|legalized prostitutionPage 4 of 7 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)|
2) I think legalizing it across the country would have and ill effect however. Legalized easy to have sex means its much more tempting to indulge in for someone who has the potential to cheat on ones spouce. IE I think divorce rates may increase simply do to temptation.
you may be onto something jeff.
I've wondered if when taboo (OPtopic) and abhorrent behavior gets a lot of media air-time, if that brings those so-inclined out of the woodwork and into activity.
Posted: 6/8/2008 12:02:33 PM
|^^^ I really think so...|
I will share an example to show how I think...
Let's say I have a 6 pack in the fridge. My own rules is one beer I don't drive till the next day. So if I finish the 6 pack its a majour deterent for me to get more when I start contemplating the 5 minutes walk to the gas station. Then again when I was in detroit they had beer delivery service. You call the number 20 minutes later a driver shows up with another 6 pack for you. IE here if I run out I usually just call it a night. In michigan it was easier to resupply so its always more tempting to indulge more.
Posted: 6/8/2008 4:48:06 PM
|I think that men that use prostitutes like the idea that it is taboo, against the law and risky... Legal or not, there will always be a black market to fulfill those looking for the thrill ride (so to speak).|
Posted: 6/8/2008 8:51:08 PM
|My stance is to legalize it all and regulate it: drugs, prostitution, and gambling.|
This would cut crime in half overnight and the taxes would pay off the national deficit.
People will always use drugs enjoy gambling and hire prostitutes. Might as well solve the whole issue and cut a bite of crime.
Prostitution is legal in many countries overseas and marriages actually last longer and divorce is less than in the USA.
Not saying that I would necessarily use a hooker but it should be legal.
Posted: 6/8/2008 11:04:29 PM
|Now that we're all grown up, who cares what other consenting adults do in their private lives? |
Just don't hurt or lie to anyone who may be in your life. Be good to and honest with your loved ones and save your wrath for things that matter - poverty, hunger, crime, war, ants invading your kitchen, fruit flies around that old banana on the counter, having to re-do your laundry every week...that kind of stuff.
Posted: 6/11/2008 9:37:05 AM
This would cut crime in half overnight and the taxes would pay off the national deficit
Not with the way Dubya & Cheney are spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but refusing to tax their oil buddies... $9 Trillion national deficit according to former Governor Jessie Ventura...Gotta love it when politicians play Monopoly with America's future
Posted: 6/11/2008 9:46:13 AM
|America will never legalize prostitution because of it's puritanical|
cultural background. We say sex is OK then villify anyone who is open
and comfortable with it.
In the 70's the star of Deep Throat almost went to prison for a long time just for being in a porno flick.
If you think congress doesn't get things done now, then watch and see if you legalize prostitution...
At least they would be smiling alot on CSPAN!!!
Posted: 6/5/2009 9:18:26 AM
|I doubt prostitution will ever be decriminilized in the states where there are laws forbidding it with the exception of Nevada where of course it's permissable. |
If prostitution were legalized it would be brought out of the shadows of dangerous illegal activity and regulated by the states where it would be safe for all involved parties.
State regulations would provide mandatory testing for the prostitutes, required use of condoms, and equally as important it would prevent the trafficking of human beings into prostitution. Nobody would be coerced into any activity against their free will and could leave the business anytime they wish.
While having sex with a prostitute will not provide the same emotional connection making love to a significant other does it would afford an opportunity for guys like me that have a most difficult time getting women. No woman wants a little short man and I'm sick and tired of going through life being frustrated. So at least being able to spend time at a legalized brothel would provide some outlet.
Posted: 6/5/2009 9:35:24 AM
it would prevent the trafficking of human beings into prostitution. Nobody would be coerced into any activity against their free will and could leave the business anytime they wish.
THAT'S TOTALLY NAIVE! Rose colored glasses are wonderful aren't they? But maybe not if you end up on the other side of those lenses.
Posted: 6/5/2009 10:01:30 AM
I think that men that use prostitutes like the idea that it is taboo, against the law and risky... Legal or not, there will always be a black market to fulfill those looking for the thrill ride (so to speak). - that is highly illogical, so you assume there is a thrill in going to jail, being fined, losing everything in divorce ect? Or maybe his wife lost interest in sex, lost libido, menapause ect.....I am willing to bet Spitzer loves his wife very much, and that she lost interest in sex after having the kids, that would have to be why she hasn't dumped him, same with Clinton, hell, Hillary is probably gay.
Posted: 6/5/2009 10:04:49 AM
|Point well taken, O4. |
The problem with criminalizing consensual behavior that violates no one's rights is that those who participate have no legal recourse when a deal goes sour. Without access to legitimate law enforcement, people either continue to be victimized or start taking matters into their own hands.
