# Should prostitution be legal?



## Loki (Dec 10, 2005)

If it prostitution were legalized, it would ensure women's rights, provide disease control, allow taxation and government reulation.

Should the world's oldest occupation be given legal status?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 10, 2005)

I think so; prostitution is one of those crimes where you can't make any rational explanation for its criminality other than puritanical social norms.


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 10, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> I think so; prostitution is one of those crimes where you can't make any rational explanation for its criminality other than puritanical social norms.


Good point!  I hadn't really considered the question, as here, prostitution is not illegal.  Here, they've done something really bizarre and made communicating for the purpose of exchanging money for sex illegal, or something like that.


----------



## Ceicei (Dec 10, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> If it prostitution were legalized, it would ensure women's rights, provide disease control, allow taxation and government reulation.
> 
> Should the world's oldest occupation be given legal status?



Isn't it already legal in some parts of Nevada?

- Ceicei


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 10, 2005)

Yeah, I think there's one county in Nevada where it's legal.  No, Vegas isn't in that county.  

I remember a news story about it a long time ago; basically there was a house of (ill?)-repute, customers went there.  The girls would go through regular checkups, they could report patrons for not following the rules.  The thing to ask is, if it works that well in that one county, why should we maintain current laws about it through the rest of the nation?


----------



## ed-swckf (Dec 10, 2005)

I think it should be legal and essentially governed but i know a lot of people use prostitution due to drug addiction or because they are very poor.  Is governing this going to aid these demographics or hinder them.  I mean if it becomes a legal occupation people will presumably no longer be in receipt of the same state benifits, would the disease control penalise them in some way for the risk of their occupation for instance when it comes to life insurance or something along those lines.  Ideally i want to say yes but i just wonder how it would pan out if it were to become legal and if it would create a sub division of prostitution that doesn't follow the legislation.  Would it just cause people to turn a blind eye to that problem and only concentrate on stats of prostitution within the structure of the legislation.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Dec 10, 2005)

if regulation where in effect and the boys/girls followed them some of the health problems might be lowered.  Taxes are good for the goverment but remember they drive up the cost of everything also


----------



## arnisador (Dec 10, 2005)

It's legal in several Nevada counties, but only at a house with a special icense. Streetwalking is still not OK.

An argument against it is that, like gambling, it attracts organized crime, increased violence/loitering/littering/etc., makes the neighborhood less attractive to live in, and so on. But, licensing it has obvious benefits in disease control and such.

On balance, I would say: It's their bodies. Legalize it. Yet, I know this could lead to increased exploitation of vulnerable women (beyond the already high levels). It's not a simple matter.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 10, 2005)

Now that's capitalism in action.  I can find a few nice young ladies, give them a home, and put them to work.  Gives new meaning to the word 'sweat shop'.  They better have my money.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Just another commodity.


----------



## terryl965 (Dec 10, 2005)

Yes legalize it and tax it. Make it a commodity instead of a crime.
Terry


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 10, 2005)

Would any of you be willing to marry a prostitute?


----------



## terryl965 (Dec 10, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Would any of you be willing to marry a prostitute?


 
If the right woman came along and I loved her and found out she was a prositute sure why not. But as life has it I have the most wonderful wife of 17 years.
Terry


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 10, 2005)

Just so everyone understands, it wasn't christianity per se that outlawed prostitution in the US.  There have been legal prostitutes in christian nations since the time of christ.  What outlawed prostitution in the US were the same forces that outlawed alcohol for a time.  It was actually the first feminists who decried prostitution as 'white slavery' that helped bring about it's downfall in the legal realm.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_071700_prostitution.htm

The women's temperance movements viewed prostitution as destructive to men and marriage.  Women, in essence, outlawed prostitution......some people don't like competition.

Putting aside issues of veneral disease, however, prostitution is a wonderful institution as far as men are concerned.  In eras past, it allowed men to concentrate their lives on accomplishment, while getting their 'needs' met whenever they desired, with no strings attached.  Contrast this with the time and effort put in to finding and keeping a spouse (not to mention cost-anyone who thinks it's prostitution is more expensive, hasn't been married).  It's a win-win for men.

For women, on the other hand, it's a bit trickier.  There's far less incentive for a man to marry a woman. Why buy one cow, when you can rent all different sorts of cows when you need them, and have a different flavor every time.

