Support NeoGAF

[Devolution]

That depends on if you had sex with him because he bought you dinner or because, you know, you just wanted to either way.

Who gets to make that distinction?

 

[J.W.Crazy]

That's completely made up. And it's not true! There is a difference between fantasy and acting out, and you can't get used to fantasy to such a degree that you act out as a result or whatever your thinking is.

It's really way more complex than that. Taboo fantasies, and inching close to seemingly realizing them, that in itself is a normal game we all play. Of course, the fantasy of having sex with a kid is abnorm, but most people have some kind of taboo fantasy they don't specifically mention, or even force themselves to not think about them; not even necessarily of a sexual nature. So that part is human in and of itself.
Specifically forcing little children to do sexual acts however is not the logical next step. That's like saying you'd actually want to try fighting a bear after watching movies of people fighting bears over and over. You wouldn't be able to commit because of fear, no matter how much you wanted to do it.
The same fear mechanism stops people fantasizing about fucking kids from actually doing it. And the same fear stops YOU from trying to score the little 16yo Lolitas you encounter everywhere. The degree of fear necessary to stop you most likely differs, of course. You just need the baseline fear of hurting a young person, which is like part of the operating system of all of us. Abnorm would be fearing being discovered when doing it.

And prostitution doesn't factor into it at all anyway. Fucking ridiculous discussing paedophilia in that context. But the point the poster you quoted referred to still stands regardless.

It's nothing like saying the bolded. Absolutely nothing like it. Blatantly, glaringly, nothing like it. A person that seeks out a girl who looks underage isn't doing it by happenstance.

Pedophiles, rapists, and serial killers all have common beginnings in fantasy and slowly building from there towards ultimately acting out. This is not analogous to otherwise healthy individuals. There is some mechanism in their brain that compels them. The more they think about it the more they want it. The closer they get the greater the desire becomes. In the context of someone with this mental condition it is a fundamental truth that fantasy amplifies desire. Based on the recommendations of psychologists there are laws in place that restrict convicted sex offenders from accessing or creating fictional material that engages their fantasies for that very reason.

 

[Rad-]

No, I actually know a few. Surprisingly I always thought people who don't get laid are the ones that go visit whores. But the guys I know get laid a shitload either way and they still go.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

That is my point. It becomes nothing more than any other service industry.

I ask that same question, which people seem unable to answer, are those who are for the legalisation of prostitution also for the reclassification of rape as assault or armed robbery?

No I'm not for re-classifying rape as anything but rape.

Why would someone not be able to answer that question?

There are all kinds of specific laws relating to various products or industries or commodities.

 

[SilentProtagonist]

Who gets to make that distinction?

Well... only you really know what your intentions were, but I'm assuming you're aware of and are at least somewhat in control of your actions.
Basically: Was the decision to have sex with him based solely on the meal? Did you offer to have sex with him under the agreement that dinner would be the price?

 

[Devolution]

Well... only you really know what your intentions were, but I'm assuming you're aware of and are at least somewhat in control of your actions.
Basically: Was the decision to have sex with him based solely on the meal? Did you offer to have sex with him under the agreement that dinner would be the price?

Shouldn't that be my business?

 

[wolfmat]

It's nothing like saying the bolded. Absolutely nothing like it. Blatantly, glaringly, nothing like it. A person that seeks out a girl who looks underage isn't doing it by happenstance.

Pedophiles, rapists, and serial killers all have common beginnings in fantasy and slowly building from there towards ultimately acting out. This is not analogous to otherwise healthy individuals. There is some mechanism in their brain that compels them. The more they think about it the more they want it. The closer they get the greater the desire becomes. In the context of someone with this mental condition it is a fundamental truth that fantasy amplifies desire. Based on the recommendations of psychologists there are laws in place that restrict convicted sex offenders from accessing or creating fictional material that engages their fantasies for that very reason.

Your fantasies don't make you someone else like in the movies. If you rape, murder and so forth, you're a sick person. If you have rape and murder fantasies, you're not out of the ordinary, all things considered. If you live out rape fantasies with your wife with her okay, that doesn't magically make you rape women for real in the end.

