Why not legalize prostitution?

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

At it's worst, sex can be forced upon people against their will.

But wouldn't you agree that if prostitution in some form was legalized, this worst-case-scenario would become less and less likely?

Quote:

With regards to consenting adults having sex; I still think it can be and has been harmful to society. Promiscuity has led to the spread of disease. Adultery has made a tremendous amount of people utterly miserable, enraged, and/or depressed. There is a great deal of women who have fallen into the trap of basing their self-esteem around sexual encounters. Fornication has provided a boon of unwanted and uncared for children.

Get your head out of your ass. You can't blame the act of sexual intercourse for any of this. Everything you listed is the fault of the person who makes it their fault, they just don't have the balls to man up and take the blame themselves, so they drop the ol' "ITS SOCIETY'Z FAULT LOL" bullshit and fuck things up for the rest of us. Not everyone who has out-of-wedlock sex spreads disease and spits out children. If your stone tablet doctrine of "no promiscuous sex" reached critical mass, do you honestly think that would do society any good?

Drugs are illegal, so what do we have? Drug trafficking.
Selling sex is illegal, so what do we have? Prostitution.

Make promiscuous sex illegal and you'll run society right back into the hole it came from. You wonder why there's so much disease? Teaching abstinence instead of safe sex is probably a good place to start.

Quote:

At it's worst, sex can be forced upon people against their will.

There's a word for this, actually, and it's not called "sex."

Quote:

Anybody see Chasing Amy? I'm the kind of guy who can forgive people for the transgressions of their past. At the same time I wish they wouldn't have done those things in the first place.

The Justice System doesn't work the same way as your world view. A lot of morality lawyers forget that people go to prison for these kind of "transgressions."

Ouch. You asked me a question. I'm sorry you don't like the answer.

Originally Posted by sprouticus

But wouldn't you agree that if prostitution in some form was legalized, this worst-case-scenario would become less and less likely?

I don't feel that legalized prostitution will have much of an effect in lowering the rate of sex crimes such as rape, incest, and child molestation. I agree that those already involved in illegal prostitution would benefit tremendously, but that isn't nearly enough for me to comfortably support such a change in law.

Originally Posted by sprouticus

You can't blame the act of sexual intercourse for any of this.

I don't blame sex for anything. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but it doesn't make any sense to me either. I do think sex can be misused by people in a way that it harmful to people, but that's much different than 'blaming sex'.

Originally Posted by sprouticus

Everything you listed is the fault of the person who makes it their fault, they just don't have the balls to man up and take the blame themselves, so they drop the ol' "ITS SOCIETY'Z FAULT LOL"

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were looking for other types of examples. It's a bit unfair of you to get upset about it when the burden really wasn't on me to second guess you like that. Hmm, how about the teenager who feels compelled to seek out destructive and frequent sexual relationships because of exposure to sexual and physical abuse at home? Some will take pity, others will say, 'Get over it and shape up your life'. An alarming number of people (not all, in case that's what you think I'm suggesting) in legal sexual industries such as erotic dancing (yes, i'm aware that dancers and patrons don't have sex) and pornography were the victims of sexual abuse. When you learn the situation of an individual it is sometimes becomes difficult to place fault on them.

Originally Posted by sprouticus

Not everyone who has out-of-wedlock sex spreads disease and spits out children. If your stone tablet doctrine of "no promiscuous sex" reached critical mass, do you honestly think that would do society any good?

I didn't mean for you to think that I said that ALL promiscuous people carry and spread disease; that ALL pre-marital sex leads to unwanted children. I didn't even come close to expressing that as an absolute. I maintain that the spread of STDs and the increase in unwanted children being born has everything to do with people having sex irresponsibly. Honestly? Yes, I think it would benefit society in general if promiscuity wasn't accepted or practiced.

Originally Posted by sprouticus

Drugs are illegal, so what do we have? Drug trafficking.
Selling sex is illegal, so what do we have? Prostitution.