Ironically, this answers a question i've had for some time.  Homosexuals seem to be disproportionately represented among ancient conquerors (Alexander the Great comes to mind).  I think this likely wasn't a result of anything inherent in homosexuals, so much as it contrasts the dynamics of their relationships.  A heterosexual, tied so often as they are to a wife, and consequently children, are often compelled to stay closer to home and hearth.

Alexander, however, being homosexual, had no such entanglements, finding, as he did, all social fulfillment in the company of men.  With his lover(s) in his company of soldiers, he had no home he needed to return to in which to find social fulfillment.  He could campaign for years with no desire to return.  Which explains why many of his men, having a strong desire to return to their wives and children, finally demanded he cease their eastward advance and return home.  Just a theory, but I digress.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 10, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Just so everyone understands, it wasn't christianity per se that outlawed prostitution in the US. There have been legal prostitutes in christian nations since the time of christ. What outlawed prostitution in the US were the same forces that outlawed alcohol for a time. It was actually the first feminists who decried prostitution as 'white slavery' that helped bring about it's downfall in the legal realm.
> 
> http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_071700_prostitution.htm
> 
> ...


 It's more of a moral issue than anything else I think. Legalization IMO would cause more problems in the long term. Some of those have already been mentioned here in this thread. Prostitution would not I think, cause men to be more reluctant to marry. It probably wouldn't affect the general populace as a whole in that regard. 
The analogy of the one flavored "_cow_" could've been put better with say... "_ice-cream_." :wink1: (trying to spare you some red-rep points here... )

Is/was there any proof of Alexander's homosexuality? Or is it speculation? It's easy to see how that idea could come about... far from home on the road for days and years on end... the only women are the ones from the villages that you raped and pillaged. Many men have in the past shown remarkable restraint in the absence of their opposites sex. But that's another topic entirely anyway.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 10, 2005)

MA-Caver said:
			
		

> It's more of a moral issue than anything else I think. Legalization IMO would cause more problems in the long term. Some of those have already been mentioned here in this thread. Prostitution would not I think, cause men to be more reluctant to marry. It probably wouldn't affect the general populace as a whole in that regard.
> The analogy of the one flavored "_cow_" could've been put better with say... "_ice-cream_." :wink1: (trying to spare you some red-rep points here... )


 I don't know if you've noticed, but men are more reluctant even now to marry than in the past.  This is largely attributed to the more liberal stance of women on cohabitation and premarital sex.  Do we truly think that sex for money wouldn't have a further freezing effect on marriage.

One may look at the impact on society of brothels by looking at another area of adult entertainment...The strip club.  A couple decades ago they were a hidden phenomenon.  Now, they are a multi-million dollar industry, patronized by all different strata of the community.  The brothel, I feel, would have the same impact and clientele as a strip club....(but with much more satisified customers)



			
				MA-Caver said:
			
		

> Is/was there any proof of Alexander's homosexuality? Or is it speculation? It's easy to see how that idea could come about... far from home on the road for days and years on end... the only women are the ones from the villages that you raped and pillaged. Many men have in the past shown remarkable restraint in the absence of their opposites sex. But that's another topic entirely anyway.


 lol, quite right.

On the topic of Alexander's homosexuality, there has been some debate.  However, the predominant view is that he was, at the very least, bi-sexual, and was more likely mostly interested in men.  However, there is some room for debate.

On the wider topic, however, it is clear that homosexual behavior is well represented in ancient military history.  The famous Theban Sacred Band were 150 warriors bound together in homosexual attachment.

Many Romans, likewise, preferred the 'company' of men.  Perhaps it's no surprise, however, given that men of war at that time would leave their homes for years at a time on the frontier, might engage in homosexual behavior.  

Still, as predominent as it likely was in the armies, they at least had the odd village maiden and prostitute for the heterosexuals.  It was probably far worse for the sailing man.  (This is very likely why it's such a cliche among sailors).  

