Legalize prostitution?

[unadulteratedawesome]

What is a good justification for something?

A good justification for something would involve showing why your ethical stance would benefit the group without infringing on the rights of the individual. I think a good way to look at it is: Does the act harm anyone else? No? Then allow it. Prostitution itself doesn't harm anyone else.

And before someone brings it up, no, being offended is not harm. In many cases it's a good thing because it may provoke some thought (unless you're a static, foolish person).

Because I would LOVE to hear any concrete proof you have that prostitution is good for the community.

With the money being exchanged between legal businesses and clients, it would aid the economy as well as be able to be taxed. It promotes freedom for people to do what they want with their own bodies as well as open sexuality. It relieves stress for people who, for whatever reason, normally wouldn't be able to have sex (regularly or otherwise). It opens another job area for people who are unable to attend college or university. If prostitution is considered a normal, legal profession, then it would reduce some objectification of women/men. It would reduce the amount of STDs and reduce rape. It would cripple a large part of the criminal underground, which is always good.

I can go on, but those are mostly practical reasons why we should allow it.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Well I would just guess ( If I were to look at it through a Christian angle...) I would say even given free will it is the persons job to do either right or wrong...and I think that what you do will be the difference between heaven or hell....How ever I am not very religious. I can just agree its wrong with way. Yet sure legalize it...let us test the will of men even more.

 

[Doc Holliday]

One thing I find rather amusing about the people against the prostitution legalisation in this thread is that they talk about objectification of women.

There are such things as rent boys! Jiggalos!

Surely by talking about prostitution as if it were a female only job, you're being just as sexist. D:

 

[Dr. Percival Cox]

Religion may not even be the real reason not to do it. You do not have to be a religious person to understand how to live noble lives. Stoic is correct in saying that prostitution is immoral, dimeaning to women, and sinply wrong....and you dont have to have any kind of religion to have the commen sense to see it.

I hear alot of people say prostitution is immoral and I'm merely asking how? The only difference between prostitution and a one night stand is that you're getting paid. So, does that mean that a fear of emotional intimacy is immoral? Does this mean that people who are not willing or are emotionally unable to commit are instantly bad people? I guess from a religious standpoint it is. But to be perfectly fair, religion has a bad habit of jumping on anything (*cough* *cough* homosexuality *cough* ) because it's "immoral" in their eyes.

You're going to be in for a bit of a shock. Oddly enough there aren't prostitute scouts who go around seraching for beautiful women and asking them if they'd like to be whores. The women who are prostitues are quite likely to be junkies, ugly and old.

I'm not saying I'd pay for anything. The point of paying for sex is that I get to picky. I'm not gonna cough up $1,200 to fuck something that looks like Rosie O'Donnell.

 

[Stoic Hero]

Mine come from my rationality

And you have faith in your rationality, correct? You believe yourself to be rationally sound.

So do I. I rationalized a belief in God. It makes sense to me. To explain how or why it does would take a very long time, but suffice to say that I believe because I find it a rationally sound decision.

But, this isn't the topic to discuss the rationality of faith in God. I don't know who said that I believed prostitution was wrong "just because God said so" but I never said that in the first place. That might be okay for some people, and that's fine, because God is always right, but I prefer to rationalize things, too, and find out why something is right or wrong.

Prostitution can spread sexually transmitted diseases. This is a very, very likely occurrence. Sex outside of marriage (and sometimes within marriage, though this is usually caused by sex before the marriage) can bring you an STD. This is fact. You always have a chance of getting infected if you have sex with someone you don't know, condom or birth control pill not excluded.
This, too, can lead to unwanted pregnancies.

Prostitution is an extreme form of gender discrimination. Legalization of this violence to women restricts women's freedom and citizenship rights. If women are allowed to become a legitimate commodity, they are consigned to a second-class citizenship. Women are "property" and not actually people.
"Legalization will not end abuse. It will make abuse legal." -this coming from a girl who was sold as a prostitute.

From a personal viewpoint, I think it's rather sad. The sex is obviously not enjoyable, and hardly involves any kind of love. It's empty. Devoid of any kind of trust. The sex is just sex, and I see a problem with that.

Also; wasn't Mary Magdalene a prostitute?

Yes. But Jesus stopped the people who were trying to stone her for it and forgave her. She changed her ways and was no longer a prostitute, and was made all the better because of it.

Because as soon as you inject religion into law, and then force me to live under those laws, you're infringing on my Constitutional rights, which not only protects your freedom of religion, but my freedom from religion. In the case of prostitution's legality, logic shows that it is more beneficial to 1) the prostitute 2) the solicitor 3) the government to legalize prostitution. The only argument against prostitution comes from a religious standpoint, which is unconstitutional, and has no place in the legal sphere.

