The Sex Industry and the Government

[Gmart]

I would agree that making something illegal will drive it underground and thus the actual numbers doing something will decrease.

However there is a freedom issue here. Consenting adults need to be respected, and to argue that they are injuring themselves or society is just rubbish, and is akin to saying that homosexuality is wrong and should be banned, because the willing participants are injuring themselves by doing it.

When homosexuality was legalised, no doubt the numbers of homosexual acts increased. Is this a bad thing? Surely it is NONE of my business what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes and that should be a basic! I am not gay and for me it is wrong, but that doesn-t mean it is ABSOLUTELY wrong, it is just wrong for me.

Similarly, the same goes for smoking. By Untethered's rationale smoking causes harm and so should be banned. However it should also be accepted that an individual in a free society can choose to do himself harm (ie smoke). To say that anyone should not have this freedom is to go towards a society which is NOT free, ie a Nanny State or Authoritarianism.

We should be aware that creating a perfect world through a set of laws will not occur. There are too many different people with different ideals and so we should instead empower the people and make sure they have the freedom to make themselves safe. As previously described.

 

[zion]

I would be perfectly happy with legalizing prostitution if it were only of the "sanitized" kind that happens only between people whose partners are OK with the transaction, where the sex involves condom use, where the sex worker themselves is adequately paid, participates of their own free will, and does not experience violence or abuse as a result of it.

I think that this kind of transaction is currently rare. I also think that it would be rare (just not quite so rare) if prostitution as a whole were legalized. Legalization, to me, opens the door to larger numbers of people being abused and infected.

I see a difference between prostitution and homosexuality. Prostitution is different because it usually affects third parties by breaking prior contracts or promises of fidelity with them. Consensual homosexual sex between two people whose other partners, if any exist, are OK with it, does not harm either the participants or society. Prostitution has recognizable and substantial adverse impacts on other people, damaging relationships, increasing divorces and hurting the children of those relationships.

Smoking lies between these two (homosexuality and prostitution). Someone does have the right to smoke if they wish. The government interest emerges when their smoking starts to impinge on other people who do not wish to inhale secondary smoke.

 

[Baboonking]

Thanks for the link Gmart, it was an interesting if very long read ; )

For me the most interesting aspect of this debate it which model (legalisation or criminilisation a la the swedish model) would best protect the safety of women.

From what I've read female 'sex workers' are on the receiving of an array of quite horrific violence. The extreme if rare end of it being serial killers but much more common are the array of mysoginists who find them an easy target for example, rapists, gang rapist, slashers, non consensual sadists etc

I found these links on the swedish experiment http://www.petraostergren.com/content/view/44/67/

http://www.petraostergren.com/content/view/44/67/


The impression I got from them is that whilst prostitution may have fallen the new laws made life much less safe for the remaining 'sex workers'.

Given that the danger arises not from the work itself but from the potential client; I can't see a good reason why with legalisation and intelligent regulation involving workers, communities and relevant expertise risks to the safety of 'sex workers' couldn't over time be entirely removed.

For example regulation could stipulate minimum security standards, in the form of security guards, cctv recording, pooling of data on violent offenders and the distribution of offender photographs to brothels, close co-operation with police etc

Naturally there are many ways to regulate badly and perhaps a badly regulated legalisation could be no better than the current semi-criminalised system we have now.

The differnence is in a legalised industry problems could be worked through and changes made.

 

[xenon]

Fact is this is very akin to drugs trade. Doesn't really matter in our society how you view it morally. Peple will do what ever. If as the state you want to minimise certain activities you have limited mechanisisms to do so. Penalise prostitution wtih such punative measures, only the utterly desperate will do it. Which in many cases they're the ones doing it anyway. Or significantly improve society in some way so there's not the need. Either way you'll still have peple selling sex.

The other way is to deal with the situation as it is and mittigate the worst effects, whilst trying to minimise the cause. You'll still have street hookers in that scenario as well. Do you take an authoritarian aproach to dealing with it or a utilitarian one. Personally I favour the latter, as the former will bring the same logic to so many other areas of ledgislation it would be quite a grim society to live in.

 

[fela fan]

All animals enjoy physical gratification. Humans also mental gratification. Drugs and sex provide the means to such feelings.

