Why is prostitution illegal? **Now with 100% more POLE**

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Mookow
And why should it be banned? What is so very wrong with this that two consenting adults should be barred from engaging in it?

Making it illegal doesn't "bar" people from engaging in it. On one level it means they may have to pay a price for engaging in it, which given the fact that it is detrimental in some ways to the society at large, is a reasonable point of view in my opinion.

It makes an attempt to prevent them from engaging in it. If you think about it, the wording "should be barred" covers that.

What is the cost to society as a whole if you have a legal brothel operating? At what point does the "cost to society" start justifying restricting people's individual liberties?

I think that, at a minimum, we can agree that it is less detrimental to society than forcing prostitution underground.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Tom
it isn't a victimless crime, there isn't any such thing.

whether or not it should be legal, is a different matter. some of the problems with illegal prostitution, spread of disease, drug use, assault, slavery, etc, might be lessened if it was legal and regulated.

but legalizing something means a society is either giving tacit approval to something, or throwing up it's hands in the belief it can't deal with the issue, and I don't think either of those things are good ideas.

Since when does societies approval have anything whatso-fvcking-ever to do with whether it should be legal or not?

That is how societies work. Individual liberty isn't absolute, it is constrained by the needs and wants of the larger society, in our system by representative democracy.

 

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon
I think all of three people have read more than the title of this thread.

And that makes this thread different from any other... how?

Its funnier in this thread because so many people have the exact same response.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: gigapet
you can say the same for drugs

Depends on the drug. I sure as hell don't want Meth legalized any time soon.

why not? Warn the users of the dangers. If they choose to burn holes into there brain until they are retarded or get high untill they are dead then more power to them.....survivial of the fittest at its best. A cleaner gene pool, One less mouth to feed, one more job opening and more importnatly more oxygen for me and you.

No, I agree with the OP. 85% of all property crimes here are Meth related, most of those being junkies looking to steal something to sell for their next fix. It wouldn't matter if it were legal or not, you'd still have an addict problem, except I can't see why it would be any better if it was legal.

Crimes surrounding alcohol during prohibition were EXACTLY like crimes surrounding drugs are now.

The criminal element disappears as soon as the sale and import profits are removed.

When was the last time you saw an alcoholic kill someone for a bottle? When was the last time you saw liquor dealers do drive-bys on each other?

But we're not talking about alcohol, we're talking about Meth, which is a far more addictive drug and a stimulant to boot. This isn't some "soft" drug like alcohol or pot, it's a very potent Schedule II drug that can quickly become addictive if administered for long term use because of both the mental addiction and the physical adaptation of the body, double plus so if we're talking about taking it for purely for "happy" reasons instead of "quick energy boost" like how ADD drugs are abused right now.

The problem isn't the meth dealers either, save the damn labs, it's the users who live and die by the drug.

Anyhow, this is getting off-topic. On the subject at hand, I can't think of a valid reason to make prostitution illegal save some unfounded fears related to STDs, religious reasons, and the notion that it will discourage the creation of the nuclear family since men will not be as interested in marriage because it will be easier to get sex outside of it.

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: TravisT
I think the law regarding prostitution revolves around people abusing things and it is for their own safety that they outlaw some of these things. I personally am one of the rare people that believe most substances that impair your ability to function should remain illegal.

This is the same thing in my opinion. I may not be the one out there getting STD's. But that doesn't mean I want to see others getting them. That means we should try to make efforts to stop them. Prostitution is one of the things that will cause STD's to continue to run rampid in our society. Granted, it won't completely stop it, but atleast it is a measure of taking some action against it.

Banning prostitution causes the spread of STD's. Legalizing and regulating it reduces the spread. This is a fact. Ask Fausto, our friendly neighborhood thong-wearing CDC employee.

How would you regulate such a thing? Not only would there be more sexual activity in each state, there would also be no sure way of regulating something like this.

So you are opposed to sexual activity in general? I don't really see how more sexual activity is a bad thing...or anyone's concern but those participating.

As to how to regulate it...please read the current thread you are posting in, also see: The state of Nevada.

hehe, i'm not opposed to sex. I am opposed to people laying down for one another for money. Also, Nevada is not a good example. Do you believe every prostitute walking on the street there is tested for STD's ever week and that every person who "visits" her has been tested?