This isn't to say that all or even most of the ancient warriors were homosexual.  Merely that they were likely over-represented due to the fact that they had less to lose by leaving home and hearth.  A married man might worry what his wife was doing if he were gone for years at a time.  He might come home and find several children he never knew he had.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 11, 2005)

terryl965 said:
			
		

> Yes legalize it and tax it. Make it a commodity instead of a crime.
> Terry


Would that really work? Its the same argument for legalizing weed....there is absolutely no way to really tax or regulate it. Trying to do so would just take up much more time, effort, and money of our police than it does now. Legal or not, trying to regulate and tax it would be seriusly impossible.

7sm


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 11, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Would that really work? Its the same argument for legalizing weed....there is absolutely no way to really tax or regulate it. Trying to do so would just take up much more time, effort, and money of our police than it does now. Legal or not, trying to regulate and tax it would be seriusly impossible.
> 
> 7sm


 
I know, just like taxing and regulating alcohol is prohibitive.


----------



## ed-swckf (Dec 11, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I know, just like taxing and regulating alcohol is prohibitive.


 
Its something a lot of UK people avoid by doing booze runs to france a lot, same with tobaco maybe they will pop over for a tax free hooker too!!


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 11, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I know, just like taxing and regulating alcohol is prohibitive.


Taxing and regulating alcohol is much easier because of the process needed to create alcohol. Marijuana needs only a seed, dirt, and water (dont forget the plant light and a small closet) Sex needs only....well you get the idea.

7sm


----------



## Shaolinwind (Dec 11, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> If it prostitution were legalized, it would ensure women's rights, provide disease control, allow taxation and government reulation.
> 
> Should the world's oldest occupation be given legal status?


 
Absolutely not..  In the USA women make 200 - 600 an hour.  In canada where it IS legal, their highest paid girls make in the 150 range.  If they are smart, women use a vouch system between them and the other providers which ensures safety.


----------



## Shaolinwind (Dec 11, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Would any of you be willing to marry a prostitute?


 
I already did.


----------



## ed-swckf (Dec 11, 2005)

Shaolinwind said:
			
		

> I already did.


 
Do you still have to pay?!


----------



## Shaolinwind (Dec 11, 2005)

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> Do you still have to pay?!


 
yup


----------



## ed-swckf (Dec 11, 2005)

Shaolinwind said:
			
		

> yup


 
wow


----------



## Shaolinwind (Dec 11, 2005)

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> wow


 
That was sarcastic.  Of course not.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 11, 2005)

Shaolinwind said:
			
		

> That was sarcastic.  Of course not.


Really? See, my husband says of men, 'we ALWAYS pay.'  Hmmmmm ... maybe I need to have a talk with your wife .... :lol2:  Uh, for her benefit ... yeah ... anyways ....

The problem with selling sex, the way I see it, is really all about the health and safety issues.  Guaranteeing cleanliness will always be impossible as will physical safety. I don't really see how any legislation whatsoever can really address this adequately.

As far as taxation and all the other things that come along with business, I don't see where it would be any different than any other business, so Adam, could you educate me a bit more as to what I may be missing?


----------



## ashkin (Dec 11, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Should the world's oldest occupation be given legal status?


 
No way, A friend of mine had sex with a prostitute and he now has aids, well it was his fault after all...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 11, 2005)

Nevada Legal Prostitution FAQ


What countries have legal prostitution?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 11, 2005)

My opinion:

Yes, I think it should be legalized, regulated, and monitored.

Make it legal, put strict guidelines in place, require regular health checks, enforce the use of protection and other health requirements (somewhere more clean than a hotel room, less than an operating room).

Legitimizing it would then add tax dollars to the economy as prostitutes would then be reporting income.

As to the question "would I marry one".
Maybe.  I have suggested, in total seriousness to 2 girlfriends that they take a 3-6 month stint in a Nevada brothel to earn money for college.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 11, 2005)

Now this I found is interesting, if it's accurate:

U.S. may have to decriminalize prostitution per U.N. Treaty


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 11, 2005)

ashkin said:
			
		

> No way, A friend of mine had sex with a prostitute and he now has aids, well it was his fault after all...


 
Are you (or is he) certain that A caused B? 

Is your friend male? 
Was the prostitute he was doing business with also male? 
Was a decision to use barrier contraceptive made or not?
What sexual behavior did your friend participate in, with this prostitute?
Has your friend ever used illegal, injected narcotics?