You're talking about people who are sick enough to actually pull off a rape. Then you go on and talk about people with fantasies who go to prostitutes to act out in a safe environment.

You then go on and say there's a connection between the two, and it goes from prostitute suggar daddy to crazyland.

But that's not how people operate at all. Work through a couple of criminal cases, like serial rape murders, try to find one that roots in prostitutes as enablers. You're saying that's rather common. But it isn't. You probably won't find any.

Work through one-time offender cases. The most common path to rape is alcohol and seclusion, and the overwhelming majority of offenders are sexually depraved, do not frequent prostitutes at all. Prostitute rape itself is not uncommon, and occurs because of rejection of drunk customers foreign to the region most of the time rather than the guy being a weekly visitor and wanting to test what it's like to actually force the girl.

Psychologists recommend what they do because they talk about dangerous people who walked way over the edge, so it's easy to trigger them. And I would agree. That's a different thing though.

Anyway, I live in Hamburg, Germany; we have the Reeperbahn here, with the Herbertstraße, a street that's dedicated to prostitution, and the whole region around it is pretty much made for this thing, with the leather experts, pissing on your belly and whatnot. Not actually rape city around here.

Predators are a different kind of people, they operate that way throughout their lives, they do not play rape and then end up liking it (oopsie!); rather, they take opportunities when others are not capable of defending themselves for some reason, and thrive in it. You can't get there with fantasizing about it while doing a hooker. You can't even easily put yourself in their shoes.

I think you underestimate what it means to be a monster.

 

[SilentProtagonist]

Shouldn't that be my business?

Haha, well yes of course, I'm not trying to pry, just providing some discussion.

 

[StalkerUKCG]

Look down on because of the act? No.

Iv met people like this in the past and its not an issue to me. When they start bragging about how much pussy they get and shit then yea that's and issue. Iv been in situations were they directly tell me they paid for it and then mere minuets later brag to someone about a hot chick they banged.

People can sleep with whoever they want as long as it does not effect me.

Legalization and Regulation is something that industry needs if for nothing else for the safety of the workers.

Personally its never been something iv wanted, The lack of intimacy is something I really have no interest in.

 

[LosDaddie]

I would, yes. Getting to bang a prostitute doesn't require any effort.

But it also depends on the situation. Is said friend bragging about banging some prostitutes? Because that would be worthy of mockery, and I would look down on that.

Is said friend physically deformed? Have a mental handicap? Meaning, something that would prevent him from hooking up like a normal person? Then no, because people have needs.


But hey, I'm all for legalizing prostitution. Legalize it, and regulate it.

 

[GungHo]

Is everyone in a service industry "dehumanized" by it? Prostitutes provide a service, nothing more.

The dehumanization of prostitutes is in how and why they became prostitutes in the first place, and in what's keeping them in that life.

I don't think someone is a bad person for using the services of a prostitute who is a grown woman or man who willingly chose that as his/her profession and who is in control of who he/she serves and under what conditions he/she serves.

I do very much think someone is a bad person for using the services of a protsitute who is underage, smuggled in, trying to pay for an addiction, or in any other way coerced into the profession and who is not in control of who he/she serves and under what conditions he/she serves, particularly under the threat of violence.

Unfortunately, beyond environmental queues (like AMP ads that say "we always have fresh girls" and obviously professional photos stolen from some other website of women named "Grace", "Honey", and "Mei-Mei"), it's hard to tell who is above- or below-board, as a person who is in the second category is incentivised to lie. A licensure program, complete with physical and mental health checks, might help. The men/women getting together and unionizing might help as well.

It's certainly not going to eliminate the sicko market, but it sure as shit would eliminate those "well, I didn't know any better" arguements out of the johns and would hopefully squeeze out the need for a pimp.

 

[A.E Suggs]

Only if the sex workers are ugly.

lol

Masturbation? Then again, that is sort of looked down upon too. Sex toys, for men at least, need to be more socially acceptable.

That isn't sex but then again it does take away the desire for real sex if done to many years without the real thing. Also when aren't men sex toys acceptable? Tbh I tried sex toys, but they don't really do much for us.