The point of legalizing prostitution among consenting adults is not that exploitation or trafficking would magically vanish, but that those who are victimized would be able to call upon legal authorities to put a stop to it. And, the legal authorities would be in a position to distinguish between what is consensual and what is criminal.
Posted: 6/5/2009 10:58:45 AM
|In order to become a licensed sex worker in Nevada for example, there is a requirement of a background check and testing for STDS. Any applicant that doesn't check out or tests positive sees their application denied. And in some counties brothels are fighting proposals to make their very existence illegal. This further provides incentive for owners to fully comply with the laws.|
Posted: 6/5/2009 2:31:33 PM
|I'm not interested in the service, but I can't see why this state shouldn't legalize prostitution. Or, certain cities or counties could make it an infraction, subject to fines only. I don't believe government has any business making crimes out of victimless agreements. For the same reasons, I'm also in favor of repealing most drug laws.|
Posted: 6/5/2009 3:07:45 PM
America will never legalize prostitution because of it's puritanical cultural background.
I don't know what you mean by "America," but there's never been any U.S. law against prostitution. The Mann Act was probably the closest thing. And prostitution's been legal for a long time in some Nevada counties. I also don't know about your claim as to Deep Throat, but state governments have the right to define and prohibit obscene speech. Congress has many members right now who are prostitutes themselves, and in a much worse way than any hooker.
I believe puritanism in the U.S. today survives mostly among so-called liberals. And it's directed not at sex, but at anything these people view as a transgression against their new sacred cows, e.g. health, the environment, and pet minorities. The most extreme ones are a homegrown Taliban, and no Salem witch hunter was ever more zealous or narrow-minded.
Posted: 6/5/2009 4:09:25 PM
|Hi Ace, Yes, good points that I can conceed to.....to a point. I don't know though if I'm conceeding to nearly 100% or rather down in the 50/50 range or what..... Possibly some research in Nevada is needed.......... |
Will be more 'thoughtful' with next post along this reasoning line...... back soon.
Posted: 6/5/2009 4:12:33 PM
|Okay Ace, I'm back from my research and reasoning 'hiatus'......I'm really quick that way. Today I can give in to 75/25 or so, but that's the best I can give today. Maybe there's more to give tomorrow......|
Posted: 6/5/2009 5:20:11 PM
that's the best I can give today. Maybe there's more to give tomorrow......
04... don't give any!.... until it's legalized. Right now you gotta get what you can... while it's illegal.
Posted: 6/5/2009 11:35:20 PM
Okay Ace, I'm back from my research and reasoning 'hiatus'......I'm really quick that way. Today I can give in to 75/25 or so, but that's the best I can give today. Maybe there's more to give tomorrow......
Hmmm ... So what's the sticking point for you?
Someone told me a while back that people tend to equate behavior that is disgusting with behavior that is immoral. There are some disgusting behaviors that are also immoral, but not all. Whenever I have trouble distinguishing right from wrong, I try to see if I'm using morality to justify my disgust. If so, I really don't have to because disgust is a matter of personal preference that I am perfectly entitled to. However, I am not entitled to prevent others from behaving in ways that I find merely disgusting. If they aren't violating my rights, or each other's, I have nothing to say about it.
So no, I will never stick a needle in my arm to get high. But the only thing I have to complain about when someone else does is if they put anyone else at risk while they're under the influence. And while I might recoil at the idea of paying for sexual pleasure, unless the parties leave a mess behind or pass along a disease to others, and as long as they keep it among consenting adults, it's none of my business. I don't want to know, and I can't imagine why anyone else would either.
Posted: 6/6/2009 7:21:56 AM
|Hi Ace, On the immoral vs disgusting part of the argument, I keep arguing within myself the question of: "Is it immoral to watch someone else (maybe even who is drunk) kill themselves while just standing there watching with hands in pockets?". And then, if somehow not coming to the aid of one who is in a circumstance of doing that to themselves is immoral, then the next question is to change "killing themselves" to "hurting themselves". At that point, the whole concept of "victimless crimes" is up for grabs, and it becomes a question of interpretation at where to draw the line. |
AS for the 75/25, I really do agree with your point for those that can access the law. But in our lives, have we always witnessed people able to exercise full access even in all legal conditions? How many "sweat shops" in "legal” industries (ie: at least industries/companies that look legal on the surface, but which are actually not operating in legal fashion at deeper levels) have we seen from which the "employees" did not seek legal help even though they have been treated illegally.............a particular example is how oftentimes immigrants who do not know the language, or the customs or the rules, fully end up taken advantage of. In many cases it's also the situation of becoming dependent upon a job and then not knowing, or the feeling of not knowing, how to get out of it thereafter (often times through fear of real or perceived “consequences”). These happen in many walks of life now, and certainly in jobs much less intimate and personal than the tasks of being a prostitute. Having the rights to legal access is only good if one can get to the law for any and all reasons, not just the legal ones.