While it is not impossible, the odds of a male contracting HIV from a single intercourse event with a female prostitute, through vaginal sex are low. 

I think we would need to look at all of the risk behaviors of your friend before ascribing his infection to an event with a prostitute.


----------



## OULobo (Dec 11, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> It's legal in several Nevada counties, but only at a house with a special icense. Streetwalking is still not OK.
> 
> An argument against it is that, like gambling, it attracts organized crime, increased violence/loitering/littering/etc., makes the neighborhood less attractive to live in, and so on. But, licensing it has obvious benefits in disease control and such.
> 
> On balance, I would say: It's their bodies. Legalize it. Yet, I know this could lead to increased exploitation of vulnerable women (beyond the already high levels). It's not a simple matter.


 
I'd say that in modern times gambling in legalized establishments is no longer necessarily associated with crime, or atleast any more so than other legal and accepted establishments, like strip bars. Real Estate on and around the Strip is at a premium and not just for commercial purposes, the place is more like Disneyland than a mob kingdom. 

As for the exploitation of vulnerable women, it again is no more exploitive than stip clubs, which are legal and generally accepted. 

I don't think that this is the political climate where prostitution has a chance to become legal, especially with W in office and congress having its strings pulled by the christian conservative high horse riders. Liberal issues like this will have to wait for the pendulum to totall swing before they have a good chance.


----------



## Xequat (Dec 11, 2005)

OULobo said:
			
		

> I don't think that this is the political climate where prostitution has a chance to become legal, especially with W in office and congress having its strings pulled by the christian conservative high horse riders. Liberal issues like this will have to wait for the pendulum to totall swing before they have a good chance.


 
I agree that the time is wrong, but W is in office because the Christians put him there; it's not that he is influencing the climate to be more religious (although the whole gay marriage thing might have affected things a bit because so many to the left of center also don't believe that it should be legal).  I'm sure as hell not a liberal and I think it should be legal, for pretty much the same reasons.  I think it should, like many other issues, be a states rights issue.  Let each state decide, see what happens, then other states can decide to follow suit or not.  My same belief for pot, gay marriage and to a degree, abortion.  Leave it to the states to decide, and I hope it all becomes legal in my state.  That's less money necessary to spend on cops and more income off of taxes, not that we'll ever see any of it back.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 11, 2005)

Legalized prostitution is not a 'liberal' issue. It is more of a 'libertarian' issue.

When I was a single man, I was always hoping that dinner and a movie would be enough of an exchange for sex. Sometimes, that price of admission was way too low. Sometimes, I was able to negotiate coffee and ice cream for sex. 

If a person wants to exchange sexual activity for dinner and a movie, it's OK.
If a person wants to exchange sexual activity for coffee & ice cream, it's OK.
If a person wants to exchange sexual activity for drinks and dancing, it's OK.
Why can't a person, therefore, decide to exchange sexual activity for cash?

Well ... it seems it is because our government wants to intrude into our lives ... I believe it is the Libertarian position that the government should not be invovled in our lives in this manner.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 11, 2005)

If you guys only knew how little effort most PD's put into prostitution other than streetwalkers...its pretty much legalized already as long as you dont make too big a target of yourself. However theres always the risk that some vice dept. may make a push or two on escort services every once and a while, but by and large its the $20 date crack addicts on the corners that catch most of the heat.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 11, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If you guys only knew how little effort most PD's put into prostitution other than streetwalkers...its pretty much legalized already as long as you dont make too big a target of yourself. However theres always the risk that some vice dept. may make a push or two on escort services every once and a while, but by and large its the $20 date crack addicts on the corners that catch most of the heat.


Which would have to increase were we to legalize it and attempt to police it. Good idea? I dont know.



			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> As far as taxation and all the other things that come along with business, I don't see where it would be any different than any other business, so Adam, could you educate me a bit more as to what I may be missing?


Well, I think about how many resturant servers I have known and worked with that did not report honestly (or at all) their income. I think of how the government would tax marijuana when I dont need to but it, I can just grow it, pick it, and smoke it. Why pay $4.75 for a pack of weed cigaretts when I can pay $20 for alot more and smoke it how I want. If we can't control that business now, what makes us think we can control it if its "legalized"?