 

[A.E Suggs]

Shit Double post

 

[JeTmAn81]

I seem to recall some line about gold diggers though. Plus I do not understand how we can say pornography is okay. Those people don't have an interest in those they are fucking. How is pornography legal but prostitution is not?

The same reason that abortion is legal but you can be charged for double murder if you kill a pregnant woman. Laws in this country are contradictory.

 

[Femmeworth]

That isn't sex but then again it does take away the desire for real sex if done to many years without the real thing. Also when aren't men sex toys acceptable? Tbh I tried sex toys, but they don't really do much for us.

Would you agree that a man with a fleshlight is generally looked down upon more so than a woman with a vibrator? I suppose the difference is rather negligable considering the stigma attached to sexual self-pleasure in general.

 

[poppabk]

No I'm not for re-classifying rape as anything but rape.

Why would someone not be able to answer that question?

There are all kinds of specific laws relating to various products or industries or commodities.

But why would you classify rape different from physical assault in terms of punishment if sex is just a physical activity with no special meaning.

 

[Devolution]

Haha, well yes of course, I'm not trying to pry, just providing some discussion.

Well that's what I was driving at with the initial question. That it's the business of the two people really.

But why would you classify rape different from physical assault in terms of punishment if sex is just a physical activity with no special meaning.

You're conflating the acts of rape and consensual sex.

 

[Az987]

No. Its definitely easier than having to woo someone into having sex with you but I don't have any money.

If a girl buys me a drink I will give it up like that!

 

[poppabk]

You're conflating the acts of rape and consensual sex.

How? If sex is just a physical act no more special than a massage then why is rape any more heinous than any other physical assault?

 

[OttomanScribe]

Rape is more serious than battery because the physical and emotional experience of being sexually assaulted is qualitatively different. Allowing people to make porn or marry octogenarians for their money has not changed this; neither would legalizing prostitution.

The argument people are making is 'sex is like labour, therefore there is no particular harm to it being commodified'. If that is the case, if sex holds no special status, then rape should not be distinguished.

Of course I don't argue this. Rape is traumatic precisely because of the inherently different nature of sex as an action.

People say 'well you are imposing your values on someone else by saying that sex is somehow special and not to be traded', if that is the case, then everyone who believes rape is different from battery is doing the same thing. The argument they are making essentially implies that sex workers would be less effected by rape, because for them it is just something to be traded, nothing with special status.

The law, and the lived experiences of real people. Porn stars and gold diggers who are raped are no less traumatized than any one else. Some people believe women who dress provocatively can't get raped because they present themselves as sexually available, but that doesn't mean the legal system has to shrug its shoulders and agree.

Well that seems very sex-negative of you. If sex is like anything else, then why would it be more traumatic?

Indeed, and it is this position which I and many others are arguing against. If woman A is legally permitted to have sex with man B in exchange for cash, precisely who is harmed by this transaction?

People don't do things in some kind of social vacuum, no matter how much people push an individual choice line. This is an extreme position for anyone to take.

If I choose to sell myself into slavery, should I be allowed to. After all, who is harmed by the transaction? Surely I am giving my consent, and I'm an adult, so you would be pushing your values on me if you came along and said I was being harmed by selling myself into servitude.

Interestingly enough, one of the main thing that has historically created a trade in sex is debt slavery. By your logic, there should be no barrier to what amounts to debt slavery as long as there is a consensual exchange.

These are extreme examples, but with historical precedent.

Do you think the men and women who work in the porn industry would be better off if that industry was driven underground? Would they be more or less easily exploited? Would society be better or worse?

Society would be better, because the only concern in this is not simply those involved in the industry itself, it is the general effects of such things upon society... upon men who grow up with such a view of sex and women.

The difference is that child pornography is always a horrific act of exploitation. Sex work can be a clear-minded choice made by consenting adults. Giving those adults more legal protection and regulating their business is a more effective way to quash the exploitation that currently festers in the industry.

What about things that mimic child pornography?

Not sure why this is relevant, but of course I'd date a woman who used to be a sex worker if I liked her and found her attractive.


That said, here's what you were fishing for: I probably wouldn't date a woman who is a sex worker because it would creep me out.

Would you date someone who gave massages?