Morality and society may tell us how to think, what to think, how to be, but we can find out ourselves our own approach to things, without it being decided what we should do. Sex is never going to go away, and so should be something that is more highly praised, since so many people like getting it. Prostitution has ugly connotations in britain, and violence goes with it.

If sex was an open topic for discussion, like any other activity, 'prostitution' as a business would probably not warrant any debate.

If people look at sex between people, even if money changes hands as often as not, as an ordinary animal action there'd be so much less outcry about this whole sex for business thing. When people tend toward puritan beliefs then they tend towards wanting everybody else to do as they do.

And that must be one sad fucking world. No thanks.

The 'industry' in britian certainly needs attention if violence is inherent in the job. It should be removed, but that will need attention to the whole of society and what values it considers it should follow. Sex being looked at as a glorious human activity rather than a sort of 'sin' would be a good path to take.

 

[Jessiedog]

I belive that people should have choice but that includes not being forced into sex work by pimps, poverty or drugs

Post

Yeah.

And people should also have the same choice not to be forced into stacking supermarket shelves for 12 hours a day 6 days a week for a fucking pittance by other peeps, poverty or drugs.

Shurely?



But it still happens, doesn't it?

I am forced through poverty and drugs (they cost money, you know?) to do my shitty, fucking job for long, hard hours for a fucking pittance and, trust me, if I wasn't so butt-fucking ugly, I'd FAR rather prostitute myself than the shit I do. It would be far fewer hours and far better money.

But peeps don't like ugly whores, do they?

I suppose if they're paying then the piper calls the tune, etc.

But frankly, I'd far rather fuck for a living than the shit I'M forced to do.



Woof

 

[urbanrevolt]

decriminalisation and unionisation of sex workers would help break the power of pimps.

Some people are physically forced into sex work by violence and this is adided and abetted by both the criminalisation of sex work and immigration controls.

Stigmatisation of sex workers by the bourgeois media only increases the oppression of women

 

[zion]

fela fan,

So practically speaking, when someone's husband goes and visits a prostitute, then the main issue is if she gets puritanically uptight enough to object to him "cheating" on her (if you'll forgive the term, which clearly arises out of my primitive and inadequate thinking)?

You can't have it two ways. If sex is a purely irrational, animal, instinctual thing and therefore OK, then you can't chide the wife for having irrational, animal, instinctual objections to her husband going off and fucking someone else on the sly. If, on the other hand, sex is not just about instinct but also about forming relationships with other people, then the way having sex with X affects your relationship with Y becomes highly relevant.

As I say, I'm perfectly happy with people visiting prostitutes - if all parties, including the partners of the participants, are happy with it. But pretending the partners don't matter demeans the debate.

 

[urbanrevolt]

This has nothing to do with it. There may be an issue between the partners but that's their own business and therefore the sex worker has no reason to be stigmatised nad this is no different from any other consensual 'unfaitfhful;' sex-

 

[zion]

I'm not talking about "stigmatizing sex workers". I'm talking about whether there are legitimate grounds for actively discouraging prostitution. There is a distinction between the institution and those who, mostly unwillingly, practise it.

 

[untethered]

I would agree that making something illegal will drive it underground and thus the actual numbers doing something will decrease.

However there is a freedom issue here. Consenting adults need to be respected, and to argue that they are injuring themselves or society is just rubbish, and is akin to saying that homosexuality is wrong and should be banned, because the willing participants are injuring themselves by doing it.

...

We should be aware that creating a perfect world through a set of laws will not occur. There are too many different people with different ideals and so we should instead empower the people and make sure they have the freedom to make themselves safe. As previously described.

The whole question here comes down to what you think the state is (should be) for and what you think constitutes freedom.

Even in the kind of state that you describe (where the state is "respectful" of individuals' "freedoms"), there are necessary constraints on what people are allowed to do. Why? Because firstly, the exercise of one freedom might inhibit the freedom of another. It's easy to see this in a direct sense, for example, my freedom to go where I please is constrained by the freedom of others (and of course, myself) to enjoy my own private property without interference.

The idea that the state (or anyone else) should have no business interfering with what two "consenting adults" do behind closed doors seems hard to argue with. However, to the extent that that activity affects the behaviour of those people outside their closed doors, or affects their ability to participate effectively in society, or where the widespread practice of this activity impacts society, then it is the state's business.