You're being slightly hypocritical. Your ways of thinking affects my life as well. My religion disapproves of prostitution. If it is made legal, they'll be able to petition for clients on streets outside of churches. It will affect my children, grandchildren, and so on and so forth, when they see prostitutes and will tempt them to sin. Legalizing prostitution would affect me, and the way I practice my religion, in a negative fashion. And I don't see how prostitution being illegal infringes on any of your boundaries. If you want to have sex, there are plenty of legal, and probably cheaper, ways to go about it.

 

[Rydia]

Why haven't they legalized prostitution? Because they can't tax it.

The government would make LOADS of money if they could find a way to tax sex, but how? The majority of these people operate from home. A lot of them, out of their own volition. (I know there's pimps and brothels, but beyond that.) It's all cash in hand (or gifts), there's no records or receipts. There's no button on the cash register to input a 12% tax on this woman's vagina useage.

There's no possible way to tax this because there's no way that they can watch every single prostitute and ensure that they're recording all their earnings come tax time. So if women get off by earning more, by not recording what they're earning (and they do, these women make a lot of money depending on their clients) then why would they? If what they earn, technically puts them in a larger tax bracket (and it would), then they get deducted more from it. And there's a good possibility that they wouldn't see that money come back to them in a tax return.

So why would these women report these earnings, if they'll get to keep more by not reporting it? Why would the Government legalize something if they can't find a technical way to tax and make money off of it? They wouldn't. It doesn't benefit them.

/thread

There are already under the table cash jobs in other businesses. Someone from high school worked at a resturaunt that paid him cash and he never got taxed for it. So this would not be unique to prostitution.

There are brothels in Nevada that I'm sure get taxed for it's prostitution. I think women would be likely to choose to sell themself through those for safety reasons. I know the Wild Horse? Hotel offers the girls protection, and weekly STD testing.

As for objectifying. Someone will probably beat me too it but men works as prostitutes too who service both men and women. So this is not only a women's issue.

As for where the prostitutes could practice business. Are there strip clubs in your neighborhood or by your church? I'm sure they could do something to keep prostitution out of certain places. They could put up no solicitation signs like some places have to keep sales people out.

 

[Harlequin]

Why should the laws inhibit an individual's ability to choose between his own conception of good and bad? If morality is a strong enough deterrent or justification, then it would seem that a Christian would be open to prostitution being legalized since it would have no effect on whether or not a proper adult would be able to exercise his ability to commit such acts. Since morality is wholly apart from legality when it comes to individual actions, a Christian would not commit prostitution whether or not it was legalized. It could arguably be even better to submit someone to the moral difficulty of entertaining a prostitute since it would only go to bolster and truly revel his moral leaning.

Well we're also free to impose whatever laws we wish, ranging from banning substances to even implementing slavery. Whether or not a Christian is doing right by God in carrying out those practices is another question to whether or not one should have the freedom to do so. Many people blur the lines between the two.

If God was open to this allowance, then why do Christians believe that it is alright to forcible close this particular avenue of individual choice?

It's the domino effect. One moment we're fine having it as long as it's not on our doorstep, the next our daughters, sisters, et cetera are being caught up in it. It's not a question of freedoms and whose business is whose, it's what we want for our society because humans aren't as individual as many like to believe.

Then there's how comfortable we'll feel making that vice so accessible. How much do ladies trust their husbands? How many of us would genuinely be comfortable with those girls being our daughters?

--

And just quickly, as for all the disdain towards religion, a religious person has the right to say whatever they want on the subject, if they want to suggest banning prostitution, drinking, gambling, drug use and gay marriage they have every right. By scorning their views on those subjects what differentiates you from your opinion of them?

 

[der Astronom]

For the umpteenth time, I don't think we're saying you're not allowed to voice your opinion at all; just that if you use religion as justification for it, where the public sphere is concerned, then not everyone who believes in your religion is obligated to do so, and it is unfair to impose your beliefs on people who do not believe in the same things. That's basically what you would be doing if you're saying we shouldn't legalize prostitution because it's immoral according to your religion.

 

[CassinoChips]

Yes. But Jesus stopped the people who were trying to stone her for it and forgave her. She changed her ways and was no longer a prostitute, and was made all the better because of it.

You should study up on that. Mary Magdalene wasn't a prostitute.

You're being slightly hypocritical. Your ways of thinking affects my life as well.

How does my going to a prostitute affect your life? It doesn't. Hence the problem with religion in law. It forces your laws on to me. I don't force my laws on to you, because my laws only affect me. You can make the same argument with gay marriage/adoption/rights, abortion, and the innumerable other legal battles that are based on a religious point of view.

If it is made legal, they'll be able to petition for clients on streets outside of churches.

Lol. Slippery slope. Just like how drug laws are stricter within a radius of a school, and certain things are illegal near hospitals and government buildings, there would/could be restrictions.