I wouldn't date a woman who worked for a cigarette company for the same reason, or a woman who worked for PETA, or a woman who worked for a religious organization. But I don't want to ban cigarettes or PETA or organized religion. This is exactly the point: the subjective ethics and tastes of individuals should not infringe upon the rights of other consenting adults merely because they consider their actions distasteful.

With cigarettes we aren't talking about individual ethics, we are talking about a massive social cost. I guess then this is an example. Is there anything that you would ban? Heroin? Rocket Propelled Grenades?

I think that you hold the same position as me, your morals are just different to mine and so what you believe should be banned and should not is different.. but the principles you employ are still fundamentally the same.

No I'm not for re-classifying rape as anything but rape.

Why would someone not be able to answer that question?

Because arguing that it should stay classified as a special form of assault fundamentally contradicts the idea that society and the law should not extend any particular value to sex, as it is just like any other form of labour.

How? If sex is just a physical act no more special than a massage then why is rape any more heinous than any other physical assault?

A better summary of my point than my own. Thanks.

 

[Aske]

You're making the assumption that I think sex must be reduced to the social equivalent of a can of beans merely because I feel people should have the freedom to sell it. You're also making unwarranted leaps of logic about where I ought to draw the line with regard to unrelated issues of individual rights vs social protection based on my stance on this issue. The latter tangent is comprised of spurious assumptions unrelated to the discussion, and as for the former; I'm not sure what's given you this impression. I don't think that we ought to treat human body parts as "just another commodity with no 'special' status" simply because some women choose to sell their wombs as surrogate baby machines either - and before you ask, no, I wouldn't date a woman who was actively providing this service, despite having no moral problem with her right to do so.

My argument is that the freedom of individuals to choose to commodify their sex is more important than whatever social ills you believe will be set in motion by granting them these rights; and that in fact legalizing prostitution will benefit society rather than harm it. No more, no less.

 

[B!TCH]

Yes, I can't support the exploitation of women/men, and in this case, even if they are there of their own volition.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

But why would you classify rape different from physical assault in terms of punishment if sex is just a physical activity with no special meaning.

Why does sex suddenly always have no meaning because prostitution is legalized?

You guys are just spouting out all of these false conclusions and then basing your argument on the conclusions.

Giving a lap dance has been legal for years but if you forced a woman to do the same you'd be charged with various crimes.. where have you guys been with your false equivalencies all of these years?

If you force someone to perform work that's slavery.. so even under your lame pretense that suddenly sex can't be called "Rape" because it's a commodity, we could charge people with slavery not ROBBERY for forcing someone to have sex against their will.

Or we can just keep calling it rape and giving it special attention. Because normal people can understand why it would still be rape even if there are people legally selling sex.

 

[poppabk]

Why does sex suddenly always have no meaning because prostitution is legalized?

You guys are just spouting out all of these false conclusions and then basing your argument on the conclusions.

Giving a lap dance has been legal for years but if you forced a woman to do the same you'd be charged with various crimes.. where have you guys been with your false equivalencies all of these years?

If you force someone to perform work that's slavery.. so even under your lame pretense that suddenly sex can't be called "Rape" because it's a commodity, we could charge people with slavery not ROBBERY for forcing someone to have sex against their will.

Or we can just keep calling it rape and giving it special attention. Because normal people can understand why it would still be rape even if there are people legally selling sex.

I am not against the legalization of prostitution, I think that the benefits of a controlled legally monitored industry likely outweigh the risks. Nor do I think that if we legalize prostitution we will have to reevaluate rape. I was trying to call out some of the people in this thread who were stating that sex was no different than any other physical act and that anyone against legalizing prostitution was just a prude.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

I am not against the legalization of prostitution, I think that the benefits of a controlled legally monitored industry likely outweigh the risks. Nor do I think that if we legalize prostitution we will have to reevaluate rape. I was trying to call out some of the people in this thread who were stating that sex was no different than any other physical act and that anyone against legalizing prostitution was just a prude.

OK.

You responded to my post. I have never said anything about it "just being another physical act."