Posted: 6/6/2009 11:29:05 AM
|People most often cut themselves off from legal remedies by breaking the law themselves. The millions of illegal aliens who work in the U.S. are a good example. They willingly placed themselves in a compromised position by entering this country illegally. Complaints from anyone who's done that ring pretty hollow. The law can't protect people from their own decisions.|
Visitors in foreign countries often don't know the ropes, and that makes them easy marks. But in almost all cases, no one forced them to go there. And while aliens are in this country lawfully, they enjoy all the basic legal protections Americans do. If a Japanese tourist is robbed in L.A., the police won't do anything less about it because he's an alien. Or, if they arrest him for DUI, he'll be arraigned within 48 hours just as Americans are. He'll also be provided a translator, allowed to hire a lawyer if he wants ,etc.
You mentioned the moral problem of watching a suicide. One big difference between the law in England and America, and the law in the rest of the world, is that theirs tries to make people do the right things. It's a crime not to help someone in danger, if you can. Our law, though, and England's, assumes we're moral people who will naturally do what's right. So we don't need any law to force us to--it would be beneath us. Justice Holmes once noted that a man can sit calmly on the end of a pier having a smoke, ignoring the calls of someone thrashing in the water a few yards away, and not have broken the slightest law if the victim drowns.
Posted: 6/6/2009 11:30:50 AM
a particular example is how oftentimes immigrants who do not know the language, or the customs or the rules, fully end up taken advantage of. In many cases it's also the situation of becoming dependent upon a job and then not knowing, or the feeling of not knowing, how to get out of it thereafter (often times through fear of real or perceived “consequences”). These happen in many walks of life now, and certainly in jobs much less intimate and personal than the tasks of being a prostitute. Having the rights to legal access is only good if one can get to the law for any and all reasons, not just the legal ones.
Learn English and stop with the poor woe is me, gotta look out for for the clueless nanny state mentality.
In the words of Dennis Miller.
"I don't mind helping the helpless, but I won't help the clueless."
Posted: 6/6/2009 1:48:20 PM
|It doesn't take an in-depth analysis to come to a conclusion. Instrumentalize deductive reasoning:|
1. Humans are mammals.
2. Mammals are perverse creatures.
3. Social controls do not quiet the inherent perversions of mammals.
4. Laws are a social control.
5. Prostitution can never be effectively controlled, thus it is is an exercise in futility to attempt to control it.
6. Since all Humans are Mammals and all Mammals are perverse, illegalizing the use of a bodily function guided by strong inherent sexual urges does nothing but send people to jail for being people.
7. All sexual people--that is, ALL PEOPLE--have the potential to make positive contributions to society. By sending those people--ALL PEOPLE--to jail, it damages society.
8. By promoting social controls which damage society, you are damaging society.
Conclusion: If you support the legalization of prostitution, you support the persistence of society. If you do not support the legalization of prostitution, you contribute to society's failures.
Posted: 6/6/2009 3:57:28 PM
|^^^^^There's a certain kind of reasoning there, although I can't quite identify it! If it's a put-on, as the sign at the end suggests, it's a good one.|
But if not, it's restating the obvious to say that a society which jailed everyone in it would damage itself. And I don't know how something can be a perversion, yet be inherent in us. That seems to be a contradiction in terms, like saying abnormalities are normal.
If laws really didn't control the urges inherent in people so they could coexist in an orderly society, why have any? Most people understand that the main reason we make laws is to do just that. Laws represent a society's consensus about which of its members should be allowed to do what.
Posted: 6/6/2009 7:00:51 PM
|Because by the definition of puritans, sexuality and pleasure are perverted. They are also quite Human.|
Abnormalities are normal. Peruse Sigmund Freud. I suggest The Future of An Illusion and The Ego and the Id.
Yes, why have laws which attempt to control an element which is futile to control? Excellent question. Exercise your voting power to eliminate candidates who espouse the persistence of such laws.
The law does not represent a consensus. The majority thinks Marijuana should be legalized, but it is quite illicit. The majority thinks the wars for oil should have ended years ago. We are still spending billions monthly in Iraq and Afghanistan. The majority felt that we should not bail out failing banks. Congress spent trillions on that. The majority feels that State corrections should refocus its efforts on education and therapy to reform criminals: "Corrections". Mandatory minimum sentences are still the norm. The majority espouses freedom to choose where one is educated. Vouchers are virtually nonexistent.
Shall I go on?