I suppose I can agree that if something it illegal...then the people who do it do so illegally. (!?!?) I see the point you're trying to make, but to me it isn't a strong enough argument. It holds up poorly in other scenarios and I don't view your examples as victimless crimes.

Originally Posted by sprouticus

Teaching abstinence instead of safe sex is probably a good place to start.

Yes, I completely agree that encouraging abstinence is an excellent way to go. I still think people need to learn about safe sex as well.

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

but that isn't nearly enough for me to comfortably support such a change in law.

So what is enough? This is just like LordsSword. "It's not enough." Well what is enough to sway your view? Complete abstinence? Castration at birth? What?

Quote:

I don't blame sex for anything. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but it doesn't make any sense to me either. I do think sex can be misused by people in a way that it harmful to people, but that's much different than 'blaming sex'.

Your quote:

Quote:

With regards to consenting adults having sex; I still think it can be and has been harmful to society.

That registers to me as "people having sex is harmful to society." Breaking it down further, it basically looks like you're saying "society is harmed through sexual intercourse." You're saying that something we are naturally predisposed to do is somehow bad for us?

Quote:

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were looking for other types of examples. It's a bit unfair of you to get upset about it when the burden really wasn't on me to second guess you like that. Hmm, how about the teenager who feels compelled to seek out destructive and frequent sexual relationships because of exposure to sexual and physical abuse at home? Some will take pity, others will say, 'Get over it and shape up your life'. An alarming number of people (not all, in case that's what you think I'm suggesting) in legal sexual industries such as erotic dancing (yes, i'm aware that dancers and patrons don't have sex) and pornography were the victims of sexual abuse. When you learn the situation of an individual it is sometimes becomes difficult to place fault on them.

Who's placing fault on them? The fault rests solely on the fucked up minds that deem that sort of behavior okay. The problem is, nobody has the minerals to blame them, and them outright. They scapegoat. They blame shit like movies and society. They claim that if we stopped having premarital sex, none of these problems would happen! But can you honestly prove that?

Quote:

I maintain that the spread of STDs and the increase in unwanted children being born has everything to do with people having sex irresponsibly. Honestly? Yes, I think it would benefit society in general if promiscuity wasn't accepted or practiced.

And I think you're ignoring the facts presented before you. How would it benefit society when statistics show that sex crime levels are DOWN in countries that aren't filled with so many uptight candy-asses? Furthermore, irresponsible sex starts with childhood. If kids aren't properly educated, it's no wonder they fuck like idiots.

Quote:

Yes, I completely agree that encouraging abstinence is an excellent way to go. I still think people need to learn about safe sex as well.

I guess the sarcasm didn't really stick with you. Abstinence programs are akin to mental castration. Telling kids not to have sex, when they're going through puberty and reaching their most sexually active years of life, is fucking stupid. There's no other way to put it. People are going to have sex. It's unnatural not to reproduce. People who don't have their head up the bible's ass have figured this out already, and are advocating safe sex, instead of regressing into the dark ages and saying "NO! NO PREMARITAL SEX EVER! NEVER!!"

Can someone else yell at me please? Sorry Sprouticus. There's a few good points you make. But the rest of it is changing my words around recklessly and a lot of stuff that just doesn't make sense or is oddly irrelevant.

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

At it's worst, sex can be forced upon people against their will.

There are a lot of things in the world which are basically good when practiced by consenting adults, and yet are extremely bad when forced on people against their will. I say we make a nice big list so that we can completely ban all of them. It's the only way to safeguard society from such terrible acts. I'm going to start my list with religion.

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

Ouch. You asked me a question. I'm sorry you don't like the answer.

It is called a discussion. You say something, someone else says something. You respond to things other people have said and they in return respond to things you've said. It's standard operating procedure for an internet forum. Why does it seem like you're taking offense to the idea that someone might want to respond to you? You must have come into this thread knowing that for this community your responses would be controversial.

Quote:

I don't blame sex for anything. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but it doesn't make any sense to me either. I do think sex can be misused by people in a way that it harmful to people, but that's much different than 'blaming sex'.