You should address who you are talking about, not reply to someone's conversation with logic that you apparently don't even believe. Notice how OttomScribe is thanking you? Because you appeared to be repeating his false equivalency BS.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Because arguing that it should stay classified as a special form of assault fundamentally contradicts the idea that society and the law should not extend any particular value to sex, as it is just like any other form of labour.

No it doesn't whatsoever. There is no contradiction, because everything you are saying has nothing to do with any argument I presented you.

And different values are placed on all types of commodities, the laws broken differ having to do with commodities, etc. That includes legal "sexual" commodities right now.

Either way, your analogy is a failure.. forcing someone to perform work is slavery, not assault. So even if you "commoditized" sex with some asinine hard-line "well if we commoditize something we can't have a special law for it!" you'd still end up with rape being a violation of some sort of slavery law.

 

[OttomanScribe]

You're making the assumption that I think sex must be reduced to the social equivalent of a can of beans merely because I feel people should have the freedom to sell it.

This is the argument being made by people, that sex should be viewed as not being special, that is just like any other form of labour.

If am responding to the framework presented to me, if you have some other justification, maintaining its social importance while still justifying its commodification, then I can't really respond to things I haven't been presented with.

The latter tangent is comprised of spurious assumptions unrelated to the discussion, and as for the former; I'm not sure what's given you this impression. I don't think that we ought to treat human body parts as "just another commodity with no 'special' status" simply because some women choose to sell their wombs as surrogate baby machines either - and before you ask, no, I wouldn't date a woman who was actively providing this service, despite having no moral problem with her right to do so.

You refer in your posts to unwarranted leaps of logic, yet you haven't shown what specifically is a leap of logic. What you are doing here is shifting the goal posts of the discussion. Previously, I have been replying to people who have argued precisely above: that sexual services are merely another commodity.

My argument is that the freedom of individuals to choose to commodify their sex is more important than whatever social ills you believe will be set in motion by granting them these rights; and that in fact legalizing prostitution will benefit society rather than harm it. No more, no less.

That is not a self contained argument though, it is just assertions. Why is the freedom of people to commodify their sex more important than the broader implications of such an action on society? Why will it benefit society?

No it doesn't whatsoever. There is no contradiction, because everything you are saying has nothing to do with any argument I presented you.

Care to explain how?

Either way, your analogy is a failure.. forcing someone to perform work is slavery, not assault. So even if you "commoditized" sex with some asinine hard-line "well if we commoditize something we can't have a special law for it!" you'd still end up with rape being a violation of some sort of slavery law.

You manage to miss the point of the argument. It doesn't matter whether it is a slavery law, a theft law or any other law. The point is that the law does view sex as distinctly imbued with social and psychological importance.

This contradicts the fundamental of your argument, that it should be just like any other commodity. There is a clear contradiction here, and you either need to present a means for the contradiction to be resolved, somehow argue that it isn't a contradiction, or recant your point.

 

[Nyx]

Not at all, to each his own.

 

[Trouble]

Normally, no. I have no moral qualms with either side of that equation as long as both parties are consenting.

Anecdote time!

I had a coworker about 10 years ago who made what we thought were jokes about how he would hire a prostitute almost every night. After a while we started to realize he wasn't joking. He had a real deadpan delivery, so you usually couldn't tell when he was bullshitting or not. One day he storms into the bosses office and flips his shit talking about how he needs an advance on a sales commission that hadn't even closed yet. Turns out this guy was spending almost every dime he made on hookers, well over a grand a week. He was deep in debt facing eviction and bankruptcy.

I looked down on him, not for hiring hookers, but because he had serious impulse control issues and was generally off the rails with his life at all times.

 

[Witchfinder General]

Yes, considering the type of person who sollicits sex:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/17/the-growing-demand-for-prostitution.html

 

[OttomanScribe]

Yes, considering the type of person who sollicits sex:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/17/the-growing-demand-for-prostitution.html

Farley found that sex buyers were more likely to view sex as divorced from personal relationships than nonbuyers, and they enjoyed the absence of emotional involvement with prostitutes, whom they saw as commodities. “Prostitution treats women as objects and not ... humans,” said one john interviewed for the study.

