• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Should Prostitution Be a Crime? (NYT Magazine)

Status
Not open for further replies.
What reason would any senator have for being in favor of legalizing prostitution? They already get to personally use escorts and callgirls as much as they want, while simultaneously pandering to the bible thumping and "think of the children!" crowds.
 

SheSaidNo

Member
I personally would have no problem with prostitution being legal if there was enough of a welfare state and money and training for other jobs, or a basic income. I think it just blurs the line of consent too much if someone has to resort for sex for survival. If its a choice between food and housing and sex (with no alternative jobs) thats not really a choice at all
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
From a Kantian perspective it is immortal, as you are using a person as a means rather than an ends.

Wouldn't that line of thought make all other contract work immoral as well?

If one were to universalize the maxim "If I'm feeling horny, the best way to go about it is to get sexual gratification from a willing party, even if that involves the exchange of money", wouldn't that work out fine?
 

Condom

Member
It should be legal but ideally you'd have a society without widespread prostitution.
Some is necessary for those that really can't get intimacy another way.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
It's a first principle and therefore its own foundation.

People with other first principles may disagree, and there's no problem with that. I was stating my own opinion on the matter.

Are individual liberty, self-autonomy, and self-determination first principles for you as well?
 

Kthulhu

Member
It's a first principle and therefore its own foundation.

People with other first principles may disagree, and there's no problem with that. I was stating my own opinion on the matter.

So your reasoning is about as sound as thinking gay marriage should be illegal, it makes you feel bad, god forbid people actually have a logic based reason for not wanting prostitution.
 
It's a first principle and therefore its own foundation.

People with other first principles may disagree, and there's no problem with that. I was stating my own opinion on the matter.

But why should people not be able to monetize their own services? A man may use his muscles to compete or to lift heavy objects for money, but other parts of the body are arbitrarily restricted?
 
Why is this illegal aside from the staggering amount of potential health issues? As far as I'm aware it creates an issue where people who are capable of abusing and extorting others AKA pimps, recruiters etc would be legitimized. That's not really a positive thing in my opinion.

I can't imagine trying to regulate this industry.
 
Why is this illegal aside from the staggering amount of potential health issues? As far as I'm aware it creates an issue where people who are capable of abusing and extorting others AKA pimps, recruiters etc would be legitimized. That's not really a positive thing in my opinion.

I can't imagine trying to regulate this industry.

Really, the health issues only exist because of criminalization.l Places that have decriminalized it have pretty strict guidelines to prevent STDs.
 
But why should people not be able to monetize their own services? A man may use his muscles to compete or to lift heavy objects for money, but other parts of the body are arbitrarily restricted?

Selling the act of sex is restricted in my framework, yes. Essentially I don't recognize it as a service.

Are individual liberty, self-autonomy, and self-determination first principles for you as well?

In what respect? These are too broad.

You're coming off pretty aggressive here. I'd be happy to have a discussion if you'll take it down a notch. Otherwise I'll bid you good day.

I stated in my first post in this thread that this is an idealist stance, and that pragmatically I don't think a prostitution ban is necessarily good policy.
 

akira28

Member
And making it so people can decentralize, control their own business actions, and don't need a 3rd party for anything, one would think the recruiters and the pimps would start to go out of business.

Any place that needed a recruiter or a pimp would immediately be suspect to me. Any place where someone is working for someone else in a sex work situation is also suspect to me. These situations should get rid of traffickers, not make them legit. If there is a basic mean of sex industry presence you don't need someone flying women from one part of the world to the next, and these trafficking setups would have a lot of major competition from just some local person with a sex worker license and a webpage. It should make it not even worth it ideally.
 
Because people keep wondering why porn is legal and prostitution is not, I'm going to point you to the case that created that dichotomy in the US (and the reason that California is one of the two states in the US where it's legal to shoot pornography):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Freeman

The basic answer comes in two parts. The first is that you're usually paying two people to have sex with each other, and most laws against prostitution cover doing it for your own personal gratification. The second is that it is perfectly legal to record sex, and the idea is that making that illegal is going against their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. So basically, you're free to record intercourse, and paying people to have intercourse in front of you for the purpose of recording it is also legal because it isn't obscene and isn't done for your own sexual gratification.

And I'm aware that this makes directors shooting POV porn a grey area, but no one has decided to challenge the law on that.