Then take prostitution...maybe people would go to a honest tax paying prostitution house, but then again....why? If the girl next door is willing to give it up for $200 and I think she is probably less likely to be "experienced", why go to the "official house"? How exactly would you regulate a guy picking up a woman for a date, going back to his house for drinks and the exchange of $500 bucks and sex? As Tgace pointed out, its not really controled now either. 

I'm not saying it shouldn't be legal, but to say taxation and regulation are reasons for it to be legal is not true in my opinion.

7sm


----------



## ed-swckf (Dec 11, 2005)

Shaolinwind said:
			
		

> That was sarcastic. Of course not.


 
It didn't transcend unfortunately, i was like, dude got a ****** deal there!!  Glad you are happy and didn't let her profession immediately nullify her as a partner.


----------



## Kane (Dec 11, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Legalized prostitution is not a 'liberal' issue. It is more of a 'libertarian' issue.
> 
> When I was a single man, I was always hoping that dinner and a movie would be enough of an exchange for sex. Sometimes, that price of admission was way too low. Sometimes, I was able to negotiate coffee and ice cream for sex.
> 
> ...



I totally agree, there is quite a double standard here .

Referred to as the world's oldest "profession," prostitution is defined as the act or practice of selling oneself for sexual purposes. Some might call it immoral while others call it a way of life. Considering the fact it doesn't deal with life and death situation (like abortion, euthenasia, ect.) I don't see why it should be a big deal.

Let people do what they want with their money and let people make a living the way they see fit. People probably shouldn't but to some people there is nothing wrong with it.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 11, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> The problem with selling sex, the way I see it, is really all about the health and safety issues.  Guaranteeing cleanliness will always be impossible as will physical safety. I don't really see how any legislation whatsoever can really address this adequately.



Well, Nevada and some European countries do pretty well, by insisting on licenses and heavy govt. oversight.


----------



## Kane (Dec 11, 2005)

One issue that doesn't seem to have been brought up here is human trafficking. Human trafficking of women is very prevalent because prostitution is illegal. In countries like Thailand women are often forced into prostitution with little chance of escape. The reason being that many women have a hard time explaining to authorities it was forced prostitution and as a result they feel as if they have no way out. If they try to escape and get caught then the madam or pimp can accuse the forced prostitutes of voluntary prostitution. Even if the madam or pimp gets punished for doing so the prostitutes still have to worry about getting in jail (which they have even less freedom).

I read this in an article a few months ago, if I find it I'll post it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 11, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> One issue that doesn't seem to have been brought up here is human trafficking. Human trafficking of women is very prevalent because prostitution is illegal. In countries like Thailand women are often forced into prostitution with little chance of escape. The reason being that many women have a hard time explaining to authorities it was forced prostitution and as a result they feel as if they have no way out. If they try to escape and get caught then the madam or pimp can accuse the forced prostitutes of voluntary prostitution. Even if the madam or pimp gets punished for doing so the prostitutes still have to worry about getting in jail (which they have even less freedom).
> 
> I read this in an article a few months ago, if I find it I'll post it.


 Human trafficking and virtual slavery was one of the rallying cries that ended legal prostitution in this country.  As I pointed out earlier, it wasn't christian men who ended slavery in the US, it was the firsts feminists, who decried the objectification and commodity trading of women.  I find it ironic that the pendulum has swung in the other direction.

This issue is pretty ironic on the feminist front.  It's a lot like pornography.  Some feminists believe pornography is liberating, allowing free sexual expression.  Others believe pornography is mysogynistic.  Ultimately, pornography and prostitution are female issues.  Men will buy it, if it's available.

Again, the idea that prostitution is banned for some stodgy male dominated religious reason is bogus.  Most male dominated cultures endorse and openly operate prostitution.  The Romans operated brothels as part of every day business, and it was culturally encouraged for men to visit them.   It is still lawful in some parts of the world to have the wives of debtors 'imprisoned' in debtors brothels, to 'work off' the debt.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Again, the idea that prostitution is banned for some stodgy male dominated religious reason is bogus. Most male dominated cultures endorse and openly operate prostitution.


 
Perhaps so, but most male-dominated societies were not initially founded by groups of neurotic Puritan ascetics.

I truly wonder if most Americans realize how so much of their so-called "morality" stems directly from communities of intolerant religious zealots.