In their interviews, the sex buyers often voiced aggression toward women, and were nearly eight times as likely as nonbuyers to say they would rape a woman if they could get away with it. Asked why he bought sex, one man said he liked “to beat women up.” Sex buyers in the study committed more crimes of every kind than nonbuyers, and all the crimes associated with violence against women were committed by the johns.

Guess I'm not alone with the impression that there is a strong correlation there.

 

[Ikael]

lol, morality. As if sex has anything to do with being a good person. Prostitution should have been legalized eons ago. Regulate it and tax it, and everyone will be safer for that. Prohibition breeds mafias.

Yes, considering the type of person who sollicits sex:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/17/the-growing-demand-for-prostitution.html

This study is a joke:

“We had big, big trouble finding nonusers,” Farley says. “We finally had to settle on a definition of non-sex-buyers as men who have not been to a strip club more than two times in the past year, have not purchased a lap dance, have not used pornography more than one time in the last month, and have not purchased phone sex or the services of a sex worker, escort, erotic masseuse, or prostitute.”

 

[OttomanScribe]

lol, morality. As if sex has anything to do with being a good person. Prostitution should have been legalized eons ago. Regulate it and tax it, and everyone will be safer for that. Prohibition breeds mafias.

What do you think the tax should be? How much should the state get from the various sex acts?

 

[Castor Krieg]

Say you discover your friend has no interests in romance and instead seeks out sex workers for the occasional slap and tickle. Not in a addictive way.

I would question his handling of finances. Why not just go to the bar on a Friday night?

What do you think the tax should be? How much should the state get from the various sex acts?

Same as it taxes other services? In Poland it's 23% VAT.

 

[Man]

I would question his handling of finances. Why not just go to the bar on a Friday night?

Don Juan? You are needed in the Dating thread.
I bet going to a sex worker once a week contra going clubbing would give you a better vag/$ ratio.
Excluding the time you pickup your future girlfriend.

 

[dreamcastmaster]

Don Juan? You are needed in the Dating thread.
I bet going to a sex worker once a week contra going clubbing would give you a better vag/$ ratio.
Excluding the time you pickup your future girlfriend.

The sex would probably be safer and better that some random girl you pulled in a bar.

 

[Officerrob]

I really could care less if someone used a prostitute. There are millions of guys who go out every Friday and Saturday night hoping and praying to get laid. To do so they subject themselves to cover charges, overpriced drinks, terrible music, and bad conversation (a waste of time). Wouldn't that money be better used to obtain his original goal? What should this man do? Not everyone is looking for a relationship and even if they are, that can be a long road to go down to find the one you are looking for. If that man can find someone else to have sex with him, with no strings attached for an amount of money, who cares? Both parties are willing and as long as they are adults, fine by me.

 

[Ikael]

What do you think the tax should be? How much should the state get from the various sex acts?

- Tax it like a luxury item
- Devote a fraction of said taxes explicitally to social programs aimed to curb the issues that fosters prostitution (poverty, education, etc)
- Make prostitutes pay to social security and give them acess to it
- Make a strict control of prostitution licenses in order to ensure that every prostitute is not a minor, is acting of her own will and has a good health. I am pretty sure that most payers will demand and welcome a humane quality control, too
- Restrict prostitution to indoor locales / private apartments

The state would gain taxes, the prostitutes will gain in security, the public will gain health and safety. Everyone wins, except for pimps and prudes.

 

[OttomanScribe]

- Tax it like a luxury item
- Devote a fraction of said taxes explicitally to social programs aimed to curb the issues that fosters prostitution (poverty, education, etc)
- Make prostitutes pay to social security and give them acess to it
- Make a strict control of prostitution licenses in order to ensure that every prostitute is not a minor, is acting of her own will and has a good health. I am pretty sure that most payers will demand and welcome a humane quality control, too
- Restrict prostitution to indoor locales / private apartments

The state would gain taxes, the prostitutes will gain in security, the public will gain health and safety. Everyone wins, except for pimps and prudes.

Would you advocate any kind of investigation into the social effects of prostitution first? Or do you just make the assumption that everyone wins in the absence of any information to the effect?