Lets make a list of things that can't be misused in a way which is harmful to people. I think I have room on the back of this postage stamp. The contents of the average kitchen, garage or workshop can be put to use in a way which can potentially cause far more harm than is possible to inflict using sex, and to a greater number of people simultaneously.

Quote:

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were looking for other types of examples. It's a bit unfair of you to get upset about it when the burden really wasn't on me to second guess you like that.

Your examples don't really support your argument. Each example you have given is a result of the sexual act, but almost anything you do can result in unpleasant consequences if you don't take the appropriate precautions. You won't get a sexually transmitted disease if you take precautions and make every effort to sleep with a clean partner. A woman will not get pregant if some form of birth control is used. If you fail to take these precautions, you know you do so at your own risk.

Since you are a Christian, I'd like to ask you as nicely as I know how if we can avoid the whole discussion on birth control? I mentioned it as part of an argument absent any discussion of the morality of the practice. I personally would really appreciate not getting into that one, and it's off-topic for the thread anyway.

As for adultery or cheating outside of marriage, I don't see any meaningful difference between that and any other kind of dishonest and hurtful behaviour in a relationship. Sex does not have to be involved, there are all kinds of ways for human beings to betray each other. It's never just the physical act that was the big deal, it's always the feeling of loss of trust and of betrayal as well. That can happen either with or without sex.

Quote:

Hmm, how about the teenager who feels compelled to seek out destructive and frequent sexual relationships because of exposure to sexual and physical abuse at home?

Oh I don't know... maybe blame that on the abuse? I don't see why sexual abuse should be considered different than other kinds of physical abuse from a moral standpoint. It might be more emotionally damaging to the victim, but as far as I'm concerned, any kind of physical abuse is wrong, it's not a matter of degrees.

Once again... this can happen with or without sex. What you seem to be saying here is that a lot of people are cruel. I can't argue with that, and woul not wish to. Where I think you are mistaken is in assuming that sex is somehow related to this cruelty simply because it is often the 'weapon' of choice. I'm asking you to consider the possibility that it is but a means to an end for cruel people, and that these things are not directly related to sex itself.

If you misuse a car, you may use it as a weapon by crashing it, potentially harming many people. If you misuse a knife, you may harm others by using it as a weapon. If you misuse household chemicals you may harm many other people by creating a crude explosive device. If you misuse a computer (or for that matter, a pen and paper) you may hurt the feelings of others by writing unkind things.

Almost anyhing can be used to cause emotion distress or physical harm. Try to find something that has no potential for such abuse. It's harder than you might think.

Quote:

An alarming number of people in legal sexual industries such as erotic dancing and pornography were the victims of sexual abuse.

Please provide evidence to support this assertion, or there is no point in using it as the basis for your argument.

Since I have made that request of you it is only fair that I point out that what I have posted is only my own opinions.

Quote:

I didn't even come close to expressing that as an absolute. I maintain that the spread of STDs and the increase in unwanted children being born has everything to do with people having sex irresponsibly.

I can agree with this, but I'm not sure you realise what you've written. The most you have done here is to make a case for people to have sex in a more responsible manner. I agree with you entirely on that, but I think we differ greatly on the definition of responsible sex. My perspective is necessarily different from yours. I am not a promiscuous man, but I have had sexual relationships which did not involve marriage. In fact I do not think I shall ever get married, even if I stay with my current partner for the rest of my life. It just doesn't seem like the sort of thing we would do.

Quote:

Honestly? Yes, I think it would benefit society in general if promiscuity wasn't accepted or practiced.

I would advise you to not hold your breath while waiting. I also find it noteworthy that you believe that there can be no such thing as 'responsible promiscuity'. I don't see what is irresponsible about practicing promiscuity as long as the appropriate precautions have been taken by both parties. I am aware that those precautions are often neglected, but I believe there is a better chance of pursuading people to take them than of persuading them to not have sex.

