that whole moral quagmire by instead focusing on outlawed images that look like children but do not involve any children in their production (such as photorealistic CGI). Even when no one is harmed in making, would you still be for prohibition? And swinging back round to prostitution, what about those who are financially coerced into it? Fully informed consent requires that one be both of age and not coerced. Thus someone who is financially coerced is incapable of consenting, which means that the parallels and comparisons made here do stick. Finally, even if we say that the prohibition of A cannot be compared to prohibition of B, if the original point being made was that prohibition of anything fails, then it fails regardless if it is A or B being prohibited.
  - detcader 12y ago
    >what about those who are financially coerced into it? You will never get a reply to this point. I've read feminists and non-feminists assert this reality, as you have, for about a year now and never come across an honest engagement with it. One has to begin to suspect unwillingness over inability.
    - Frondo 12y ago
      What kind of reply to that point are you looking for? Not asking to nitpick or anything, but I'm curious what kind of engagement you'd like to see.
      - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
        I only see three possibilities. 1. Financial coercion for sex isn't like financial coercion for labor (which needs to be accompanied by a reasonable argument as to why). 2. Financial coercion for sex is like financial coercion for labor, and they are both done without consent (admitting that most labor is a form of slavery, albeit it not as bad as what people generally think of). 3. Financial coercion for sex is like financial coercion for labor, and as such financial coercion for sex still allows consent, which then leads to the conclusion that coercion (of at least some forms) is not sufficient for stating consent cannot be given. 2 can outright ignored because almost anyone making that argument will never actually live by it and are merely using it as an escape. So either an argument for 1 or to admit the conclusion of 3.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > 2 can outright ignored because almost anyone making that argument will never actually live by it and are merely using it as an escape. Plenty of socialists seek fundamental reforms of the economic system to mitigate, to the extent possible, and to eliminate if possible, the economic coercion for labor generally, whether the labor involves sex or not, so I don't see how you can say that 2 is always just an escape when it comes to sex work. That position on labor in general is one of the major positions in economic politics in the world.
jordigh 12y ago
> Do you support prohibition for prostitution? I support the Swedish model. The prostitute is not the criminal; the pimp and the john are. It has demonstrably reduced human trafficking and has helped many women and some men get out of prostitution. http://www.government.se/sb/d/13420/a/151488 http://www.government.se/sb/d/13420/a/151488
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  So we should make selling drugs legal, but keep the use of them illegal? That way cartels would still be undercut, but we could still lower drug use. I wonder if that would actually work.
  - lazyant 12y ago
    that's (Edit: exactly he opposite) of how it is in several European countries (consuming/possession of some drugs / quantities is legal, it's illegal to sell)
    - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
      That's opposite what I was suggesting. The drug dealers can legally sell drugs, the users get in trouble for buying drugs. Just like the prostitutes can legally sell sex, but the johns get in trouble for buying sex.
      - freehunter 12y ago
        I think it is the opposite of what you were saying. It's illegal for drug dealers to sell drugs (the pimp). It's illegal to grow or make drugs (the trafficker). It's not illegal to consume drugs (as the drug user is the prostitute or the perceived "victim" of the crime). In this case there is no john. Addiction is a mental illness, so the drug user is the victim just like the prostitute would be.
        Lawtonfogle 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
duaneb 12y ago
It's also a matter of actually asking whether prohibition helps. Does it help prostitutes? Not in the least. I'm all in favor of prohibiting theft, murder, etc., but drugs are a little ludicrous. It's obviously unenforceable, and a government will bankrupt itself trying.
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  Prohibiting theft works, but prohibiting the sale of stolen goods has largely failed. An even worse track record is the prohibition of copyright violations. A prohibition on suicide may be an interesting case to look into. To me, it seems that prohibition has some complex equation to determine if it will or will not fail. This becomes even more complicate when you consider the option to prohibit with only fines, at which point it is nearing becoming a sin tax instead.
fweespeech 12y ago
You are comparing apples to oranges. There is a difference between "prohibition of a substance" and "prohibition of an activity that exploits human beings". The first is purely voluntary [e.g. both parties desire to engage in the transaction without coercion] while the second is generally due to coercion of some kind. Addiction isn't "coercion" in this sense when you are the one that voluntary took the substance with knowledge of the risks in the first place. The only truly "illegal" [as in widely agreed upon across many countries] prostitution and pornography is that of children so I assume that is what you were getting at. I don't think many people here are really in favor of criminalization of any transaction between consenting adults [as long as no coercion is involved].
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  >You are comparing apples to oranges. There is a difference between "prohibition of a substance" and "prohibition of an activity that exploits human beings". Is there that big of a difference between prohibition of drugs and prohibition of prostitution? Also, where does prohibition of a substance produced by an activity that exploits human beings fall? >Addiction isn't "coercion" in this sense when you are the one that voluntary took the substance with knowledge of the risks in the first place. I wonder how many of those addicted fully understood the risks? Especially if they first became addicted while underage and thus unable to partake voluntarily. As to what type of prostitution I'm talking about, I'm including adults because there are many places it is still illegal. >as long as no coercion is involved What counts as coercion? Does "If I don't have sex with this John, my children won't eat tonight" count? (Of course, one may also ask the same for other jobs; is "If I don't produce garments for the next 12 hours, my children won't eat tonight," slavery?)