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: PingSpike
So you are opposed to sexual activity in general? I don't really see how more sexual activity is a bad thing...or anyone's concern but those participating.

As to how to regulate it...please read the current thread you are posting in, also see: The state of Nevada.

hehe, i'm not opposed to sex. I am opposed to people laying down for one another for money. Also, Nevada is not a good example. Do you believe every prostitute walking on the street there is tested for STD's ever week and that every person who "visits" her has been tested?

Why is Nevada not a good example? All the legal prostitutes there are tested regularly. They all have to use condoms. None of this happens with illicit prostitution. Which will exist if you ban prostitution, as the current situation proves.

And what is the difference between paying a woman for sex with money, and picking up a woman at the bar for a one night stand?

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: TravisT
I think the law regarding prostitution revolves around people abusing things and it is for their own safety that they outlaw some of these things. I personally am one of the rare people that believe most substances that impair your ability to function should remain illegal.

This is the same thing in my opinion. I may not be the one out there getting STD's. But that doesn't mean I want to see others getting them. That means we should try to make efforts to stop them. Prostitution is one of the things that will cause STD's to continue to run rampid in our society. Granted, it won't completely stop it, but atleast it is a measure of taking some action against it.

Banning prostitution causes the spread of STD's. Legalizing and regulating it reduces the spread. This is a fact. Ask Fausto, our friendly neighborhood thong-wearing CDC employee.

How would you regulate such a thing? Not only would there be more sexual activity in each state, there would also be no sure way of regulating something like this.

So you are opposed to sexual activity in general? I don't really see how more sexual activity is a bad thing...or anyone's concern but those participating.

As to how to regulate it...please read the current thread you are posting in, also see: The state of Nevada.

hehe, i'm not opposed to sex. I am opposed to people laying down for one another for money. Also, Nevada is not a good example. Do you believe every prostitute walking on the street there is tested for STD's ever week and that every person who "visits" her has been tested?

You know nothing about this issue. Nothing. Only certain counties (outside of the big cities) have legalized prostitution. In Clark county, where Vegas is, prostitution is illegal.

When prostitution is legalized street walkers tend to evaporate because who the fvck wants to get a bj from a street walker when they can get it legally?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Tom

Making it illegal doesn't "bar" people from engaging in it. On one level it means they may have to pay a price for engaging in it, which given the fact that it is detrimental in some ways to the society at large, is a reasonable point of view in my opinion.

Are you of the opinion alcohol should be illegal? Society would benefit from people not drinking.

Cigs? Definately not helping anyone.

How about junk food? Junk food does not benefit society. Perhaps that should be illegal as well.

Sex outside of marriage? Not actually benefitting society, its pretty much a selfish act and can lead to children born out of wedlock. Might want to outlaw that as well.

SUVs should be banned. Not helping society, they're increasing the countries dependence on foreign oil. In fact, people really don't need anything besides a 4 door sedan for the most part. That should be the only car available.

Mini skirts maybe? They are distracting.

Personally, I would not make any of those things illegal, and in the USA at least, I do not believe most of them could be made illegal, other than by modifying the Constitution.

In order to evaluate prostitution though, first it would have to be understood exactly what prostitution is, and I don't know that it would be possible to reach a consensus about that definition. And depending on the definition prostitution could be in violation of the Constitution itself, specifically the 13th Amendment.

But generally, I wouldn't challenge the right of a society to legalize prostitution if it wanted to, like some counties in Nevada, for example. I wouldn't even say my own mind is fixed on the issue.

However, I won't accept a starting point as silly as saying it is a victimless enterprise, in actual fact, even if it hypothetically could be.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: zakee00

Originally posted by: xospec1alk

Originally posted by: Amused
The illegality of prostitution drives it underground and makes it far more dangerous.

Not to mention it's a basic violation of our civil rights.

Thats what i think. I mean, how is selling a service like a massage, different from selling a service like sex? How is the gov't allowed to tell us what we can and can not do with our bodies? is it because they can't regulate it and reap taxes from it?

STD city....
if you have to pay someone to have sex with you, thats pretty pathetic IMO. go get a girlfriend.