The idea that by withdrawing behind closed doors and giving consent to each other allows two adults to insulate society from the effects of their behaviour doesn't accord with reality. Society doesn't temporarily disappear for that time. Those people will soon enough return to the public realm.

The reason why any of this should matter to the individual is that "no man is an island". If you want "freedom", go and live in the middle of an uninhabited desert. No-one will attempt to constrain your actions, but your actions will be highly restricted by the lack of opportunity due to the absence of a social system that provides stability and resources. Libertarians, and to some extent liberals, want to have their cake and eat it. They want society to be sufficiently strong and stable to guarantee their "freedoms" but are unable to tolerate the limitations on some of their freedoms that make their social and public lives possible. In effect, they're saying, "We're going behind closed doors to engage in our private, consensual activity - watch the door, we'll be out in a minute."

I don't believe in the Nanny State or an authoritarian government that seeks to expand its control over every aspect of life. I think that the state should do as little as is necessary to maintain the stability of society. Hence, I don't have any fixed view of which particular things must or must not be regulated by government. I believe that government should reserve the right to regulate anything, not that it should regulate everything. There are practical considerations of resources. There is also the very pertinent matter that if the purpose of the state is to enable people (as social beings, not atomised individuals) to live fulfilling lives, that implies that they should be given as much freedom as possible.

I think you'll find that if you make a fetish of individual freedom, you end up defending the indefensible and destroying the very social structures that enable people in any meaningful sense to be "free". I can see no way in which prostitution contributes to society, many ways in which it diminishes society and as I've stated above, I don't accept that there are any activities that the state should not regulate in principle where it is necessary to maintain social stability.

If you want to defend the "freedom" of people involved in prostitution at the cost to the rest of us, I'd say you're limiting your own social opportunities by doing so.

 

[Gmart]

For me the most interesting aspect of this debate it which model (legalisation or criminilisation a la the swedish model) would best protect the safety of women.

Hear Hear Baboonking, I'm glad you enjoyed the read, Respect.

The whole question here comes down to what you think the state is (should be) for and what you think constitutes freedom.

Even in the kind of state that you describe (where the state is "respectful" of individuals' "freedoms"), there are necessary constraints on what people are allowed to do. Why? Because firstly, the exercise of one freedom might inhibit the freedom of another.

I don't see why safety for the workers in the way described would impact on anyone except to make it less easy for the clients to insist on no condoms. It puts the power into the workers hands, and they don't want to be infected. With more power they can set up a safe house and thus not be forced by poverty and competition to NOT have condoms.

The idea that the state (or anyone else) should have no business interfering with what two "consenting adults" do behind closed doors seems hard to argue with. However, to the extent that that activity affects the behaviour of those people outside their closed doors, or affects their ability to participate effectively in society, or where the widespread practice of this activity impacts society, then it is the state's business.

I disagree, if there is NOT a victim, then no problem.

The idea that by withdrawing behind closed doors and giving consent to each other allows two adults to insulate society from the effects of their behaviour doesn't accord with reality.

Perhaps an example to clarify what you think might happen. I don't see why your arguments should counter the argument that Prostitutes should be allowed to be safe first and foremost.

Libertarians, and to some extent liberals, want to have their cake and eat it. They want society to be sufficiently strong and stable to guarantee their "freedoms" but are unable to tolerate the limitations on some of their freedoms that make their social and public lives possible.

Actually it is the conservative religious moralists who are unable to accept the private actions of others, and who continually harp on about how the world should be if only...

I don't believe in the Nanny State or an authoritarian government that seeks to expand its control over every aspect of life. I think that the state should do as little as is necessary to maintain the stability of society.

I don't see how ensuring their safety would impact particularly. Reference to the previous example from New Zealand.

I can see no way in which prostitution contributes to society, many ways in which it diminishes society and as I've stated above, I don't accept that there are any activities that the state should not regulate in principle where it is necessary to maintain social stability.

How about sex for the disabled?
You live in fear of the end of stability, and so you insist on using authoritarianism to stop people's freedom, even to the point of endangering workers who are involved in an industry you think should not exist. Nice!