Edit: An in case you're wondering, the reason why people shoot porn in places it isn't legal (i.e. every state in the US that isn't California or New Hampshire) is because the Supreme Court basically agreed with the State of California when it got kicked up there, and no state wants to set in motion the precedent to make porn legal in their state as well. So when they do arrest performers there, they do it for something that isn't pandering/prostitution (i.e. public indeceny or filming without a license or something like that).
 

akira28

Member
those are some words but I fail to see any actual answers

money and paying people and commerce they're willing to compromise on...in the name of free speech of course, but sexual gratification is obscene.
 
those are some words but I fail to see any actual answers

money and paying people and commerce they're willing to compromise on...in the name of free speech of course, but sexual gratification is obscene.

Porn is legal because the person paying for the sex isn't doing it for their own gratification. Most prostitution laws in the US are specific about it being for gratification (probably so that they can cover things outside of explicit genital stimulation).

Edit: Also, once you start saying that filming two people having sex (and paying them for it) is illegal, then you have to start figuring out how far down the list of sexual contact you have to get for it to become illegal. Does it become legal as long as there isn't insertion? How far can you go in simulation before the line gets drawn?
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
In what respect? These are too broad.
In all respects. Since first principles are first principles since they work first. All the time. They are supposed to be broad.

You're coming off pretty aggressive here. I'd be happy to have a discussion if you'll take it down a notch. Otherwise I'll bid you good day.

I stated in my first post in this thread that this is an idealist stance, and that pragmatically I don't think a prostitution ban is necessarily good policy.

I'm coming off as aggressive? I only asked you these two questions:

Based on what ethical foundation?

Are individual liberty, self-autonomy, and self-determination first principles for you as well?

There are no elements of snark, aggression, or derision in the way I framed the questions.
 

digdug2k

Member
I find the arguments about the consensual nature of this a bit absurd. I mean on paper "Hey, you/your kids are hungry. Come do some odd jobs and I'll give you some cash" isn't that different from "Hey, you/your kids are hungry. Come suck my dick and I'll give you some cash". But the later is definitely morally repugnant (bordering on rape IMO).

Not saying the prostitutes should go to jail, but I could see myself getting behind a "paying for sex is illegal, but being paid for it isn't". Is that what's being argued here?
 
In that case, the answer is no. I believe liberty, self-autonomy, and self-determination are principles that should be the basis of most, but not all, laws. There are exceptions: for example we rightly do not allow people to simply sell their internal organs to the highest bidder. On its face this would violate all three principles, but we have determined that this ban is still justifiable for various reasons.

The difference is that I actually think committing resources to enforcing the ban on selling your own organs is a worthwhile use of said resources, while I've said a couple times that I don't think trying to enforce a prostitution ban is a good use of resources.
 

Mael

Member
If you really want to make it illegal can't we just punish the people paying?
Seems rather unproductive to punish the offer and not the demand.
And I mean make it legal to sell but utterly illegal to buy.
so prostitutes can sell legally but people soliciting are the ones getting punished.
 
If you really want to make it illegal can't we just punish the people paying?
Seems rather unproductive to punish the offer and not the demand.
And I mean make it legal to sell but utterly illegal to buy.
so prostitutes can sell legally but people soliciting are the ones getting punished.

That's already illegal in most places in the US, iirc. How's that working out so far? They even publish their photos in newspapers and stuff.
 

Mael

Member
That's already illegal in most places in the US, iirc. How's that working out so far? They even publish their photos in newspapers and stuff.

Yeah but you still punish the prostitutes, I'm saying drop the punishment for them.
Only punish the solicitors.
 

Kthulhu

Member
Yeah but you still punish the prostitutes, I'm saying drop the punishment for them.
Only punish the solicitors.

This has shown to do jack shit. There is still demand for it. As long as people are willing to pay for it, there are people who will be willing to sell.

It's no different than drugs or alcohol. By making it illegal instead of legalizing gazing and regulating it, you create an underground and unsafe market for it that hurt society as a whole.
 

Mael

Member
This has shown to do jack shit. There is still demand for it. As long as people are willing to pay for it, there are people who will be willing to sell.

It's no different than drugs or alcohol. By making it illegal instead of legalizing gazing and regulating it, you create an underground and unsafe market for it that hurt society as a whole.

I realize my suggestion is a bit succinct in a subject as complicated as this one.
But I don't think I've seen a place where the selling is legal but not the buying so I would actually be interested in seeing what this does.
At least by not pushing the prostitute on this act it should make it safer for them to get help if they want it.
 

TheDanger

Banned
It's fucking stupid, just like the war on drugs it only makes everything worse while wasting resources and money, regulation is always the way to go. You just can't make the demand go down by decreasing the supply while never being able to stop the supply.