Quote:

Yes, I completely agree that encouraging abstinence is an excellent way to go. I still think people need to learn about safe sex as well.

I agree entirely with Sproutacus' response to this particular statement. I firmly believe that advocating abstinence is pointless in most cases. I don't doubt that there will be a few who will choose to abstain from sex before marriage, but statistics have shown that they are in the minority. I just don't see how you could pursuade these teenagers to abstain from sex. The risk of causing unwanted pregnancies did not apparently deter them, and I would find it hard to believe they did not know that was a possibility.

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

Can someone else yell at me please?.

In this one specific instance, your wish is my command.

I just remembered the question that puts things in perspective
for a lot of people:

Why is it illegal to sell something you can give away for free?

Debating moral subjects is pointless. It's boils down to throwing around euphemisms. Legalization/decriminalization, prostitute/whore, rape/prostitution. It's all doublespeak.

Nothing meaningful is going to be exchanged. Unless you feel you have the right to question someone else's moral/religous beliefs. Which apparently everyone does.

Oh look, the abortion euphemisms are already starting to crop up in the topic. Which has nothing to do with whores or legalized rape!

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Was Watts really saying that people would start patenting tricks?

Hypothetically, yes. Realistically, who knows?

I lack foresight into the possibilities. Only thing I was saying is that if DNA can be patented anything is possible.

My position was that opposition to legalization could easily be found on the reactionary ideology, social tension, and/or unforeseen consequences (besides more regulation/taxes) that such a political move would create. To often people are far too willing to upset the balance the status quo creates without thinking about the negative social/political consequences.

Nothing should ever change, no matter what the proof is for it being a logical, proven step, because the boat might be rocked? The point of changing the status quo is because the boat -needs- to be rocked. We're not talking morals, we're talking legality. As always, Watts, you're arguing semantics to obfuscate a lack of actual substance. You are either a complete idiot or a world class political troll.

Ah...much better. Thank you.

Sorry for getting defensive. I promise I just thought I was answering a question about how sex can be harmful. I'm not the one who posed the question. I answered the question as simply as it was presented to me. My answer was brief an unspectacular, but it answered the question. Sex can be harmful. And so can a table saw, a bottle of bleach, the old refrigerator in the garage, etc. This doesn't really demand that I need to answer any differently. I'm used to being flamed, but it's hard to respond when I don't know what I'm being yelled at for.

I certainly wouldn't complain in there was an increase in the amount of people who have sex responsibly. I'm not sure why abstinence needs to be thrown out the window though. This doesn't mean I want to lessen the amount or importance of safe sex. *end birth control discussion*

I still don't see what's wrong with my examples. They reflect, and accurately so, what's happening in the United States. It doesn't have to be that way. The resources to prevent all of it are readily available here, and yet it persists. My argument was to illustrate the ways in which sex can be harmful. I never claimed, for example, that ALL promiscuity spreads disease. But enough of it does. The act of sexual intercourse itself isn't to blame of course but rather the irresponsibility and ignorance of those involved.

I'm against causing harm on a mental level as well, but nobody asked me about that so I didn't include that in my answer. And while there may be things someone can do to upset a partner as much or worse than having sex with another, sex still has to be near the top of that list.

Soluzar explained many other flaws in my answer about how sex can be harmful. Most of it centers around the idea, "Sex can do that, but so can a billion other things". Don't wanna argue those points. Can't really argue against those points. But to me this highlights a shortcoming in the question itself in that it is way too simple.

Strippers and porn stars abused stats: My original source was a general practitioner and a comedian on a call in sex/drug advice radio show. Most of what I could find online was purely anecdotal and most of those seem to link sexual abuse with involvement in the sex industry. A few do deny these claims. A doctor named Mary Anne Layden said "Most strippers, as with other women who work in the sex industry, are adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Research indicates the number is between 60-80 percent". Couldn't find any info on that research though. Here's one tiny article...