I'm perfectly happy with people visiting prostitutes - if all parties, including the partners of the participants, are happy with it.

This has nothing to do with it. There may be an issue between the partners but that's their own business

I have to agree with Urbanrevolt here. What next? A register for adultery? Where does trust come in?

Safety first, then moralism. Society will not break down with the safety of prostitution and the controls would help with the spread of infection etc. The safe sanitized sex would be much more likely to be sold in a controlled market rather than the current black market, which NEVER lends itself to safety for the workers, (in this it is much like the drugs market). The black market does NOT make things better, and although a relationship might well be put under strain if one partner feels the need to go to a pro, I think that both partners would vastly prefer that SAFETY was paramount, rather than moralism which might well lead to infection in a competitive market with no power for the workers.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If by "get a clue first" you mean "be able to prove the efficacy of an untested measure" I can only assume you're a stranger to logic.

With respect, balls.

It's easy enough to "get a clue" by researching the literature and statistics around the nexus of prostitution and the crimininal justice system, that way you can find out what has worked where, and at least give yourself a chance of deciding, through reference to similar types of action, whether yours would stand a chance.

You see, in the nasty world of social policy (the world to which you'd have to present your idea to get it "actioned"), presenting an unresearched idea is about as likely to get your idea listened to as would be calling the minister responsible for that field of government a cunt.

Do the research, get yourself a clue, and at the least you can say "this idea hasn't been tried before, but similar approaches have worked in x, y and z, and had limited success in a, b and c.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You said that I had argued from a religious perspective. I asked you to provide a quote from me that demonstrates that I was.

IMHO Jonti is mistaken in saying you have a religious perspective, but I believe the mistake to be a matter of degree rather than anything else.

The moral perspective from which you argue on various subjects does have striking similarities to the Christianity-informed morality that has evolved in northern Europe over the past thousand years, and which has ossified attitudes to more reflect a pre-enlightenment mindset, than a mindset that takes into account modern problems in modern terms.

 

[Jonti]

Thanks VP.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Thanks VP.

S'okay.

Untethered was making such a big deal about it I just thought that I could see what you meant, and it wasn't the same thing as untethered was taking it to mean. You might have used the "wrong" word, but you were writing in the correct context, which seems a bit more important to me than untethered's quibbling.

 

[untethered]

It's easy enough to "get a clue" by researching the literature and statistics around the nexus of prostitution and the crimininal justice system, that way you can find out what has worked where, and at least give yourself a chance of deciding, through reference to similar types of action, whether yours would stand a chance.

You see, in the nasty world of social policy (the world to which you'd have to present your idea to get it "actioned"), presenting an unresearched idea is about as likely to get your idea listened to as would be calling the minister responsible for that field of government a cunt.

Do the research, get yourself a clue, and at the least you can say "this idea hasn't been tried before, but similar approaches have worked in x, y and z, and had limited success in a, b and c.

This is an internet forum, not a parliament. I hope I'm within my rights in proposing an idea without having compiled professional-standard documentation to support it. I do do other things, you know.

What you suggest would of course be necessary were I a politician proposing legislation or a think tank suggesting policy options. I'm neither of those things, just a poster on an internet forum making comments in my spare time.

While it would be both desirable and necessary to take the steps you mention in those contexts, the nature of social policy is that there are often significant cultural variables that make experiences in one context not apply in the way you'd expect in another. If, say, I were proposing a blanket ban on prostitution and I could find another jurisdiction where this had happened, of course I'd want to examine how they went about it and what the effects were. But the efficacy of such a measure here and now would be very much dependent on the wider social/political/economic/legal context, and it would be naive at best to assume that such a complex measure would work similarly.

This, in fact, is why so many apparently well researched social policies fail, despite appearing to work elsewhere.

So if it's ok with everyone, I'll continue to suggest ideas without providing that level of academic support, which is what everyone else seems to do.

 

[untethered]

IMHO Jonti is mistaken in saying you have a religious perspective, but I believe the mistake to be a matter of degree rather than anything else.

The moral perspective from which you argue on various subjects does have striking similarities to the Christianity-informed morality that has evolved in northern Europe over the past thousand years, and which has ossified attitudes to more reflect a pre-enlightenment mindset, than a mindset that takes into account modern problems in modern terms.