Actually, they told me that i could not pay them enough to

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Tom
it isn't a victimless crime, there isn't any such thing.

whether or not it should be legal, is a different matter. some of the problems with illegal prostitution, spread of disease, drug use, assault, slavery, etc, might be lessened if it was legal and regulated.

but legalizing something means a society is either giving tacit approval to something, or throwing up it's hands in the belief it can't deal with the issue, and I don't think either of those things are good ideas.

Since when does societies approval have anything whatso-fvcking-ever to do with whether it should be legal or not?

That is how societies work. Individual liberty isn't absolute, it is constrained by the needs and wants of the larger society, in our system by representative democracy.

It wasn't long ago that the needs and wants of the larger society were slaves to pick cotton. Is that how our society should work?

Your rights should end where another's begin.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Tom

Making it illegal doesn't "bar" people from engaging in it. On one level it means they may have to pay a price for engaging in it, which given the fact that it is detrimental in some ways to the society at large, is a reasonable point of view in my opinion.

Are you of the opinion alcohol should be illegal? Society would benefit from people not drinking.

Cigs? Definately not helping anyone.

How about junk food? Junk food does not benefit society. Perhaps that should be illegal as well.

Sex outside of marriage? Not actually benefitting society, its pretty much a selfish act and can lead to children born out of wedlock. Might want to outlaw that as well.

SUVs should be banned. Not helping society, they're increasing the countries dependence on foreign oil. In fact, people really don't need anything besides a 4 door sedan for the most part. That should be the only car available.

Mini skirts maybe? They are distracting.

Personally, I would not make any of those things illegal, and in the USA at least, I do not believe most of them could be made illegal, other than by modifying the Constitution.

In order to evaluate prostitution though, first it would have to be understood exactly what prostitution is, and I don't know that it would be possible to reach a consensus about that definition. And depending on the definition prostitution could be in violation of the Constitution itself, specifically the 13th Amendment.

But generally, I wouldn't challenge the right of a society to legalize prostitution if it wanted to, like some counties in Nevada, for example. I wouldn't even say my own mind is fixed on the issue.

However, I won't accept a starting point as silly as saying it is a victimless enterprise, in actual fact, even if it hypothetically could be.

For the last time... banning prostitution causes the problems associated with it. Were it legal and regulated IT WOULD NOT BREAK THE 13th AMENDMENT.

 

[ElFenix]

the victim is the prostitute.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Mookow
And why should it be banned? What is so very wrong with this that two consenting adults should be barred from engaging in it?

Making it illegal doesn't "bar" people from engaging in it. On one level it means they may have to pay a price for engaging in it, which given the fact that it is detrimental in some ways to the society at large, is a reasonable point of view in my opinion.

It makes an attempt to prevent them from engaging in it. If you think about it, the wording "should be barred" covers that.

What is the cost to society as a whole if you have a legal brothel operating? At what point does the "cost to society" start justifying restricting people's individual liberties?

I think that, at a minimum, we can agree that it is less detrimental to society than forcing prostitution underground.

From my limited exposure to a society with legalized prostitution, in Nevada, versus underground prostitution on a limited scale, in Ohio, I'm not sure I accept the Nevada model as better for the respective societies.

I think it's a complicated issue.

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: zakee00

Originally posted by: xospec1alk

Originally posted by: Amused
The illegality of prostitution drives it underground and makes it far more dangerous.

Not to mention it's a basic violation of our civil rights.

Thats what i think. I mean, how is selling a service like a massage, different from selling a service like sex? How is the gov't allowed to tell us what we can and can not do with our bodies? is it because they can't regulate it and reap taxes from it?

STD city....
if you have to pay someone to have sex with you, thats pretty pathetic IMO. go get a girlfriend.

It may seem stupid but in getting anything from that girlfriend you would be expected to do something for her, usually involving money as posted above.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Tom
it isn't a victimless crime, there isn't any such thing.

whether or not it should be legal, is a different matter. some of the problems with illegal prostitution, spread of disease, drug use, assault, slavery, etc, might be lessened if it was legal and regulated.

but legalizing something means a society is either giving tacit approval to something, or throwing up it's hands in the belief it can't deal with the issue, and I don't think either of those things are good ideas.