In Austria street prostitution is illegal, but brothels aren't, I think at certain locations at certain times also street prostitution should be legal as long as there are the same STD controls as for the registered prostitutes from the brothels , because it happens anyway. The problem is many of the illegal street prostitutes are also in the country illegally.
 
Yeah but you still punish the prostitutes, I'm saying drop the punishment for them.
Only punish the solicitors.

Because then the prostitutes wouldn't stop? They are both punished to attempt to stop the behavior on both ends. If the prostitute assumes none of the risk by doing something illegal then there's no reason for them to stop.
 

Mael

Member
Because then the prostitutes wouldn't stop? They are both punished to attempt to stop the behavior on both ends. If the prostitute assumes none of the risk by doing something illegal then there's no reason for them to stop.

I don't think the point is for them to stop just like that.
The point is more to not punish the prostitute more than their customers when they already take a social hit with that line of work.
Of course in the long term is to provide them with resources to get out of that line of work.
the hard part in making it illegal for prostitute is that it makes the situation so much worse for them since they have to fend off STDs and other really crappy risks.
I'd say giving incentives to them and pushing the legal burdens on their customers seem the better way for everyone.

You'll notice that my PoV is pretty much "fuck the customer" in that equation :lol
 

Kthulhu

Member
I realize my suggestion is a bit succinct in a subject as complicated as this one.
But I don't think I've seen a place where the selling is legal but not the buying so I would actually be interested in seeing what this does.
At least by not pushing the prostitute on this act it should make it safer for them to get help if they want it.

How would this stop the demand? What about prostitutes that like their job? Why should non violent customers be punished, but servers not?
 

Diebuster

Member
Of course in the long term is to provide them with resources to get out of that line of work.

You're saying this like all sex workers want to stop, which isn't true. Plenty of girls in the business can get a regular job, but they don't. They like the money, and they like the freedom of being their own boss. Some just like sex.
 
This has shown to do jack shit. There is still demand for it. As long as people are willing to pay for it, there are people who will be willing to sell.

It's no different than drugs or alcohol. By making it illegal instead of legalizing gazing and regulating it, you create an underground and unsafe market for it that hurt society as a whole.

Where? Give me sources.

It's been shown to reduce street prostitution, the demand for prostitution overall and human trafficking.

I realize my suggestion is a bit succinct in a subject as complicated as this one.
But I don't think I've seen a place where the selling is legal but not the buying so I would actually be interested in seeing what this does.
At least by not pushing the prostitute on this act it should make it safer for them to get help if they want it.

Norway, Sweden, Iceland, France.

And the result is, again: It's been shown to reduce street prostitution, the demand for prostitution overall and human trafficking. (In the Nordic countries, it's too early to tell in France.)
 

Kthulhu

Member
Where? Give me sources.

It's been shown to reduce street prostitution, the demand for prostitution overall and human trafficking.

Demand doesn't go away, it is just reduced.

Not to mention the stigma is still there for women who are caught.

For example, Swedish sex workers are tormented by the threat of eviction, because, under current law, landlords are vulnerable to pimping charges if they collect money earned from selling sex. Pye Jakobsson, co-founder of the Rose Alliance, a Swedish sex workers’ organisation, says that of her group’s nine board members, three have been thrown out of their homes. The issue here, however, is not Sweden’s main piece of prostitution legislation, the 1999 Sex Purchase Act, but a related law on pimping. It’s entirely possible for that law to be amended so that it targets only those who are actually complicit in exploitation. A revised pimping law, says Jakobsson, wouldn’t solve the broader problem of stigma, but it would make their day-to-day lives better.

Jakobsson, who also serves as president of the the Global Network of Sex Work Projects, says that one pernicious effect of stigma is the way it’s been used to strip sex workers of parental rights, since they are assumed to be incapable of making healthy decisions. In a notorious recent case, a Rose Alliance board member called Petite Jasmine lost custody of her two children to an ex-boyfriend with a history of violence. Then, last year, he murdered her during a supervised parental visit.

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/08/criminsalise-buying-not-selling-sex
 

Khoryos

Member
I realize my suggestion is a bit succinct in a subject as complicated as this one.
But I don't think I've seen a place where the selling is legal but not the buying so I would actually be interested in seeing what this does.
At least by not pushing the prostitute on this act it should make it safer for them to get help if they want it.

It's called the Nordic model, and in practice what it does is make things riskier for the sex workers - since their clients are now taking a much larger risk, they have a greater negotiating power.
 
Demand doesn't go away, it is just reduced.[/url]

Well, duh. That's the goal. A reduced demand reduces the extent of trafficking and other abuse. Legalization increases it and increases trafficking.