I don't make any apology for approaching these matters from a moral perspective. I think it would be a very good idea were more people to do so, rather than taking a point of view that we cannot challenge moral threats to society, but only attempt to mitigate the worst tangible effects of them. (I hasten to add this is a viewpoint I fully understand - I just don't agree with it.)

You argue that what you'd call a "pre-enlightenment mindset" cannot tackle "modern" problems. The Enlightenment gave us new (and most probably, far more accurate) ways to conceptualise the material world and additional ways of thinking about and structuring human society. I don't see how it invalidated prior moral thought or undermined the idea that humans are and should be moral beings. I also take issue with your concept of "modern" problems. Where these can be considered to exist, they seem to be old wine in new bottles. Nothing has fundamentally changed. If the "modern" problem you're referring to here is prostitution, well, I'd appreciate a good explanation of its modernity that makes any kind of sense.

 

[ViolentPanda]

This is an internet forum, not a parliament. I hope I'm within my rights in proposing an idea without having compiled professional-standard documentation to support it. I do do other things, you know.

What you suggest would of course be necessary were I a politician proposing legislation or a think tank suggesting policy options. I'm neither of those things, just a poster on an internet forum making comments in my spare time.

While it would be both desirable and necessary to take the steps you mention in those contexts, the nature of social policy is that there are often significant cultural variables that make experiences in one context not apply in the way you'd expect in another. If, say, I were proposing a blanket ban on prostitution and I could find another jurisdiction where this had happened, of course I'd want to examine how they went about it and what the effects were. But the efficacy of such a measure here and now would be very much dependent on the wider social/political/economic/legal context, and it would be naive at best to assume that such a complex measure would work similarly.

This, in fact, is why so many apparently well researched social policies fail, despite appearing to work elsewhere.

So if it's ok with everyone, I'll continue to suggest ideas without providing that level of academic support, which is what everyone else seems to do.

Keep your hair on!

My point in my first paragraph was that if you speak from an informed position (whether on t'internet or professionally) you're more likely to be taken seriously. Pontificate and you'll be laughed at, show some knowledge of what you're talking about and you won't be laughed at. It's a fairly simple equation, surely?

My point in my second paragraph wasn't that you need to "provide academic support", it was that IF (see, bit of context!) you wanted your ideas to be taken seriously in "professional circles" you'd do the work, not chunter out the tabloidesque maunderings that you do.

Sorry to disappoint you after your perorations, but it looks like once again you've firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick!

As for research and its' implications across cultures, especially whether one can successfully transpose an idea from one culture to another (even between similar cultures), that's why we have the technique of comparative analysis; to help inform our decisions. We can't predict exactly where a policy will go when it is placed out "in the wild", but we can construct worst and best case scenarios and put in place factors that will help us toward the one and away from the other.
In other words, do the opposite of what the late tories under Major and what new Labour have done with their "policy as presentation with little or no follow-up" approach.

Anyway, all those variables you mention, they're what makes policy formulation interesting academically, and such a "hostage to fortune" for politicians!

 

[untethered]

My point in my first paragraph was that if you speak from an informed position (whether on t'internet or professionally) you're more likely to be taken seriously. Pontificate and you'll be laughed at, show some knowledge of what you're talking about and you won't be laughed at. It's a fairly simple equation, surely?

That's generally true. But there's only so far you can be "informed" about the sort of thing I was proposing. The other poster was demanding "evidence" - I was simply saying that it couldn't be provided in the way that they seemed to require.

My point in my second paragraph wasn't that you need to "provide academic support", it was that IF (see, bit of context!) you wanted your ideas to be taken seriously in "professional circles" you'd do the work, not chunter out the tabloidesque maunderings that you do.

I don't accept your characterisation of my contributions but you are literally right on the substantive point; it seems I interpreted it more generally than the specific sense which you now highlight.

Sorry to disappoint you after your perorations, but it looks like once again you've firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick!

Internet poster reveals frail human fallibility shocker. It happens less often than you think.

As for research and its' implications across cultures, especially whether one can successfully transpose an idea from one culture to another (even between similar cultures), that's why we have the technique of comparative analysis; to help inform our decisions. We can't predict exactly where a policy will go when it is placed out "in the wild", but we can construct worst and best case scenarios and put in place factors that will help us toward the one and away from the other.

In other words, do the opposite of what the late tories under Major and what new Labour have done with their "policy as presentation with little or no follow-up" approach.

Anyway, all those variables you mention, they're what makes policy formulation interesting academically, and such a "hostage to fortune" for politicians!

All very true and very well put. There does seem to be a tendency in the present government, quite possibly in previous ones too, to equate "blind faith" with "leadership" and the "boldness" of a proposed measure to be determined by counting the number of reasoned critics.

 

[fela fan]

fela fan,

So practically speaking, when someone's husband goes and visits a prostitute, then the main issue is if she gets puritanically uptight enough to object to him "cheating" on her (if you'll forgive the term, which clearly arises out of my primitive and inadequate thinking)?

You can't have it two ways. If sex is a purely irrational, animal, instinctual thing and therefore OK, then you can't chide the wife for having irrational, animal, instinctual objections to her husband going off and fucking someone else on the sly. If, on the other hand, sex is not just about instinct but also about forming relationships with other people, then the way having sex with X affects your relationship with Y becomes highly relevant.

As I say, I'm perfectly happy with people visiting prostitutes - if all parties, including the partners of the participants, are happy with it. But pretending the partners don't matter demeans the debate.

That would be up to the wife and husband.

I'm really talking about single men. If a man is married then he has a sex life. If a man is single, he doesn't. What will he do with the animal part of him that wants it?

Personally i'd prefer a life where one could nip out and get sex whenever you want it (men and women). However i'm no longer single and the thought of hurting my partner by my going off to sleep with a bar girl here in thailand is just too much for me! So, paying for sex is no longer an option, but if you could see what i see every day you might just understand a bit more why i say what i do!

Anyway, i just think it dangerous when man can become the animal in him with no outlet.

 

[zion]

I'm really talking about single men. If a man is married then he has a sex life. If a man is single, he doesn't. What will he do with the animal part of him that wants it?

Well, first, marriage is not so simple as that. For a man in a marriage to get sex, it's very simple: both of you have to want it. It's not as if being married gives you the right to have sex with your wife whether she wants it or not.

Second, you're sanitizing prostitution by trying to take an easy case. The people advocating complete liberalization on here don't care whether the people involved are single or not: what they're interested in will make it easier for everyone to use prostitutes, whether they're married or not.

Third, I think it's quite possible to take a "moral" perspective on this that Christians would disagree with. For Christians (at least, for those who hold the Bible as the word of God), prostitutes and those who use them are sinners, irrespective of their marital status. A humanist might argue that the potential damage to human relationships is too great to legalize all aspects of prostitution. You don't have to believe in God to see the problems.

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

Fela, most men who use prostitutes are married, I believe

 

[nick1181]

A humanist might argue that the potential damage to human relationships is too great to legalize all aspects of prostitution.

Or an idiot of some sort.

Did the divorce rate in New Zealand, Australia, Holland (or wherever) go up after they legalized prostitution?

Errr.... nope.

The "potential damage to human relationships" is so far away from being an issue that it's bordering on the deluded.

It's also a sly misrepresentation to say "what they're interested in will make it easier for everyone to use prostitutes". That's not what it's about, and probably not true in any case.

It's about reducing the (real) risk and the damage that illegality causes.

 

[Gmart]

Hear Hear Nick!

The people advocating complete liberalization on here don't care whether the people involved are single or not: what they're interested in will make it easier for everyone to use prostitutes, whether they're married or not.

A humanist might argue that the potential damage to human relationships is too great to legalize all aspects of prostitution. You don't have to believe in God to see the problems.

I am advocating legalisation because safety for the people is paramount, NOT because I think prostitution is 'good'. The existing risks are the issue not any betrayal within a relationship, sad as that might be.

A humanist might indeed argue that the damage to people's relationship's by prostitution might be devastating, however the damage is vastly worse if we don't. Despite the obvious safety aspects mentioned above, the risk of infection is MUCH greater if the workers are NOT empowered. The use of condoms must be primary and if the worker is in the clients car then HE is in control and he can rape her if he likes! She has no power and so cannot insist on condoms. In a competitive, buyers market (which your prohibition is creating) the desperation and illegality of the workers means that they cannot organise and so cannot ensure that condoms are used.