Since when does societies approval have anything whatso-fvcking-ever to do with whether it should be legal or not?

That is how societies work. Individual liberty isn't absolute, it is constrained by the needs and wants of the larger society, in our system by representative democracy.

It wasn't long ago that the needs and wants of the larger society were slaves to pick cotton. Is that how our society should work?

Your rights should end where another's begin.

I absolutely agree with you that "majority rules" can be very very wrong, and I do not advocate weakening our glorious Bill of Rights, in any way.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the victim is the prostitute.

Quoted for truth

Are prostitutes viewed as equals in our society?
Would you date a prostitute?
Would you mary one?
Would you like you daughter to be a prostitute?

 

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the victim is the prostitute.

Quoted for truth

Are prostitutes viewed as equals in our society?
Would you date a prostitute?
Would you mary one?
Would you like you daughter to be a prostitute?

Sure.
When you date a prostitute you know shes not just in it for the sex.
Ditto.
No.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Tom
it isn't a victimless crime, there isn't any such thing.

whether or not it should be legal, is a different matter. some of the problems with illegal prostitution, spread of disease, drug use, assault, slavery, etc, might be lessened if it was legal and regulated.

but legalizing something means a society is either giving tacit approval to something, or throwing up it's hands in the belief it can't deal with the issue, and I don't think either of those things are good ideas.

Since when does societies approval have anything whatso-fvcking-ever to do with whether it should be legal or not?

That is how societies work. Individual liberty isn't absolute, it is constrained by the needs and wants of the larger society, in our system by representative democracy.

And people wonder why we are headed straight into a nanny-state socialist hell.

You are wrong. Individual liberty was to be limited only when it came to infringing on the rights and freedoms of another individual.

The needs of the many do NOT outweigh the needs of the individual. That was the whole intent of our Founding Fathers.

Ayn Rand said it best:

"When ?the common good? of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals."

Having grown up in the budding USSR, she knew a thing or two about collectivism and systems that valued the many over the individual.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused
And people wonder why we are headed straight into a nanny-state socialist hell.

You are wrong. Individual liberty was to be limited only when it came to infringing on the rights and freedoms of another individual.

The needs of the many do NOT outweigh the needs of the individual. That was the whole intent of our Founding Fathers.

Ayn Rand said it best:

"When ?the common good? of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals."

Having grown up in the budding USSR, she knew a thing or two about collectivism and systems that valued the many over the individual.

if we implemented all of ayn rand's ideas everyone would have veto power over everything. nothing would get done. ever.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused
And people wonder why we are headed straight into a nanny-state socialist hell.

You are wrong. Individual liberty was to be limited only when it came to infringing on the rights and freedoms of another individual.

The needs of the many do NOT outweigh the needs of the individual. That was the whole intent of our Founding Fathers.

Ayn Rand said it best:

"When ?the common good? of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals."

Having grown up in the budding USSR, she knew a thing or two about collectivism and systems that valued the many over the individual.

if we implemented all of ayn rand's ideas everyone would have veto power over everything. nothing would get done. ever.

WTF do you get that from her writings?

At any rate, even if that were true, all these silly bans would never have been passed.

In my opinion, it's a GOOD thing when the government gets nothing done. The more they "do" the more freedoms we lose and rights we give up. It's time they started UNdoing.

 

if we implemented all of ayn rand's ideas everyone would have veto power over everything. nothing would get done. ever.

Amused will never stop quoting ayn rand to get his point across. Even though the situation in which rand lived was vastly different from our contemporary american sitaution.

There are many times when the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few. If only other past (and failed) societies understood that, they probably wouldn't have failed.
Though menial things like prostitution and drugs have little to do with it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused
And people wonder why we are headed straight into a nanny-state socialist hell.

You are wrong. Individual liberty was to be limited only when it came to infringing on the rights and freedoms of another individual.

The needs of the many do NOT outweigh the needs of the individual. That was the whole intent of our Founding Fathers.

Ayn Rand said it best:

"When ?the common good? of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals."

Having grown up in the budding USSR, she knew a thing or two about collectivism and systems that valued the many over the individual.

if we implemented all of ayn rand's ideas everyone would have veto power over everything. nothing would get done. ever.

