Prostitution, The legal morality of

Remove all ads!

honestly i cant see the problem with legalising it, as far as i can see it gives the girls and boys a better chance to protect themself and improve thier standards. to the best of my knowledge sexual deseases arent spred more with legalising prostitution, because most people that uses the service provided by them, do it wether its legal or not.

Secondly be legalising it, the women and men, gets a chance to form unions or be part of one, work out pension plan, and enforce certain rules, protected by the law instead of hunted the law.

thirdly i dont see the big problem in paying money for getting sex.
Sorry but its not that different then going to a bar, buying a girl drinks and sweattalking her in hope of a one night stand, except in the case with the prostitute your at least gaurrenteed sex.

i know that not all girls that are prostitute wants to be it, but I must say, that in denmark, your only forced to it (as a danish citizen, mind you), if you let yourself get forced to it. do to our social securit laws.
Regarding humans transported here illegally and inslaved, this has nothing to do with legalising prostitution. the people behind this should still be punished, for inslavering and forcing people to sex or other work. and honestly, if the prostitude had a union and werent outlawed themself, i think they would help the police strike down on these crimminals a lot more.

 

Sorry about the second link. My university seems to provide me access even from my home computer so I didn't notice that. Shame really since it's quite good stuff. It's an article in The Human Rights Quarterly, Prostitution as a Human Rights Question: Problems and Prospects of United Nations Action by Laura Reanda.

@Wordplay: As an unbiased study it only shows the arguments used to ban prostitution. There are other stuff in it as well that should be noted. The writer is outlining policy debates on prostitution concentrating on the feminists point of view. So yes, I can see you coming to that conclusion. But it is still an unbiased research which gives a good idea about what people in Finland have thought about prostitution during three decades. Not only feminists. There isn't a part in that study where the researcher herself says her opinion about prostitution.

The paper is prepared for European Consortium of Political Research. Not just feminist mumbo jumbo like you claim.

It is a study of politics, my dear friend How does interviewing prostitutes fit into a study of politics?

Feminists do not, I repeat, they do not have that kind of power to appeal to public opinion as you seem to think they do.

One of the problems in what you say is that you fall too much into ad hoc argumentation in the lines of "it's a feminist conspiracy, don't believe anything they're saying since they're trying to brainwash you" or "you moralists with your getting ethics into everything, you're not capable of listening so I don't care for your arguments".

My problem is that I am quite ready to listen to good argumentation and willing to change my way of looking things if the argument has a solid basis. It would seem that you're running out of ammo having to repeat your ad hoc argumentation over and over.

What "you people"?

@Equester and others who missed this: google Prostitution Policy in Europe: A Time of Change?& check out what that's about.

[ November 05, 2006, 18:39: Message edited by: Iku-Turso ]

 

read the article, he does in fact point out that one of the sollution models could be legalising it fully so that the prostituets can form unions.

the other sullotion is partly unions and a part where the union offers job training for people who dont want to be prostitutes. the thing is, job training for unemployed and uneducated, so here in denmark excist.

has he says, some of the buisnesses are driven underground, as any other criminal activity that will happend, but with the more normal prostitutes are legalized, the policy can focus more on the real criminals.

here is link to it: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/rfre/2001/00000067/00000001/art00007

 

I read the article. That's why I mentioned it. Re-read my posts if you still think that I'm all against legalizing prostitution.

But I disagree with what is said about tackling the stigmatization. Union of sex workers can't remove the stigma that has been affecting our way of thinking for at least two thousand years. This is a slow process and the stigmatization of prostitutes should be removed.

Of course I'd be a lot happier if prostitution wouldn't be an option for anyone to get money easily with minimal amount, or no education at all. That it is an option results from people willing to pay for sex. You don't sell anything if there are no people willing to buy. This willingness to buy sex and the objectification of other people, using them as means to satisfy your own pleasure is what I'm up against and I am willing to have laws against such activities.

By saying this I can already see some of you saying that prostitution is a service sector job just like any other, but I disagree. Not because what I think of sex as an individual, but because a lot of unnecessary suffering is created from the thwarted dynamics that come from the ideas that different types of people have concerning sex.

If everyone would think that sex is as mundane as waiting tables, then we wouldn't have this discussion and the same thing goes if everyone would think that sex should be something very special between two people.

As it is, this is not the case. As guys, it's easy to say that sex should be legalized. A lot of indoctrination has gone to ensure that many men think that romantic feelings and sex don't necessarily have to have anything to do with each other. At the same time, most of the women are indoctrinated that sex is something almost holy. As they grow older, this line of thinking with women will fade somewhat, but it's still there.

As western countries are still majorly christian societies, legalizing prostitution will not meet wide-scale acceptance. The political climate of the countries that have legalized prostitution are very liberal in many other cases as well. The increase of liberal thinking isn't something that you could expect for decades to come. The trend might even be seen to go in quite the opposite direction with many countries and as islam is on the rise in Europe, I wouldn't expect liberalism increasing much.

The legalization of prostitution might be a good idea if the public opinion is liberal enough. Public opinion can be changed, but it takes special and charismatic movements and people that can sway people supporting their ideas. So far liberal people haven't had much of those, at least not in Finland.

edit: Just had to take this into account:

The ministry of internal affairs and the social ministry don't know what they're doing? They're part of the feminist scheme? And are you saying that you have a better idea about prostitution in Finland than the leader of The Support Centre for Prostitutes who was interviewed for the report? I think it is possible that both of you might have opposite one-sided views. The truth about the situation of prostitutes is somewhere in between, but the situation is too muddled that I would be all for or against legalizing prostitution.

I don't like prostitution as a social phenomenon because of the way of thinking that is connected to it. I don't think that this way of thinking makes better people as you Wordplay are a parade example of them, saying things like for instance in war if you'd get a woman as a captive, you'd make her choose a bullet in the head or get raped by you.

You should try convince me that you supporting prostitution and the legalization of it has nothing to do with this kind of thinking and we might agree on this matter.

[ November 05, 2006, 21:22: Message edited by: Iku-Turso ]

 

Like asking from a woman if she would prefer to be a man. What would she answer, I wonder...

You'd be surprised how similar the people in the leading positions are to people in regular grunt-work. I have interviewed my share of different leaders and I can tell you that they aren't aware of every possible thing going on in their company, much less society. Finnish Ministry of Internal Affairs deals exactly with that: internal affairs. Inside government. Social affairs means social security and etc. The sex-life of citizens really isn't their primary concern.

Muddled? Only if you want to pretend it is. Either you legalize it or you don't. Of course the governments can't liberalize it in overnight, but 'how much' is the question. Perhaps prostitution could be allowed in control-zones, like Britain has suggested, or maybe the model of German would be the best for the time being. At the moment, though, the trend is the opposite: they want to limit it even more in the shadow of such shallow cover-words as criminality, immorality, and slavery. In relation, do phrases "axis of evil, weapons of mass destruction, and anti-terrorism" ring any bells?

In the end, though, it doesn't matter to the buyers. If Finland, Sweden, or Norway can't offer what they need, they take their money elsewhere. I intend to do the same in the future. As funny as it is, the developing countries will benefit of the restrictions in developed countries quite nicely...

But most these have been said already. I see no reason for us to keep repeating it for a second or third time.

[ November 06, 2006, 02:03: Message edited by: Wordplay ]

 

I don't believe that I'm about to write this, but there are some good points about safety increased and tax revenue rolling in.

But this does beg a touchy moral question for the state. Does the state want to rule that sex is a service that can ge bought, sold or traded, as say a haircut or home renovations. Would they advocate devaluing it from something freely given from emotional drives to something that's pre-packaged. Something tells me that I'd enjoy less a sexual encounter if I knew she was only doing me because I paid for it, and that afterward she'd be saying "Next!" I don't think the state should go there. We've established that the state has no place in the bedroom, why should this be any different?

 

if they have no place in the bedroom, they cant make any laws neither for it or against it. so they cant forbid payment for sex. but i doubt thats what you ment

 

Nice thing Wordplay, you make this seem like a pointless tug of war with two distinct opposites while you ignore some questions completely. That kind of black and white thinking's not very progressive.

You seem to be very comfortable of using the stance of "Either you're with us or you're against us" for a person who questions the rhetorics of Bush.

The spread of STD's is a major concern for them. I would think that social security of the citizens would be their concern. Criminal activity is a concern for the ministry of internal affairs. The sex-life of private individuals is not a concern for them unless it includes, and is closely associated with these.

Let's try to make some things clear again.

1) A good law is a bad thing for a bad person.

2) As many people have pointed out, getting more taxes and increasing the social security of a social minority is a good thing.

3) However, legalizing wouldn't solve the problems associated with prostitution.

4) The customers won't stop going to get what they wan't from the cheapest source, although this might lessen to some degree.

5) As there is sex-tourism, it does have some positive effects in the simplest economical sense to the target countries.

6) Major part of the STD infections in Finland are acquired while being abroad, most of the infected are men.

7) As it is highly doubtful that sex-tourism, child prostitution or human trafficking would decrease dramatically, and that these will continue to be the direct consequences of the same type of thinking and worldview that creates prostitution by creating the demand for it, using these as an argument for legalizing prostitution doesn't work.

8) If the current trend in public opinion is against legalizing or banning something, then the public opinion must change first or the law won't get any support. Now it's easy to say that the law should be changed if you feel like it, but in order to have laws changed you should make others feel like changing them as well.

[ November 06, 2006, 11:22: Message edited by: Iku-Turso ]

 

'Good' and 'bad' are, as always, subjective and depend upon who is percieved to be 'good' or 'bad'.

And if that was the only result of prostitution being legalised then it would be reason enough to legalise it.

By 'the problems' I assume you mean 'ALL the problems'. Well, yes, that statement is true however it would solve a number of the problems associated with prostitution. However I've yet to hear of any law that completely solves all the problems of something deemed negative.

Even if it's lessened by a small amount then the law has had a positive effect.

The Thai people wouldn't be half as well off as they are now if it wasn't for the sex industry here. It turns over so much revenue and injects so much wealth into the country that it's just scary.

Legalising prostitution would mean there would be compliance within the industry and workers would require possible monthly STD checks.

Although they wouldn't decrease dramatically the fact is that due to this law they would decrease and I fail to see how that can be a bad thing.

Suprisingly enough, merely mentioning the aspects associated with prostitution due to it being illegal and the argument for legalising prostitution resulted in a massive pro-legalised-prostitution opinion in New Zealand. The act passed quickly and everyone got on with their lives and a bunch of people in the country are now far better off than they used to be.

 

Now this is more like it!

Good and bad are subjective only up to a point. Human's have almost universal understanding to what is good or bad which doesn't depend on culture. When culture comes to play the limitations on what is perceived as good or bad the agreements within that culture give the people with different views very little space to manouver. New Zealand is quite liberal. Legalizing prostitution there isn't as problematic as it is in other countries.

If there are no other ways of improving the conditions of a social minority then it is possible that this should be done.

True, but I'd see that as fixing the symptoms and not the cause. If the problems concerning prostitution would only be an issue about prostitution and prostitutes, I'd agree on legalizing it.

Criminalizing the buying of sex has had the same positive effect in Sweden, although it might be the case that Netherlands approach works more efficiently.

If they'd have much less children and under-aged working as prostitutes they'd really have things better off. It's what causes prostitution that creates this situation so them having children working for the sex industry isn't a separate issue from prostitution.

Has this happened in New Zealand or in any other country? Then there's the fact that STD's don't show in tests until enough time has passed. A person can be a carrier and can infect a number of people without showing positive results on STD tests. The tests aren't that cheap either, which will raise the prices, which will result in people going to a cheaper source to satisfy themselves. When it comes to sex and many men, acting stupid can be taken almost as granted so you can't even rely on them having a proper protection against STD's even with legalized prostitutes.

I wouldn't be so sure about that: Netherlands and human trafficking, from U.S. State Dept Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2006

Canada Considers Further Legalizing Prostitution While Amsterdam Mayor Admits Legalization's Failure

Street prostitution experiment ends

Amsterdam city portal/policies/prostitution

Human Trafficking a Global Problem, U.N. Report Says

U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime finds all countries by problem

So much better for New Zealand. But the problems concerning prostitution are dependent on geographical location and the culture, moral and political. In many cases New Zealand has been much better off for a long time concerning the problems linked to prostitution.

[ November 06, 2006, 21:04: Message edited by: Iku-Turso ]

 

I would agree with deepfae. The laws should not dictate what is immoral, but what is dangerous to society. Sorry, but if we have the laws safeguarding morality that smacks more than a little of theocracy and/or communism. The two are quite similar in that respect and for a good reason: in the first the religion takes over the state, in the second the state takes over religion (at least, its prerogative to dictate ethics).

Seriously, I don't see many things that would worsen if prostitution became legal. Ethics is a problem, but let's be fair. If it's ethical to make porn films and sell them, legally (and it's not as if there people don't make sex for money) - at least ethical enough to be legal - then prostitution is just as ethical. At least I'd argue prostitution is a more intimate act. You're not pushing it in the face of everybody else.

Definitely the prostitutes themselves would enjoy greater rights, and that could limit some of the abuses they themselves are subjected to. The mere fact that the state gets the money that used to go in crime rings is a decent reason by itself. That will also weaken those rings indirectly, and the more ordered, legally protected competition could run them out of business. Given that these rings also deal in drugs, violence and other operations, weakening them in one area might weaken them enough to hurt them in other areas (such as their ability to pay bribes and recoup their losses after police operations). For me, that's also a very good thing.

Essentially, the problem is whether legalized prostitution is, itself, a hazard for society. Given that it exists, legalized or not, I don't see how legalizing it would exacerbate the situation. I don't think people in the Netherlands or New Zealand don't have normal relationships, or marriages, so probably any negative effect is going to be negligible.

 

Sorry it took me so long to respond, I have a knack for forcing myself to not getting very involved in arguments (mainly limiting the number of posts over the course of a week or so to a number I can count on a single hand).

Federal minimum wage is $5.15, $6.15 in the state of Minnesota, the federal minimum wage fails allow someone to live above the poverty line (12,000 dollars a year) while the Minnesota allows one to just clear the poverty line pulling in $12,792. As for unions, they've been rapidly eroding since the 1980s when Ronald Reagan quite handedly broke them. The unions can't often even their choices past the Democratic National Party anymore, let alone see them loose in the Primary elections.

Doesn't make any more or less right, men just typically are less vulnerable in American society then women.

Ethics aren't magical, they're typically the byproduct of the social or legal body one exists in. To operate within the context of that social or legal body, it's necessary to operate within the confines of ethics. The legal ethics of the United States (cynicism aside) express that it a breach of social ethics to partake in a bodily service provided in a situation where external factors lead to a power differential. For a drunken man or woman that power differential would be the difference in judgment between them those who would take advantage of them (hence the legal stance of drunken people being unable to give sexual consent). For the streetwalker, the differential is the need of money. Governmental intervention does not make anything ethical until the prostitute is removed from poverty (at least that's the basics of the current running political justification about taking action against prostitution).

Now, I don't care to argue over the nature of ethics, I'm just what an anthropologist would expect, I want to operate within the confines of my own cultural upbringing. This is not because I think my own culture is always right, but because the social ethics I espouse are essentially the base grammar Wittgensteinian language game I operate within. Removal of this base grammar and language falls apart, in philosophical theory.

[ November 19, 2006, 21:53: Message edited by: Ilmater's Suffering ]

 

I'm not sure where I stand on this. I myself have never and no plans of "consorting" with one, but the situation here is different from in non-third world/western countries.

I don't know if anyone is REALLY in this occupation by choice but my friend met a high-class call girl in Hawaii who he said was easily one of the most beautiful girls he's ever seen. She was a florist during the day and she drove a fully paid-up Benz and stuff so maybe for her it's a matter of preference as she can choose her clients and charge high.

But in 3rd world type countries, I doubt anyone is there by choice. The lack of opportunity and poverty force them into the roles and it's degrading and demeaning. I think the luckiest ones have been able to latch onto your typical "foriegn mark" and marry him. Not to offend anyone, but the sterotype for this mark is white, lonely, middle-aged, heterosexual and earning in dollars.

So, I don't know if I'm for the legalization or not. I used to be "yeah, legalize it so the government can tax them and use it to improve the country" but now that I'm older, more cynical and, I like to think, more sensitive, I change my mind. The vampires that hold office will just tax these poor women into the ground and keep the money anyway.

The only positive effect I can see, locally, for the legalization is that jerk cops can't shakedown these women anymore or that it would eradicate the purpose of a pimp. However, I think this crap would just carryover even if it were legalized.

 

@ Ilmater's Suffering

Erm... Well, that's USA. I no longer really want to comment of how matters are handled there, especially concerning legal-rights, so I'll simply say that it's better here. More democracy, freedom, equality, wealth, and so forth...

 

I would like to comment on the ethical issue of this interesting debate.
People seem to believe that prostitution is unethical, thus making the people working as prostitutes a low life figure.

It may come as a surprise but prostitution was not unethical during the ancient era, and in fact was a service that was respected a lot.
Venus was the goddess of love and protector of these women.

Furthermore the prostitutes of the ancient era, were the only females that were allowed to social festivities and were not only providing sex services but also were capable of providing and a good conversation on many subjects.

Truth is that when Christianity became the religion of the majority, somehow the prostitution was banned to hell.

Wrong and stupid decision if you ask me. Furthermore completely hypocritical, if one realizes that many authoritative figures of the Dark ages (where prostitutes where equalized to witches) funded and quite often used the services of such houses.

Hypocrisy is still predominant in our era where many people taste that fruit, only to shout afterwards that prostitution is unethical and the practicer's of this art should go to jail.

Maybe it's time to realize that prostitution and the people who practice this are still human. And they also have rights, and they also make choices.

From the many prostitutes i have been acquainted with (yes i do), few where forced to do this against their will. And in fact when i asked the rest why don't they choose another profession, they just stated that they are not interested in working 8 hours a day 28 days a month to make a paycheck that reflects the 1/5 of the money they make now.

Legalizing prostitution will solve more problems than it will create. And prostitution is not the problem frankly. The problem is the profit that organized crime is making by keeping prostitution illegal.
And that is a huge profit, a profit they won't let go easily.