 

[Aguirre]

- Tax it like a luxury item
- Devote a fraction of said taxes explicitally to social programs aimed to curb the issues that fosters prostitution (poverty, education, etc)
- Make prostitutes pay to social security and give them acess to it
- Make a strict control of prostitution licenses in order to ensure that every prostitute is not a minor, is acting of her own will and has a good health. I am pretty sure that most payers will demand and welcome a humane quality control, too
- Restrict prostitution to indoor locales / private apartments

The state would gain taxes, the prostitutes will gain in security, the public will gain health and safety. Everyone wins, except for pimps and prudes.

you'd tax a natural biological function just because money is involved? damn

so if i got paid to shit, you'd apply those actions?

 

[Ikael]

Would you advocate any kind of investigation into the social effects of prostitution first? Or do you just make the assumption that everyone wins in the absence of any information to the effect?

Of course it should be researched first. Any prudent ruler should study the consequences of his actions before putting them into practice. That being said, several other countries such as Germany have already legalized prostitution to some degree, so there are practical cases that could be studied. Same goes with going to the completely opposite route (active persecution of prostitution), practiced in countries such as Iran or Saudi Arabia.

you'd tax a natural biological function just because money is involved? damn

so if i got paid to shit, you'd apply those actions?

Aren't coin - operated toilets taxed too? Noone is taxing you for doing a biological fuction that you could do by your own such as masturbating in your room. But if you need another person to do it so, and said person demands money for it, then it is a service, and it should be taxed as that.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Of course it should be researched first. Any prudent ruler should study the consequences of his actions before putting them into practice. That being said, several other countries such as Germany have already legalized prostitution to some degree, so there are practical cases that could be studied. Same goes with going to the completely opposite route (active persecution of prostitution), practiced in countries such as Iran or Saudi Arabia.

So you haven't done any such thing? Why do you advocate it then?

 

[Ikael]

So you haven't done any such thing? Why do you advocate it then?

Does everyone here that support the opposite view have reserached anything or is everything based in "morality"? I don't have the time or money to conduct a study of my own, even if I would love to (I toyed with the idea while I was a University student). I did, however, got informed about the issue.

Holland did legalized its prostitution, and lo and behold, the country did not collapse unto itself, nor the AIDS rate skyrocketed nor women shuddenly lost all their rights. The Dutch state got a new form of revenue, and prostitution mafias were forced to move into other business or dissappeared by the virtue of being underfunded. Studies predicts that the legalization of prostitution and marihuana could generate up to 15.000 million € of revenues to the Spanish state per year.

Meanliwhile, moralistic countries such as Saudi Arabia or Iran haven't been able to stop prostitution despite their admitedly draconian laws regarding this issue, and it is completely logical: prostitution is a business that requires zero initial investment, it has an un-supressable demand and it offers an astounding ratio of benefits per worked hour. It won't dissappear, period.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Does everyone here that support the opposite view have reserached anything or is everything based in "morality"? I don't have the time or money to conduct a study of my own, even if I would love to (I toyed with the idea while I was a University student). I did, however, got informed about the issue.

I'm just curious if the basis of your argument goes beyond what appears to be political conviction.

Holland did legalized its prostitution, and lo and behold, the country did not collapse unto itself, nor the AIDS rate skyrocketed nor women shuddenly lost all their rights.

I don't think anyone is saying that that would occur immediately. What effect did it actually have though? In terms of AIDs rates or women's rights?

prostitution mafias were forced to move into other business or dissappeared by the virtue of being underfunded

I understand that this is not the case.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Say you discover your friend has no interests in romance and instead seeks out sex workers for the occasional slap and tickle. Not in a addictive way.

Yep.
It's a risky and expensive lifestyle.

 

[Ikael]

I'm just curious if the basis of your argument goes beyond what appears to be political conviction.

Pragmatism. Prostitution is essentially money waiting for the state to be picked up in a time of budget deficits and austerity. The revenues generated by an hypotetical prostitution legalization would have been more than enough to avoid the recent cults in the welfare state of my country, therefore avoiding us of a lot of certain social pain.

I don't think anyone is saying that that would occur immediately. What effect did it actually have though? In terms of AIDs rates or women's rights?