Sexual Abuse as a Precursor to Prostitution and Victimization Among Adolescent and Adult Homeless Women -- SIMONS and WHITBECK 12 (3): 361 -- Journal of Family Issues

What disturbed during my (brief) research was the amount of violence and abuse towards strippers. Here's one such article describing that sentiment... Porn Myth 2 Extrapolating this evidence towards prostitution would be another argument against its legalization.

Far too many people who are sexually active are not practicing safe sex. I don't think everyone needs to adhere to my own personal standards. But i do think a great many people could and should be more responsible when they have sex. Wear a condom, get tested, be aware that other people's emotions are at stake. Having sex with a stranger can be and often is highly irresponsible whether money is involved or not.

Tired. Late. Work to do. Thanks for yelling at me.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

The point of changing the status quo is because the boat -needs- to be rocked.

Where's the proof?

According to census data in 2006, Nevada is ranked 8th in having the highest rape rate. (per capita) Attributing the lower STD/STI rates solely due to the influence of legal prostitution is just as shallow. Sex Education plays just as big of a role as prostitution in preventing STDs/STIs. The health care industry would play a even bigger role in preventing the spread of STDs/STIs.

It's not like everybody fucks prostitutes.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

We're not talking morals, we're talking legality.

Red herring. It's already been stated that there are social and moral concerns with legalization.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

As always, Watts, you're arguing semantics to obfuscate a lack of actual substance.

Your ad hominem arguments count as actual substance? Why then feel free to throw as many red herrings or insults at me as you can. Just kidding, I know you'd do that anyway.

Quote:

I lack foresight into the possibilities. Only thing I was saying is that if DNA can be patented anything is possible.

Patenting original DNA is a bit more complicated than turning a trick so hard your John comes for 2 minutes and then trying to maintain a monopoly on it. I mean, magic tricks aren't patented either, why are you worried about this mess?

Quote:

Ouch. You asked me a question. I'm sorry you don't like the answer.

I'm going to skip any pretense of debate and go straight to the heart of the matter. You are scum. Most likely also a troll. To adamantly refuse to support an issue in the face of logic just because you feel icky about it is the most shallow reaction to any policy decision on the planet. You are what is wrong with America.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Patenting original DNA is a bit more complicated than turning a trick so hard your John comes for 2 minutes and then trying to maintain a monopoly on it. I mean, magic tricks aren't patented either, why are you worried about this mess?

Wrong on both counts. There are patents involving magic tricks. I'll get to that later. The bigger issue is our legal system. This is where the problems with our legal system become readily apparent. Both "tricks" could be considered trade secrets. Which means it's even easier to maintain a monopoly. Wikipedia does a better job of explaining....

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_rights_to_magic_methods

Magic methods are effectively forms of trade secret and share many characteristics of trade secrets in other business sectors. As such there is a significant body of law that falls under the headings of "confidentiality" and "contract law" that might be used to control or protect them. These measures can effectively allow a perpetual monopoly in secret information - ie. it does not expire as would a patent or copyright.

That link will provide patent information for magic tricks.

This is where the bio-tech corporation comparison comes into play. It gets even better.... I mean absolutely hilarious given the context we're talking about.

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_rights_to_magic_methods

A company or individual can protect their confidential information through non-disclosure contracts with employees or business associates. A magician might therefore ask a partner or fellow magician to sign a non-disclosure agreement before sharing magic methods.

NDA? Holy shit. We might as well add privacy concerns to this legal clusterfuck. This would give brothels plenty of legal leverage through such contracts to blackmail and/or publicly humiliate their clients. Furthermore the government might mandate this sort of information be shared with it. You know, to effectively regulate the brothels and do it's job.

This really isn't a problem right now because brothels in Nevada are too busy in finding some way to obtain legitimacy. That would more then likely change once sex has been commercialized, thus legitimized on a broader scale. All it's gonna take is one person to start a legal action after prostitution is legalized.

I don't think this is a legal problem for Germany and the Netherlands. Differing legal system from ours.

This is all just legal conjecture though. It's not like there's anybody, lawyer or otherwise that would want to manipulate the legal system for their own gain.