First two are opinion pieces with not a single reference to actual data. Well, third doesn't really present any data either but it at least has some references I can check out later.

Edit: Having now gone through the references, I didn't find anything there of worth (essentially all opinion pieces on their own).
 

Darryl

Banned
I personally would have no problem with prostitution being legal if there was enough of a welfare state and money and training for other jobs, or a basic income. I think it just blurs the line of consent too much if someone has to resort for sex for survival. If its a choice between food and housing and sex (with no alternative jobs) thats not really a choice at all

this is the only scenario that could sway me. is if there was enough basic income to fully pay for necessities, and the prostitution was just money for the sake of money. selling sex because you need to pay bills is so gross to me.
 

Kthulhu

Member
this is the only scenario that could sway me. is if there was enough basic income to fully pay for necessities, and the prostitution was just money for the sake of money. selling sex because you need to pay bills is so gross to me.

This is why people have jobs. Are you saying that prostitution should only exist as a side job?
 
If you really want to make it illegal can't we just punish the people paying?
Seems rather unproductive to punish the offer and not the demand.
And I mean make it legal to sell but utterly illegal to buy.
so prostitutes can sell legally but people soliciting are the ones getting punished.
Where? Give me sources.

It's been shown to reduce street prostitution, the demand for prostitution overall and human trafficking.



Norway, Sweden, Iceland, France.

And the result is, again: It's been shown to reduce street prostitution, the demand for prostitution overall and human trafficking. (In the Nordic countries, it's too early to tell in France.)
Did people read the article in the OP? It touches on that too. While countries like Sweden like to tout how successful it is, it's not quite as simple as they like to make it look like when you analyze it in a deeper level.

I'm not saying it's ultimately a bad solution either, but it's just any perfect solution either and has its problems.

But why should people not be able to monetize their own services? A man may use his muscles to compete or to lift heavy objects for money, but other parts of the body are arbitrarily restricted?
Are individual liberty, self-autonomy, and self-determination first principles for you as well?
So your reasoning is about as sound as thinking gay marriage should be illegal, it makes you feel bad, god forbid people actually have a logic based reason for not wanting prostitution.
Are we really questioning why someone might feel on a personal level (agreeing that it's not worthwhile to ban it) that selling yourself for sex is different than doing some other work?
 

antonz

Member
Its not an easy subject. Because for every woman who is willing to do it on her own there are dozens or more who are forced into it.

Sex Trafficking remains an issue even where it is legalized for the simple fact demand outstrips supply. So with legalization comes legalized Pimps who still need bodies to sell. So be it through force, manipulating low self esteem women or a woman simply being forced into it to support a family far from where they are now its abuse.
 
Did people read the article in the OP? It touches on that too. While countries like Sweden like to tout how successful it is, it's not quite as simple as they like to make it look like when you analyze it in a deeper level.

Yes, and at no point does it discredit the results that various studies have found (nor does it attempt to, it seems to simply gloss over their existence).
 
Its not an easy subject. Because for every woman who is willing to do it on her own there are dozens or more who are forced into it.

Sex Trafficking remains an issue even where it is legalized for the simple fact demand outstrips supply. So with legalization comes legalized Pimps who still need bodies to sell. So be it through force, manipulating low self esteem women or a woman simply being forced into it to support a family far from where they are now its abuse.

I think this an important post. I think we can to a degree look at the Porn industry as a reference to what legalized prostitution would look like and there's a staggering amount of horror stories that kind of mirror the sentiments in your post. I mean I'm prepared to be wrong, but I think there's just more harm than good that would come from legalizing prostitution.

The level of exploitation would be incredible.
 
It's a tough question. On the one hand, it's never going away, and criminalizing it means leaving women in vulnerable positions, with no real recourse for legal protection.

On the other hand, advocates are absolutely fooling themselves about how psychologically destructive it generally is; it's hard to ethically sanction it either.
 

Mailbox

Member
It's a tough question. On the one hand, it's never going away, and criminalizing it means leaving women in vulnerable positions, with no real recourse for legal protection.

On the other hand, advocates are absolutely fooling themselves about how psychologically destructive it generally is; it's hard to ethically sanction it either.

Seeming a bit vague here, care to elaborate?
 

Dali

Member
Members of the human rights group in Norway and Sweden resigned en masse, saying the organization’s goal should be to end demand for prostitution, not condone it

I haven't read the full article, but wat? End demand? Lmao!
 

Violet_0

Banned
imo the pimps are the problem, not the prostitutes

if we could ensure that sex workers pursue prostitution on their own free will and aren't forced or coerced into it I don't see any issues with it whatsoever
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom