Should Prostitution Be Legal

[August1991]

That's just as dumb. What's wrong with paying for sex if someone wants to? It's far less complicated than what I usually go through...

Dumb? But Sweden is, uh, progressive.

[Smallc]

Not every progressive country is progressive in every way. It isn't that simple, and you know it.

[August1991]

Not every progressive country is progressive in every way. It isn't that simple, and you know it.

Among progressive people, how do you decide who is "progressive in every way", and who is merely "progressive"?

I agree that it's not a simple question. Trotski, in Mexico, would have well explained the nuance of your question.

-----

Returning to the OP, I think Sweden is being truly "progressive" - and yet I'm a "conservative". Whatever the label, I think Sweden is applying the best policy.

BTW, I'm not a libertarian.

[Smallc]

Returning to the OP, I think Sweden is being truly "progressive" - and yet I'm a "conservative".

And is that supposed to convince me somehow?

[August1991]

And is that supposed to convince me somehow?

Smallc, you are beyond convincing.

----

OTOH, I do not see politics as a member of a team sport. Yet, I want a choice: Team A vs Team B.

[Smallc]

My point is this - trying to outlaw sex for money is like trying to push a rope up hill, no matter who you're 'cheering' for. Any true progressive should recognize that.

[Argus]

Sorry, prostitution is not a business like a restaurant.

Sweden has abolished prostitution by making male clients liable for an offense. In Sweden, the State prosecutes the clients, not the prostitutes.

Prostitution in Sweden

I've noted this tendency in left wing cultures to absolve women of all responsibility while simultaneously proclaiming their full equality. Canada's court system has a similar belief in the dastardly nature of men vs the purity and innocence of women.

[dre]

your problem is that you want to define it as a business. I don't think it should be defined that way at all for the reasons I gave above. More importantly, would gifts someone receives through courtship be considered income? Is the difference not simply the exchange of cash instead of goods?

As for the safety of "hookers" and "johns", let me reiterate. There are inherent risks with any sexual liaison. Adults are aware of this. There is no difference between picking up a sex worker and hooking up with someone for a one night stand from a bar, party, or vacation spot. Therefore, it is my contention that it is unreasonable to subject sex workers to required medical testing that you don't subject other sexually active adults to.

But it IS a business... in every sense of the word. Its trading a service for money.

They should be subject to the same regulation and protection as anyone who trades goods and services for money. They should be able to file grievences with the labor board if they are force to work in unsafe conditions, report crimes against them etc....

[dre]

Dumb? But Sweden is, uh, progressive.

[cybercoma]

But it IS a business... in every sense of the word. Its trading a service for money.

They should be subject to the same regulation and protection as anyone who trades goods and services for money. They should be able to file grievences with the labor board if they are force to work in unsafe conditions, report crimes against them etc....

I wonder when stay-at-home parents will receive the same regulatory protections, since they exchange their labour for food, clothing, and shelter provided by their partners.

[dre]

Thats an odd comparison... the whole idea that marriage is an exchange of goods and services like prostitution.

Interestingly enough though women in marriages DID used to have some of the same problems that prostitutes have... They were often subject to abuse, and it was hard for them to get help when they were. At once point they were not even allowed to testify against their husbands in court if they were raped and beaten. This is similar to prostitution, because its criminalized and stigmitized. When these women are raped or assaulted they often dont even report it because they have to admit they are guilty of a crime to do that.

[August1991]

My point is this - trying to outlaw sex for money is like trying to push a rope up hill, no matter who you're 'cheering' for. Any true progressive should recognize that.

And no doubt outlawing shoplifting is also a Sisyphean task. But that's no reason we should legalize theft.

I've noted this tendency in left wing cultures to absolve women of all responsibility while simultaneously proclaiming their full equality. Canada's court system has a similar belief in the dastardly nature of men vs the purity and innocence of women.

At your level, Argus, the question is whether the specific women are capable of an informed decision. Before you bought your first house, you had the sense no doubt to consult a lawyer. But who did you consult before buying your first car?

As to equality, you raise a much broader question.

Edited June 24, 2013 by August1991

[MadX]

First MadX, you should have started this thread as a poll so that we can see how people on this forum think. (You can still edit your OP and include a poll.)

Second, some German states and Nevada - among other places - have legalized prostitution. Sweden has made prostitution illegal. I suggest that you look at the logic behind the Swedish policy, and how it is applied.

Third, I suspect that Canadian wives would oppose legal prostitution because prostitutes represent competition. They would give many other reasons for their opposition but this would be the main reason.

Finally, in such discussions, I am always reminded of a conversation that I had with two young women in France, years ago. They told me that one time in Paris, they hired a prostitute to teach them a few techniques. (They told me that they met a prostitute in the street, and asked the hourly rate. They paid it, but asked for a different service.) I reckon that all young women should be as wise.

Well I think wives' opposition to prostitution is irrelevant. Jealousy should not be able to interfere with freedom. Besides the wives would be able to hire prostitutes as well. Both genders would be permitted to sell their bodies. I'm sure most of the johns would be single guys but there is no doubt that married men would probably seek them out as well. Many people already cheat on their wives though, i don't think legal prostitution will make it any more likely.

[GostHacked]

If prostitution is legal, what about the laws on strip clubs? How do we legalize prostitution and still make it illegal for men to touch strippers (provided the strippers consent)? For that matter, should the strippers be allowed to have sex with their clients in those 'champagne' rooms?

That would be up to the owner of the club and an agreement made with the ladies. I bet would be some of them would not go for it. But what makes you think that is not already happening now?

Edited June 27, 2013 by GostHacked

[August1991]

Well I think wives' opposition to prostitution is irrelevant.

For a politician, the opinion of wives is not irrelevant.

[Traveller]

For a politician, the opinion of wives is not irrelevant.

Your arguement, and the entire premise of the thread, is based on female prostitution. I accept that any other form is the exception, not the rule; but we must view the arguement in non-gender terms. Legalizing prostitution implicity includes male prostitution, so trying to base a response on the opinion of 'wives' is a bit ludicrous. It also ignores the reality of customer/clients who are not in a relationship - ie, single.

Far better that the argument and the point be made in the abrstract - enough people will object to legalization without trying to specify wives/spouses as a sub-set of opposition. For my own perspective, the question legalization is being addressed in reverse. Proponents should not be looking for reasons to legalize; rather, they shold be arguing that there is insufficient reason to make it illegal. In a free democracy, the onus should be on government to substantiate reasons to outlaw an activity; not to legalize one. For myself, I find the current arguments against prositituion to be insufficient.

[MadX]

Your arguement, and the entire premise of the thread, is based on female prostitution. I accept that any other form is the exception, not the rule; but we must view the arguement in non-gender terms. Legalizing prostitution implicity includes male prostitution, so trying to base a response on the opinion of 'wives' is a bit ludicrous. It also ignores the reality of customer/clients who are not in a relationship - ie, single.

Far better that the argument and the point be made in the abrstract - enough people will object to legalization without trying to specify wives/spouses as a sub-set of opposition. For my own perspective, the question legalization is being addressed in reverse. Proponents should not be looking for reasons to legalize; rather, they shold be arguing that there is insufficient reason to make it illegal. In a free democracy, the onus should be on government to substantiate reasons to outlaw an activity; not to legalize one. For myself, I find the current arguments against prositituion to be insufficient.

Exactly, the government does not have the moral authority over us to make prostitution illegal. The nation has no business in the bedrooms of Canadian citizens. What goes on between consenting adults is none of our business.

[MadX]

I find it curious that you keep bringing up "socially-awkward men" into this. I mean you can always throw all kinds men into it, men with little time, men with wives who don't have sex with them, men with small penises etc etc.

While these issues do make a compelling argument for the law of demand within the industry, I don't really see how that's relevant to the topic of legalization.

All those men can 'get laid' via prostitutes under existing laws.

They could technically get laid but prostitution is in effect illegal because most of the activities surrounding it are illegal. The reason I keep bringing up socially awkward men is because I have several friends at university who fit that description. These guys are good fellows, kind, loyal, and smart but because they don't lift weights and never played sports as kids, they are socially awkward and women don't want to have sex with them. Many of them were bullied at school. Not so much the guys from Newfoundland because most people are nice here but some of these guys come from Ontario, Halifax, and places where respect isn't as common in the schools. Because of the fact that these guys are out of shape, not athletic, and because of their inhibitions due to bullying and possibly their innate temperment, they have trouble getting laid. If prostitution were legal, they could just go down to the local brothel, get it on with the hottest woman their, rid themselves of their virginity, and move on with their lives.