You keep moralising about the effects on the wife, but i'm sure that given a choice the wife would much rather NOT be infected and cheated on rather than infected and cheated on.

I'm sure we would all rather we lived in a world where people didn't go to prostitutes and where we all lived in wonderful, fulfilling relationships, but let's be real here.

Furthermore, my example of prostitutes for the disabled is a good one. A social good no less.

I am not convinced that the world will fall apart if it IS legalised. The situations in the countries mentioned seem to suggest that it doesn't, indeed one might argue from a religious point of view that I have more faith in the world than that.

 

[Jessiedog]

Wot nick and Gmarthews sed.



Woof

 

[zion]

Gmarthews,

Let's focus for a moment exclusively on what happens to people personally participating in prostitution.

What you refer to as "safety of the people" could refer to one of two things. Are you interested in reducing the average risk to women who are already prostitutes, or in reducing the number of women whose health is harmed, whether prostitutes or not?

If the former, then I would agree that legalization would undoubtedly make prostitution on average less risky. If the latter, then it is possible that the legalization of soliciting would lower the barriers to becoming a prostitute sufficiently that a greater number of women would be harmed overall. You've studied statistics: you know that the latter scenario is possible. If it were true, wouldn't it make it less advisable to legalize soliciting, independently of any effect on third parties?

I don't think that you think prostitution is good (except in certain cases you have outlined), any more than I think that we can create a perfect world where no-one ever uses prostitutes or that the "world will fall apart" if prostitution is legalized. What we're talking about, as ever with social policy, is incremental changes and what changes would on balance create more desirable effects.

The existing risks are the issue not any betrayal within a relationship, sad as that might be.

I don't think you can confine it to the health risks to sex workers. If you do, then of course you are right. I'm arguing for a more broad-minded approach that considers the potential effects beyond the transaction itself.

the damage to people's relationship's by prostitution might be devastating, however the damage is vastly worse if we don't. ... given a choice the wife would much rather NOT be infected and cheated on rather than infected and cheated on.

You have no evidence for the first of these statements. For the second, the assumption required to make it true is that whether people cheat on their partners is wholly independent of the opportunities society offers them to do so. I see no reason to think that true.

 

[zion]

Nick1181,

Or an idiot of some sort.

If you feel that anyone disagreeing with your perspective is an idiot, then why bother to debate the question at all?

Did the divorce rate in New Zealand, Australia, Holland (or wherever) go up after they legalized prostitution?

As I describe at some length above, correlation is not causation, and there are innumerable confounding factors that make it impossible to use this kind of evidence as proof on either side. That's why, even though there are countries whose statistics I could use, I will not, because I would consider it to prove nothing for my case.

The "potential damage to human relationships" is so far away from being an issue that it's bordering on the deluded. It's also a sly misrepresentation to say "what they're interested in will make it easier for everyone to use prostitutes". That's not what it's about, and probably not true in any case.

So I'm wrong, not because of any evidence you present, but because I'm "deluded" and "wrong"? Your argument is circular.

It's about reducing the (real) risk and the damage that illegality causes.

You're again assuming your conclusion: that legalization of soliciting would reduce the overall damage. Of course, if you are right about that, then you're right that soliciting should be legalized, but that again is circular. What would be your response to the question I pose in the previous post about the criterion we should use? Is minimizing the risk to sex workers the important thing, or minimizing the numbers of women damaged?

 

[Jonti]

The people advocating complete liberalization on here don't care whether the people involved are single or not: what they're interested in will make it easier for everyone to use prostitutes, whether they're married or not.

That's a heck of a spin to put on things. The main interest I for one have is that sex workers have the legal right to provide their services; that they can work safely with the protection of the law. Despite what you say, I'm concerned for the workers rather more than for the clients.

 

[zion]

Jonti,

As far as I am concerned, they are doing something that is inherently unsafe, whether it is legal or not.

Slavery is a good comparison here. It is inherently unsafe whether it is legal or not. Making slavery legal again would undoubtedly better the average condition of slaves because current, illegal, unregulated slaves have a particularly terrible time. However, it would also expand the number of slaves held very greatly, and therefore in aggregate would not be desirable.