It will affect my children, grandchildren, and so on and so forth, when they see prostitutes and will tempt them to sin.

Jesus will forgive them, I'm sure. And you make an awful lot of assumptions there. That you'll have grandchildren, that they'll be Christian, that they'll see prostitutes, that they'll feel temptation. But, happily, we can discuss the legalization of prostitution without thinking of the non-existant, hypothetical grandchildren.

Legalizing prostitution would affect me, and the way I practice my religion, in a negative fashion.

Not unless you went out of your way to make it so.

And I don't see how prostitution being illegal infringes on any of your boundaries. If you want to have sex, there are plenty of legal, and probably cheaper, ways to go about it.

If I wanted to exchange money for sex with a consenting woman, it certainly would infringe on my boundaries.

 

[Stoic Hero]

I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I'm asserting what I'm saying as truth and you're asserting that what I'm saying is untrue, so we will forever be at odds, regardless of who is right. Debate is impossible without some kind of middle ground or gray area. Here, it's just a chest-thumping competition.

I've said my peace. Prostitution is immoral, and should not be legalized. Now, I will not return to this topic. Goodnight, gentlemen.

 

[Harlequin]

if you use religion as justification for it, where the public sphere is concerned, then not everyone who believes in your religion is obligated to do so, and it is unfair to impose your beliefs on people who do not believe in the same things. That's basically what you would be doing if you're saying we shouldn't legalize prostitution because it's immoral according to your religion.

If the majority vote based on religious inclinations the law is imposed - that's the only 'fair' democracy knows - and having a law imposed that goes against your beliefs certainly isn't exclusive to non believers.

And you make an awful lot of assumptions there. That you'll have grandchildren, that they'll be Christian, that they'll see prostitutes, that they'll feel temptation. But, happily, we can discuss the legalization of prostitution without thinking of the non-existant, hypothetical grandchildren.

I agree with alot of your post, but I feel it's fully reasonable to plan ahead with family in mind when deciding our society's laws.

 

[CassinoChips]

I agree with alot of your post, but I feel it's fully reasonable to plan ahead with family in mind when deciding our society's laws.

We have no idea what the world is going to be like in 50 years. Think about what things were like in 1961, and how different that world was as compared to today's. Obviously the big things never change (Murder, rape, theft, etc.), but I would think it would be more prudent to create legislature to deal with the situation in which you find yourself, than it is to try and determine what laws will fit with a society that doesn't exist yet. And may never exist. You'll be wrong more often than right.

 

[Channizard]

Can I ask where (and how) morality got into this? Rydia was simply asking "Why" from the Government.

Granted, Prostitution ruffles a lot of feathers when it comes to morality, I understand not everybody's going to agree upon it, but that wasn't the issue here. Religion and morals have just been thrust into place when I don't think that was her intention at all (given how when Religion is involved, things get out of hand waaaaay to fast). =/

 

[coffeecup]

Well we're also free to impose whatever laws we wish, ranging from banning substances to even implementing slavery. Whether or not a Christian is doing right by God in carrying out those practices is another question to whether or not one should have the freedom to do so. Many people blur the lines between the two.

[This is actually altered from a PM response I made earlier. There sure are some people who know their faith on this forum.]

Sure sure, I recognize that free will includes making laws or what not. But it would seem that despite having free will, Christianity would prefer an individual to exercise his will towards whatever is "good" as defined by Christianity, NOT by some artificial consideration (e.g., man-made laws). So I'm asking WHY would a Christian find the need to impose these laws. It's obviously immoral under Christian standards, but just because something is immoral doesn't lead to it being outlawed by statute. Christian ethics tend to focus on moral individualized actions and praise those who are able to overcome negative inclination through an open and uninhibited choice. So in a way, by enforcing man-made laws that prevent immoral acts, this is undermining the very essential nature and purpose of free will itself.

So the benefit of criminalizing immoral acts is you'll have less people committing immoral acts (obvious). The cost is you'll infringe on the opportunity given to an autonomous agent to choose between doing moral and immoral acts (not so obvious). I just find it a bit questionable as to why Christians tend not to even consider this consequence. Many don't even seem to think of it as a cost, but it would appear that this infringement on a human agent to make the morally correct choice is an infringement upon something that is necessary for any Christian to develop and become morally successful.

To give a rather crude example, (from a Christian standpoint) you'd want an adult not to steal because they've overcome their desire to steal with their moral discipline of believing that stealing is wrong. You don't want an adult to not steal because it's illegal. By making stealing legal/illegal robs an individual his dignity to shape his morality as under Christian doctrine. Or if you want to go a step further you could argue that it actually detriments the agent himself.

And I'd like to repeat that this only pertains to adults. I'm assuming perfect regulation so that innocent kids will not be unduly influenced by this. Naturally we wouldn't like our spouse to sleep with a hooker, but this is something that should not be stopped by some artificially made law. If that were required, then Christianity as a whole would appear to have failed as a sufficient justification for morally proper conduct.





[And my questions are actually meant to be taken seriously. I'm not really poking fun at Christian belief. I'm trying to argue within the standard of their own rules. It's a bit difficult, but it's nice to see how they respond and see how some of the gaps in my own knowledge about the Christian faith can be filled up.]

 

[Rydia]

I don't quite understand the "husband might sleep with a hooker."

Even with prostitution illegal, they still exist. Your husband/wife could still go to an illegal prostitute, or have an affair with someone else for free. (And is one really worse than the other?) It's also a bit sad that some feel that they can not trust their spouse.

I also do not understand why anyone would worry about their daughter getting into the profession. Do you worry that your daughter will decide to become a stripper or make homemade porn, both of which are legal? How about sleeping with sevaral partners once hitting puberty?

 

[der Astronom]

If the majority vote based on religious inclinations the law is imposed - that's the only 'fair' democracy knows - and having a law imposed that goes against your beliefs certainly isn't exclusive to non believers.

Actually, I beg to differ, and while I understand there are benefits to democracy, it isn't a perfect system, and just because everyone agrees with something doesn't mean that they're right, or that it's good for everyone. Centuries ago, the majority of people were okay with slavery, but that doesn't mean it ever was okay.

Furthermore, as it has already been mentioned in this thread, religion and law are, or should remain separate, and even if most people happen to be religious, there's still a perfectly good reason why they should be that way.
Trying to equate religion with law is wrong because even if there's only a minority of people who don't agree with it, it is still fundamentally wrong and unjust towards these people, and it encourages people to decide things based on what most people agree with--this would be an appeal to populace fallacy, and I don't want to see society degrade into people who can't think critically.

 

[coffeecup]

I don't quite understand the "husband might sleep with a hooker."

Even with prostitution illegal, they still exist. Your husband/wife could still go to an illegal prostitute, or have an affair with someone else for free. (And is one really worse than the other?) It's also a bit sad that some feel that they can not trust their spouse.

That was just a response to what he said earlier.

Prostitution makes things much more accessible. And if the Christian ethic is allegedly sufficient, then taking the time to rebut legalization should be a moot issue. Thus they shouldn't care to defend or support legalization.

But after thinking about my previous posts, my argument seems to be more academic than practical; an obscure argument that would likely never see the light of day. It was just a fun theoretical exercise, but it's probably an argument nobody other than a picky Christian philosopher would take the time to consider.

So just disregard it. Ivory tower thought is a time waster. School has ruined me

 

[Harlequin]

Actually, I beg to differ, and while I understand there are benefits to democracy, it isn't a perfect system, and just because everyone agrees with something doesn't mean that they're right, or that it's good for everyone. Centuries ago, the majority of people were okay with slavery, but that doesn't mean it ever was okay.

Whether it's right or wrong was never my argument - the law is imposed, end of story. You said it was unfair, I said that's how democracy works.

by enforcing man-made laws that prevent immoral acts, this is undermining the very essential nature and purpose of free will itself.

Christian morality and law are described in the Bible as parallel. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, eye for an eye, etc. Not to mention the fact that there are those in society not as dedicated to the morals of the religion they follow and law is about protecting the well being of the collective. To believe the Bible to be a weapon to monitor others would in my opinion be a gross misinterpretation of the idea of Christianity.

 

[coffeecup]

:/ I don't think you understand what I'm getting at since your response doesn't really reply to anything I said. My argument was a Christian contextualized response to Christians (i.e., I'm arguing against the Christian stance using their own assumptions). Try to understand the idea behind the entire post instead of taking a sentence out of context. Then I think you'll find that we're actually on the same team (or at least not against each other).

Democracy plays no role in my argument. My argument would hold even if you assume every single being living on the the planet is a Christian who thinks prostitution is immoral.

Edit: The only real argument against it is if prostitution were explicitly outlawed in the Bible (like the 10 commandments, leviticus laws, or deuteronomy laws). Pointing to passages where Jesus said "this" or "that" isn't sufficient (there are ways around this since present perception is flawed itself and men codifying laws they think is the word of God is a way toward defiling his word). But like I said before, it's a very academic type of response that has a minor practical effect.

 

[der Astronom]

To believe the Bible to be a weapon to monitor others would in my opinion be a gross misinterpretation of the idea of Christianity.

Actually, that's your idea of Christianity. There are over several thousand different interpretations of what Christianity is to different people. And the bible is so ambiguous and confusing that people can't seem to agree about what it was meant for. It would be a gross misinterpretation to pretend to know what Christianity was intended for when people can't even decide what it was intended for.