WTF do you get that from her writings?

At any rate, even if that were true, all these silly bans would never have been passed.

In my opinion, it's a GOOD thing when the government gets nothing done. The more they "do" the more freedoms we lose and rights we give up. It's time they started UNdoing.

i don't get if from her writings. she didn't think of it. she didn't bother thinking that hard. she doesn't think about what the consequences are of the world she advocates. she merely bitches about how bad the soviets are, and then goes to the opposite extreme with the tyranny of the individual.

i'm not refering to government, i'm refering to everything. civilization at large would not exist. if you were to go from the state of nature and no one was ever allowed to do anything where anyone else got hurt then the technical term for what you're trying to achieve is called 'pareto optimality' and nothing would ever get done because at least one person wouldn't go along with it and you couldn't do it because they'd be worse off.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused
And people wonder why we are headed straight into a nanny-state socialist hell.

You are wrong. Individual liberty was to be limited only when it came to infringing on the rights and freedoms of another individual.

The needs of the many do NOT outweigh the needs of the individual. That was the whole intent of our Founding Fathers.

Ayn Rand said it best:

"When ?the common good? of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals."

Having grown up in the budding USSR, she knew a thing or two about collectivism and systems that valued the many over the individual.

if we implemented all of ayn rand's ideas everyone would have veto power over everything. nothing would get done. ever.

WTF do you get that from her writings?

At any rate, even if that were true, all these silly bans would never have been passed.

In my opinion, it's a GOOD thing when the government gets nothing done. The more they "do" the more freedoms we lose and rights we give up. It's time they started UNdoing.

i don't get if from her writings. she didn't think of it. she didn't bother thinking that hard. she doesn't think about what the consequences are of the world she advocates. she merely bitches about how bad the soviets are, and then goes to the opposite extreme with the tyranny of the individual.

i'm not refering to government, i'm refering to everything. civilization at large would not exist. if you were to go from the state of nature and no one was ever allowed to do anything where anyone else got hurt then the technical term for what you're trying to achieve is called 'pareto optimality' and nothing would ever get done because at least one person wouldn't go along with it and you couldn't do it because they'd be worse off.

Um, I believe you are mistaken. Sounds like one of the many crackpot counter arguments to her philosophy.

Your shot at her "not thinking hard enough" leads me to believe you've fallen for some anti-Rand nonsense.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

Um, I believe you are mistaken. Sounds like one of the many crackpot counter arguments to her philosophy.

there is a crackpot involved here, but it isn't me.


but, just in case i'm mistaken, why don't you give a concise rundown of what exactly that philosophy is. i

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Tom
it isn't a victimless crime, there isn't any such thing.

whether or not it should be legal, is a different matter. some of the problems with illegal prostitution, spread of disease, drug use, assault, slavery, etc, might be lessened if it was legal and regulated.

but legalizing something means a society is either giving tacit approval to something, or throwing up it's hands in the belief it can't deal with the issue, and I don't think either of those things are good ideas.

Since when does societies approval have anything whatso-fvcking-ever to do with whether it should be legal or not?

That is how societies work. Individual liberty isn't absolute, it is constrained by the needs and wants of the larger society, in our system by representative democracy.

And people wonder why we are headed straight into a nanny-state socialist hell.

You are wrong. Individual liberty was to be limited only when it came to infringing on the rights and freedoms of another individual.

The needs of the many do NOT outweigh the needs of the individual. That was the whole intent of our Founding Fathers.

Ayn Rand said it best:

"When ?the common good? of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals."

Having grown up in the budding USSR, she knew a thing or two about collectivism and systems that valued the many over the individual.

All I said was individual liberty isn't absolute, so we don't actually have a disagreement, as far as I can tell by what you've said here, on that issue.

As far as the founding fathers, they actually tried to combine two philosophies, individual rights, and representative democracy. There are conflicts between these, and they attempted to balance them.

It is not correct to overempasize the importance of individual rights, and ignore the principles of democracy, federalism, republicanism, that they also incorporated in the Constititution.

and it's also worth remembering that the Founding Fathers did not create the USA, that actually happened by a form of representative democracy, the ratification process.