  - fweespeech 12y ago
    > Also, where does prohibition of a substance produced by an activity that exploits human beings fall? It isn't inherent to the substance that people were exploited. Labor laws cover that. You are using arguments that equally apply to sweatshops. No one goes around arguing we have to prohibit shoes because of sweat shops. > I wonder how many of those addicted fully understood the risks? If they are an adult and didn't understand the risks beforehand, that is on them. For the most part, you can't really protect adults from their own choices. It isn't practical [or frankly] possible. They just become criminals as prohibition has shown. Criminals who only break the law in regards to themselves are going to do it anyway. You can't magically protect people from risk when its clear people will do it regardless of the legality. Its commonly understood addictive substances are risky. We aren't talking about some guy in China sneaking a harmful substance into baby formula. > Of course, one may also ask the same for other jobs; is "If I don't produce garments for the next 12 hours, my children won't eat tonight," slavery? That is kind of my point. Situations like you describe are solved best by other solutions. [e.g. Welfare so people aren't that level of desperate]
jjulius 12y ago
I support the legalization of prostitution. If someone makes a conscious decision about what they would like to do with their own body, and that includes having sex in exchange for money, then that is their prerogative and they should have the opportunity to do so via a well-regulated "system" of sorts. "Illegal pornography" is too general a term for this type of discussion. Sodomy is still illegal in many places throughout the world, including fourteen states in the US as of April of last year, but is something that can be a very enjoyable experience for everyone involved. If the "illegal" pornography involves individuals who are capable of making a conscious choice about the acts they engage in, then yes, it should be legal. If the "illegal" pornography involves coercion and/or rape of anyone, or animal, involved, then no, it should remain illegal.
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  >If the "illegal" pornography involves individuals who are capable of making a conscious choice about the acts they engage in, then yes, it should be legal. If the "illegal" pornography involves coercion and/or rape of anyone, or animal, involved, then no, it should remain illegal. Ignoring for the moment that I can kill and eat an animal for my own pleasure... we aren't focusing on if it should be prohibited, but if prohibition of it would work. People will say that prohibition of drugs is stupid because prohibition fails. I'm interested in if this argument, not the argument that drugs shouldn't be prohibited for any other reasons, holds up. Illegal porn, at least of the digital variety, is easier to produce and trivial to copy compared to drugs. If prohibition of drugs is doomed to failure irrelevant of one's stance on their morality, then should not the same be true of illegal porn? As for what I mean by illegal porn, pick whatever you think should be made illegal for whatever moral reasons you want. If you want to ban midgets because Shiva told you so; it doesn't much matter why because my point is talking about the argument that prohibition inherently fails regardless of the moral judgments upon what is being prohibited.
  - lfuller 12y ago
    The two cannot be compared. Illegal porn (child porn, rape, etc.) is illegal because of a lack of consent and potential for assault, psychological scarring, etc. of the victim. Drugs are illegal in an attempt to "protect" consenting adults from themselves and have no victim aside from the users themselves. Here's the same hypothetical that you're proposing from another angle: "If banning whistleblowing is doomed to failure irrelevant of one's stance on its morality, then should not the same be true of war crimes?"
Igglyboo 12y ago
What is illegal pornography? Child Porn? I don't think it's fair to compare child porn, which is almost universally considered immoral, to drug use or prostitution, which is a very grey area of morality.
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  Well, there is also snuff, and then you have gore which is legal and acceptable even though I don't see big differences from stuff involving children, and then you have drawings/cgi that are illegal in many locations but not all, and then you have stuff involving animals, and then you have the underage but almost adult sexting, and then you have things like porn involving ivory or leather (if using an animal is bad, why is using part of its carcass acceptable). But beyond all that, the morals of the issue change over time and do not factor into an argument of feasibility (even things that are 'almost universally immoral' have a very large market, one large enough that it makes me question the 'almost universal' part of the sentiment).
ecdavis 12y ago
You are making an important point but doing so in a confusing manner. The argument was made that prohibition is inherently ineffective. Some people who make this argument may nonetheless support prohibition in some cases. In fact, whether prohibition works or not is intrinsically tied to the general moral views of society at large. When over 1/3rd of the U.S. population has tried marijuana - including a former President - it's really no surprise that prohibition of marijuana is ineffective. Prohibition is effective at controlling deviant behavior. It's a strange thing. It works solely to punish behaviors that most people wouldn't engage in or don't approve of anyway anyway. Once society's stance changes on those behaviors, the punishment comes to be seen as unjust and the law as unnecessary.
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  >You are making an important point but doing so in a confusing manner. I'm going to plead drugs (of the legal/prescribed nature) and sleep deprivation due to a recent illness. Reading back in a few of my post I think I was losing sight of my main point. >Prohibition is effective at controlling deviant behavior. Is it? Prohibition on Kinder Eggs seems to have worked because there isn't much of a market for them. But prohibition on prostitution has not worked, even though I don't think the majority would openly support it. Prohibition on things more generally agreed outright wrong doesn't work as long as there is a demand for them. Kinder Eggs have no demand, so prohibition in general worked. But things that have a demand that cannot easily be fulfilled by other goods/services seem unable to effectively be prohibited.