Laterz.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 12, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Perhaps so, but most male-dominated societies were not initially founded by groups of neurotic Puritan ascetics.
> 
> I truly wonder if most Americans realize how so much of their so-called "morality" stems directly from communities of intolerant religious zealots.
> 
> Laterz.


 America wasn't founded by Puritan ascetics, either.  Prostitution has a rich tradition in American culture.  What's more, it wasn't the 'Puritans' that brought about the end of Prostitution, it was the early feminists.  

Also, your over-emphasis of Puritanism is really based on ignorance of the roots of such movements that resulted in the end of Prostitution and banned Alcohol for a time.  Puritanism and the Calvinistic views it followed began declining at the beginning of the Second Great Awakening, starting in the 1830's.  

The Protestant Evangelical sects in the US began turning away from Calvinism, which is a central tenet of Puritanism, chiefly being that man has a sinful nature that cannot be changed without a direct intervention of God.  In other words, man is inherently sinful.  A belief in predestination was central.  The belief that men were either damned and doomed or predestined for heaven, not by their own choice, but they a pre-made decision of God.  Some men were predestined to heaven, some to hell.  Some were predestined to be free men, some to be slaves.  A man's lot was God's choice.  Though Puritans believed owning slaves was wrong, they certainly felt no real compunction to pursue and end, as they believed God would make that decision. 

The new Evangelical's believed in the inherent ability of man toward goodness, in stark contrast to the Puritans.  It is that belief in mans inherent ability toward goodness that lead many Evangelicals to convert others.  They believed that men could reform, and could achieve 'salvation'.  

It was this inherent belief in free will that led many New Protestants of the 2nd Great Awakening to begin to start attacking social evils.  They railed against sin, such as prostitution and drunkeness.  They pursued and end to what they viewed as the EVIL institution of Slavery.   

So, again, you are mistaken to blame prostitutions end in America on Puritans, calvinistic beliefs would not cause them to pursue an end to such an institution any more than they fought for an end to slavery.  You have the Protestants of the 2nd Great Awakening, the same people response for pushing and end to slavery, i.e. BOTH Evangelical Protestants AND Early Feminists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism


Again, it is less religious belief, than the belief that prostitution is tantamount to objectification of women, by way of reducing the value of a woman to a cash commodity, that resulted in it's becoming illegal.  That religion played a role is only an indication to the extent that women of that era embraced a new version of Christianity more in line with their familial views.

Ironically, as I noted before, feminists are of two schools of thought.  One school theorizes "prostitution as an act of sexual self-determination, decry discrimination and demand destigmatization and decriminalization; women are supposed to be adults who can choose what they wish to do with their bodies. In that view, the moral prohibition of prostitution is just mere masked patriarchal moralism, with a traditional view of considering women to be incapable of making decisions for themselves."

Contradictory, "Others, exemplified by the American radical feminist and ex-prostitute Andrea Dworkin, consider it to be sexual abuse or even rape; the prostitutes are then victims, who must be protected from the abuse of the clients and pimps. The former group pushed a law reform in Germany, resulting in January 2002 in the recognition of prostitution as a regular profession, making it possible for prostitutes to join the social security and health care system and to form trade unions. The latter faction of feminists was able in Sweden in 1999 to implement the law outlawing the buying of sexual favors"

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

Again, I point to the fact that, ultimately, prostitution isn't a religious debate, but a feminist debate.  Women should ultimately determine if prostitution should be legal, as they will be the ultimate 'product' of legalized prostitution.


----------



## Shaolinwind (Dec 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well ... it seems it is because our government wants to intrude into our lives ... I believe it is the Libertarian position that the government should not be invovled in our lives in this manner.


 
Outdated morals are in government like a nut rusted onto a bolt.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 12, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Well, Nevada and some European countries do pretty well, by insisting on licenses and heavy govt. oversight.



I dont know that I would say they do pretty well. Do we have some research on how well they keep prostitution to the legal licenses and "official" houses?

Thats my point in america, how on earth could we even dream of regulating it? Legal or not, the regulation of it is seriously impossible. So if it should be legal its not for the reason of taxation and regulation.

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It is still lawful in some parts of the world to have the wives of debtors 'imprisoned' in debtors brothels, to 'work off' the debt.