I realize that if these guys started lifting weights and playing sports, women may start liking them more but I think age 18 to 22 is a little late to be starting that. Still I think that playing sports and being fit gives more benefits than simply getting women, I try to get these guys involved in intramurals and I invite them to come to the gym with me and out to parties. I get along with almost everyone so I'm not really worried about losing my rep for hanging out with "nerds", these guys are smart and I study with them because I only have a mediocre brain and they help me with university. I do sympathize with their lack of social skills. I tried to hook them up with some girls but the girls told me that the guys were nice but that their innate attraction mechanisms weren't triggered (they didn't exactly use those words, I'm summarizing them in my own).

So the reason I keep bringing this up is because I know people in that situation. I remember back in high school where I had trouble getting women. I was a good athlete and strong physically but I didn't know all the lines and game that is required to pick up women. I wasn't captain of any teams or a star athlete, just another player and I played basketball not hockey and in Canada, hockey is king. Hockey players got most of the attention of the women at my school. Basketball was alright but hockey was were it was at. I was good at floor hockey but I can't skate so playing ice hockey was out of the question for me.I got some girls in HS but I wasn't a Casanova. Because I struggled with women while some of my buddies on the hockey team had a different chick every weekend, I appreciate what these guys are going through. I can't even imagine what being a virgin must be like, my heart goes out to these guys, When I got to college I was able to step my game up and learn what to say to women. Being 230 pounds doesn't hurt either. Women like big guys. I was kind of a beanpole in High school but college really packs the weight on, well some of that weight is beer.

Anyways sorry about the long personal rant but that story I told you guys is why I support prostitution. It's not the only reason I support it. Safety of the women, the fact that the government shouldn't be able to tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies and tax revenue are all additional reasons why I think legal prostitution is a good idea.

[August1991]

Your arguement, and the entire premise of the thread, is based on female prostitution. I accept that any other form is the exception, not the rule; but we must view the arguement in non-gender terms.

Fine, the State will make both male and female prostitution illegal. Does that make the law fair?

IMV, quite apart from what (some) wives may think, I suspect that fairness is not the issue here.

Anyways sorry about the long personal rant but that story I told you guys is why I support prostitution. It's not the only reason I support it. Safety of the women, the fact that the government shouldn't be able to tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies and tax revenue are all additional reasons why I think legal prostitution is a good idea.

So, you oppose Harper and you oppose policies of teh Swedish government.

MadX, are you one of those [sarcasm] knuckle-dragging, freedom-loving Americans [/sarcasm]?

Edited July 15, 2013 by August1991

[Mighty AC]

And no doubt outlawing shoplifting is also a Sisyphean task. But that's no reason we should legalize theft.

August, why do you oppose regulated, legal prostitution?

[cybercoma]

I oppose regulated, legal prostitution because people's sex lives shouldn't be regulated. Prostitution should be legal without any regulations.

[Mighty AC]

I think there is some room for regulation in areas such as disease testing and advertising standards.

[dre]

I oppose regulated, legal prostitution because people's sex lives shouldn't be regulated. Prostitution should be legal without any regulations.

Well if it was legal you WOULD be able to do it in an unregulated manner (under the table). But prostitutes should at the very least have the OPTION of setting up a normal business in a safe clean facility, having the protection of labor laws, the ability to go on EI, pay into a pension etc.

[cybercoma]

Well if it was legal you WOULD be able to do it in an unregulated manner (under the table). But prostitutes should at the very least have the OPTION of setting up a normal business in a safe clean facility, having the protection of labor laws, the ability to go on EI, pay into a pension etc.

They could do all of that without government regulation too. Mind you, most of them would be independent contractors, or self-employed, which means they wouldn't be entitled to EI or anything anyway. Edited July 16, 2013 by cybercoma

[Mighty AC]

Like most adult products and services I think some regulation in areas like access, advertising and safety standards is a good thing. Maybe one day prostitutes will be like massage therapists. There will be registered and non-registered versions, with the latter adhering to a set of standards and subject to inspections. Imagine having some prostitution coverage through benefit plans...