bognition 12y ago

Woah, dude chill out. First of all prohibition of prostitution has been shown to create the same problems as prohibition of alcohol and drugs. Its wrongly assigns the crime to the people at the bottom of the hierarchy. Its perfectly reasonable to conceive of a system of prostitution where everything is consensual and everyone is protected, which is what we have for alcohol and what people are fighting for with drugs. Let people do what they want as long as they aren't harming other people. Child porn cannot exist under these terms. Science has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that children cannot give informed consent and therefore cannot participate in the creation of pornography consensually. So to compare prohibition of alcohol, drugs, or prostitution to prohibition of child pornography doesn't hold up.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Lawtonfogle 12y ago
>Let people do what they want as long as they aren't harming other people. Take alcohol. Ideally it doesn't directly cause harm to another individual. Now remind me again how many people are killed by drunk drivers each year? Now, is this alcohols fault? Or is it the drunk driver's fault? Or is it both? Or some fourth option? Well we've now reached a point where 'harming other people' is quite a subjective standard when determining what is causing that harm and thus what can be prohibited. >Science has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that children cannot give informed consent Links? Of the limited amount of science concerning informed consent that I've read (dealing with mentally disabled individuals ability to give informed consent), most teens would easily meet the standards set for a mentally disabled adult. But we can avoid that whole moral quagmire by instead focusing on outlawed images that look like children but do not involve any children in their production (such as photorealistic CGI). Even when no one is harmed in making, would you still be for prohibition? And swinging back round to prostitution, what about those who are financially coerced into it? Fully informed consent requires that one be both of age and not coerced. Thus someone who is financially coerced is incapable of consenting, which means that the parallels and comparisons made here do stick. Finally, even if we say that the prohibition of A cannot be compared to prohibition of B, if the original point being made was that prohibition of anything fails, then it fails regardless if it is A or B being prohibited.
- detcader 12y ago
  >what about those who are financially coerced into it? You will never get a reply to this point. I've read feminists and non-feminists assert this reality, as you have, for about a year now and never come across an honest engagement with it. One has to begin to suspect unwillingness over inability.
  - Frondo 12y ago
    What kind of reply to that point are you looking for? Not asking to nitpick or anything, but I'm curious what kind of engagement you'd like to see.
    - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
      I only see three possibilities. 1. Financial coercion for sex isn't like financial coercion for labor (which needs to be accompanied by a reasonable argument as to why). 2. Financial coercion for sex is like financial coercion for labor, and they are both done without consent (admitting that most labor is a form of slavery, albeit it not as bad as what people generally think of). 3. Financial coercion for sex is like financial coercion for labor, and as such financial coercion for sex still allows consent, which then leads to the conclusion that coercion (of at least some forms) is not sufficient for stating consent cannot be given. 2 can outright ignored because almost anyone making that argument will never actually live by it and are merely using it as an escape. So either an argument for 1 or to admit the conclusion of 3.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > 2 can outright ignored because almost anyone making that argument will never actually live by it and are merely using it as an escape. Plenty of socialists seek fundamental reforms of the economic system to mitigate, to the extent possible, and to eliminate if possible, the economic coercion for labor generally, whether the labor involves sex or not, so I don't see how you can say that 2 is always just an escape when it comes to sex work. That position on labor in general is one of the major positions in economic politics in the world.