 
Where?


----------



## arnisador (Dec 12, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I dont know that I would say they do pretty well. Do we have some research on how well they keep prostitution to the legal licenses and "official" houses?


 
Well, in Nevada it's only in rural counties so I believe that it is pretty well restricted to the houses only there--there aren't really big streets to walk, and the county makes a ton of cash off of the operation and so has a significant motivation to limit it to the (taxed) houses. Of course, it's different in Las Vegas and Reno where it's illegal.

I don't know about Holland etc.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 12, 2005)

I just dont think I can believe without some type of definitive source that prostitution is exclusively committed within the taxed houses. Street walking is simply not the bigest portion of prostitution...its the dirty stank underarm of prostitution. The real stuff goes on a much different scale. 

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 12, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I just dont think I can believe without some type of definitive source that prostitution is exclusively committed within the taxed houses.


 
Neither can I. As it turns out, no one seems to be claiming that. I have no doubt that there exists some streetwalking, the occasional massage parlor, and a woman who dates a rich man only because he buys her meals and clothes. But the county in which such a house operates licenses the house and the workers, so they have an incentive to drive traffic there a.) for the taxes, and b.) to keep the brothel owner happy. Typically these establishments are the largest tax-generators for these small, sparsely populated counties. Everyone has a financial incentive to encourage potential customers to frequent the legal alternative. In addition, as these are small, rural counties an hour or more outside of large cities, there will only be enough customers if the place is advertised in Reno or Las Vegas. An illegal operation would have difficulty with that. Those coming by car or bus to the legal establishment would have to be flagged down somewhere along there dusty route.

My understanding is that it works pretty well.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 13, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Where?


 
It's called debt bondage, women are required to pay the debts incurred by family, often in sweat shops or in brothels.  In some places it's legal, in others the authorities simply turn a blind eye.  

What's more, they are never told how much debt they owe, or how long they will be required to pay it, or even how much they are making.  Plus, fees are deducted for food, housing and provisions, insuring they will ALWAYS be in debt to the house.  

http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/India.htm
http://www.satyamag.com/june03/reitz.html
http://www.devp.org/slavery/bondage.html
http://www.mit.edu/people/etekle/Index/
http://www.pucl.org/from-archives/Child/prostitution.htm
http://www.iabolish.com/today/background/worldwide-evil.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 13, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Neither can I. As it turns out, no one seems to be claiming that. I have no doubt that there exists some streetwalking, the occasional massage parlor, and a woman who dates a rich man only because he buys her meals and clothes. But the county in which such a house operates licenses the house and the workers, so they have an incentive to drive traffic there a.) for the taxes, and b.) to keep the brothel owner happy. Typically these establishments are the largest tax-generators for these small, sparsely populated counties. Everyone has a financial incentive to encourage potential customers to frequent the legal alternative. In addition, as these are small, rural counties an hour or more outside of large cities, there will only be enough customers if the place is advertised in Reno or Las Vegas. An illegal operation would have difficulty with that. Those coming by car or bus to the legal establishment would have to be flagged down somewhere along there dusty route.
> 
> My understanding is that it works pretty well.


I'm sure it works well, but I dont think it works well exclusively. Think Heidi Fleiss.

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 13, 2005)

Escorts? Well, in these rural counties, I wouldn't think so, though I don't know for sure...but they'd want to work in the high population areas of Reno and Vegas, no? I think some of these counties have populations of around 3500 and are an hour away from the city...as long as an escort business that engages in prostitution is illegal everywhere, wouldn't it make sense to set up such an operation where the clients are? I certainly agree that the system cannot be foolproof, but I think economics are on its side, _in these isolated areas_. It wouldn't work as well in Vegas. I don't know how well the Dutch system, say, works.

By the way, isn't Heidi Fleiss opening a new brothel in Nevada:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10313009/site/newsweek/from/RSS/


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 13, 2005)

Your correct, but we are talking about the complete legalization of prostitution which would include areas such as Vegas and LA and Dallas, Houston, Chicago, New York, etc. 

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 13, 2005)

That would be much more of a mess. I think it's worth a try, and it seems as though some countries have managed, but even still, I don't know how optimistic I'd be about it helping.


----------