Little to no effects, really. As you can say, there could be long term negative effecs which right now we are unaware of, but meanlywhile there are already positive, tangible effects (increased tax revenue).

And yep, right now I am not with enough time in my hands to search for a full - flegded study on that matter, but there have been several posters here from countries where prostitution is legal and they did not notice any kind of negative downturn in their experience. Also, comparing at the amount of violence against women between, say, Germany and Iran, one could easily conclude that the prostitution legalization rather helped to ease it, even if correlation does not imply causation.

About the other reason, the whole "women's right" angle is preposterous: if a woman (or men!) is willing to sell his body of his / her own will, why should you, or anyone stop her, then again? It is her right to decide what to do with her own body, holy books nonwithstanding.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Pragmatism. Prostitution is essentially money waiting for the state to be picked up in a time of budget deficits and austerity. The revenues generated by an hypotetical prostitution legalization would have been more than enough to avoid the recent cults in the welfare state of my country, therefore avoiding us of a lot of certain social pain.

Yeah. I understand that getting money out of the industry seems to be the main concern.

Little to no effects, really. As you can say, there could be long term negative effecs which right now we are unaware of, but meanlywhile there are already positive, tangible effects (increased tax revenue).

How do you know there are little to no effects?

And yep, right now I am not with enough time in my hands to search for a full - flegded study on that matter, but there have been several posters here from countries where prostitution is legal and they did not notice any kind of negative downturn in their experience. Also, comparing at the amount of violence against women between, say, Germany and Iran, one could easily conclude that the prostitution legalization rather helped to ease it, even if correlation does not imply causation.

Yeah, correlation doesn't imply causation, huge leap there. Prostitution is fairly legal in India, violence in India is very common.

I am from a country where it is legal, I think that the social impact of it is noticeable and negative.

About the other reason, the whole "women's right" angle is preposterous: if a woman (or men!) is willing to sell his body of his / her own will, why should you, or anyone stop her, then again? It is her right to decide what to do with her own body, holy books nonwithstanding.

If a woman gets into debt, and signs a contract that will entail she will become a sex slave to the person she signed the contract to, is this a problem? She consents after all.

 

[Freezie KO]

I wouldn't look down on him. I think people go to sex workers for different reasons. Some just want to get off. Some are profoundly lonely. I had a stripper friend when I lived on the East Coast, and she said people just liked to talk to her most of all.

And of course prostitution should be legal. People should have the rights to do whatever they want with their own bodies.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

That argument showcases a fundamental failure in ones use of the logical process. Logic doesn't stop.

Fantasy feeds into itself and serves only to amplify desire to act not reduce it. The person seeking out girls who "look" underage is at the core not actually interested in them. They're using them as a means to fulfill the fantasy of sex with someone who is actually underage. Because they know the truth of the girls age their actions never amount to fulfillment which only furthers the desire.

Got any citations for this empirical claim about human psychology?

I'm not claiming you're flat out wrong; I don't know the research.

 

[Ikael]

How do you know there are little to no effects?

As far as I know, legalization of prostitution did not correlated with spikes on criminality or sexually transmited illnesses, and people in these very forums from Germany and Holland, two countries with legalized prostitutions, claimed that they did not notice any kind of negative effect regarding prostitution. I know, I know, anecdotal evidence and all that jazz, specially since...

I am from a country where it is legal, I think that the social impact of it is noticeable and negative.

Which country are you from? Which negative impact did you noticed? Is it really legal? I ask this because most countries adopt a "legal limbo" posture: it is not legalized nor recogniced as a profession, but it is not explicitally persecuted or banned either, which is the posture of my own country (Spain).

If a woman gets into debt, and signs a contract that will entail she will become a sex slave to the person she signed the contract to, is this a problem? She consents after all.

Slavery and prostitution are two extremely different and tangential things. You are correlating both in order to advance your point. Yes, no human can rennounce or give up their own liberties and constitutional rights in any democratic state, for it is implied that noone would do such a thing out of their own will, so could you please tell me which liberty does one give up when agrees to sell their own body? Because atlethes, fashion models or construction workers are doing the very same thing, and noone would say that they are slaves, either.