jordigh 12y ago

> Do you support prohibition for prostitution? I support the Swedish model. The prostitute is not the criminal; the pimp and the john are. It has demonstrably reduced human trafficking and has helped many women and some men get out of prostitution. http://www.government.se/sb/d/13420/a/151488 http://www.government.se/sb/d/13420/a/151488

Lawtonfogle 12y ago
So we should make selling drugs legal, but keep the use of them illegal? That way cartels would still be undercut, but we could still lower drug use. I wonder if that would actually work.
- lazyant 12y ago
  that's (Edit: exactly he opposite) of how it is in several European countries (consuming/possession of some drugs / quantities is legal, it's illegal to sell)
  - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
    That's opposite what I was suggesting. The drug dealers can legally sell drugs, the users get in trouble for buying drugs. Just like the prostitutes can legally sell sex, but the johns get in trouble for buying sex.
    - freehunter 12y ago
      I think it is the opposite of what you were saying. It's illegal for drug dealers to sell drugs (the pimp). It's illegal to grow or make drugs (the trafficker). It's not illegal to consume drugs (as the drug user is the prostitute or the perceived "victim" of the crime). In this case there is no john. Addiction is a mental illness, so the drug user is the victim just like the prostitute would be.
      - Lawtonfogle 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

duaneb 12y ago

It's also a matter of actually asking whether prohibition helps. Does it help prostitutes? Not in the least. I'm all in favor of prohibiting theft, murder, etc., but drugs are a little ludicrous. It's obviously unenforceable, and a government will bankrupt itself trying.

Lawtonfogle 12y ago
Prohibiting theft works, but prohibiting the sale of stolen goods has largely failed. An even worse track record is the prohibition of copyright violations. A prohibition on suicide may be an interesting case to look into. To me, it seems that prohibition has some complex equation to determine if it will or will not fail. This becomes even more complicate when you consider the option to prohibit with only fines, at which point it is nearing becoming a sin tax instead.

fweespeech 12y ago

You are comparing apples to oranges. There is a difference between "prohibition of a substance" and "prohibition of an activity that exploits human beings". The first is purely voluntary [e.g. both parties desire to engage in the transaction without coercion] while the second is generally due to coercion of some kind. Addiction isn't "coercion" in this sense when you are the one that voluntary took the substance with knowledge of the risks in the first place. The only truly "illegal" [as in widely agreed upon across many countries] prostitution and pornography is that of children so I assume that is what you were getting at. I don't think many people here are really in favor of criminalization of any transaction between consenting adults [as long as no coercion is involved].

Lawtonfogle 12y ago
>You are comparing apples to oranges. There is a difference between "prohibition of a substance" and "prohibition of an activity that exploits human beings". Is there that big of a difference between prohibition of drugs and prohibition of prostitution? Also, where does prohibition of a substance produced by an activity that exploits human beings fall? >Addiction isn't "coercion" in this sense when you are the one that voluntary took the substance with knowledge of the risks in the first place. I wonder how many of those addicted fully understood the risks? Especially if they first became addicted while underage and thus unable to partake voluntarily. As to what type of prostitution I'm talking about, I'm including adults because there are many places it is still illegal. >as long as no coercion is involved What counts as coercion? Does "If I don't have sex with this John, my children won't eat tonight" count? (Of course, one may also ask the same for other jobs; is "If I don't produce garments for the next 12 hours, my children won't eat tonight," slavery?)
- fweespeech 12y ago
  > Also, where does prohibition of a substance produced by an activity that exploits human beings fall? It isn't inherent to the substance that people were exploited. Labor laws cover that. You are using arguments that equally apply to sweatshops. No one goes around arguing we have to prohibit shoes because of sweat shops. > I wonder how many of those addicted fully understood the risks? If they are an adult and didn't understand the risks beforehand, that is on them. For the most part, you can't really protect adults from their own choices. It isn't practical [or frankly] possible. They just become criminals as prohibition has shown. Criminals who only break the law in regards to themselves are going to do it anyway. You can't magically protect people from risk when its clear people will do it regardless of the legality. Its commonly understood addictive substances are risky. We aren't talking about some guy in China sneaking a harmful substance into baby formula. > Of course, one may also ask the same for other jobs; is "If I don't produce garments for the next 12 hours, my children won't eat tonight," slavery? That is kind of my point. Situations like you describe are solved best by other solutions. [e.g. Welfare so people aren't that level of desperate]

jjulius 12y ago

I support the legalization of prostitution. If someone makes a conscious decision about what they would like to do with their own body, and that includes having sex in exchange for money, then that is their prerogative and they should have the opportunity to do so via a well-regulated "system" of sorts. "Illegal pornography" is too general a term for this type of discussion. Sodomy is still illegal in many places throughout the world, including fourteen states in the US as of April of last year, but is something that can be a very enjoyable experience for everyone involved. If the "illegal" pornography involves individuals who are capable of making a conscious choice about the acts they engage in, then yes, it should be legal. If the "illegal" pornography involves coercion and/or rape of anyone, or animal, involved, then no, it should remain illegal.

Lawtonfogle 12y ago
>If the "illegal" pornography involves individuals who are capable of making a conscious choice about the acts they engage in, then yes, it should be legal. If the "illegal" pornography involves coercion and/or rape of anyone, or animal, involved, then no, it should remain illegal. Ignoring for the moment that I can kill and eat an animal for my own pleasure... we aren't focusing on if it should be prohibited, but if prohibition of it would work. People will say that prohibition of drugs is stupid because prohibition fails. I'm interested in if this argument, not the argument that drugs shouldn't be prohibited for any other reasons, holds up. Illegal porn, at least of the digital variety, is easier to produce and trivial to copy compared to drugs. If prohibition of drugs is doomed to failure irrelevant of one's stance on their morality, then should not the same be true of illegal porn? As for what I mean by illegal porn, pick whatever you think should be made illegal for whatever moral reasons you want. If you want to ban midgets because Shiva told you so; it doesn't much matter why because my point is talking about the argument that prohibition inherently fails regardless of the moral judgments upon what is being prohibited.
- lfuller 12y ago
  The two cannot be compared. Illegal porn (child porn, rape, etc.) is illegal because of a lack of consent and potential for assault, psychological scarring, etc. of the victim. Drugs are illegal in an attempt to "protect" consenting adults from themselves and have no victim aside from the users themselves. Here's the same hypothetical that you're proposing from another angle: "If banning whistleblowing is doomed to failure irrelevant of one's stance on its morality, then should not the same be true of war crimes?"

Igglyboo 12y ago

What is illegal pornography? Child Porn? I don't think it's fair to compare child porn, which is almost universally considered immoral, to drug use or prostitution, which is a very grey area of morality.

Lawtonfogle 12y ago
Well, there is also snuff, and then you have gore which is legal and acceptable even though I don't see big differences from stuff involving children, and then you have drawings/cgi that are illegal in many locations but not all, and then you have stuff involving animals, and then you have the underage but almost adult sexting, and then you have things like porn involving ivory or leather (if using an animal is bad, why is using part of its carcass acceptable). But beyond all that, the morals of the issue change over time and do not factor into an argument of feasibility (even things that are 'almost universally immoral' have a very large market, one large enough that it makes me question the 'almost universal' part of the sentiment).

ecdavis 12y ago

You are making an important point but doing so in a confusing manner. The argument was made that prohibition is inherently ineffective. Some people who make this argument may nonetheless support prohibition in some cases. In fact, whether prohibition works or not is intrinsically tied to the general moral views of society at large. When over 1/3rd of the U.S. population has tried marijuana - including a former President - it's really no surprise that prohibition of marijuana is ineffective. Prohibition is effective at controlling deviant behavior. It's a strange thing. It works solely to punish behaviors that most people wouldn't engage in or don't approve of anyway anyway. Once society's stance changes on those behaviors, the punishment comes to be seen as unjust and the law as unnecessary.

Lawtonfogle 12y ago
>You are making an important point but doing so in a confusing manner. I'm going to plead drugs (of the legal/prescribed nature) and sleep deprivation due to a recent illness. Reading back in a few of my post I think I was losing sight of my main point. >Prohibition is effective at controlling deviant behavior. Is it? Prohibition on Kinder Eggs seems to have worked because there isn't much of a market for them. But prohibition on prostitution has not worked, even though I don't think the majority would openly support it. Prohibition on things more generally agreed outright wrong doesn't work as long as there is a demand for them. Kinder Eggs have no demand, so prohibition in general worked. But things that have a demand that cannot easily be fulfilled by other goods/services seem unable to effectively be prohibited.