|legalized prostitutionPage 4 of 7 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)|
This country, sadly, has now come to include many millions of statists who call themselves liberals. As that term has ordinarily been used, these "liberals" are no such thing.
There is a good bit of truth in this, Matchlight. Liberalism has certainly been conflated with/contaminated with a lot of nonsense. So has Conservatism, as you point out.
But it is awfully hard not to include social conservatives with fiscal conservatives. It is also hard not to include people who favor state control in with those who favor firm regulation. There is often considerable overlap.
When people get militant on either "side," it is usually in response to a perceived injustice. I might not like the solutions proposed to deal with those injustices, whether it is "redistributing wealth," or "letting the market prevail." However, understanding the nature of the injustice and the system that allows it to recur will help us all to participate intelligently in resolving whatever factual injustices remain after we strip away the misconstrued claims.
What some on both sides forget is that our system is based on individual rights, with laws that are in place to protect those rights from encroachment by both other individuals and the government. It is easy to forget that people have a right to screw up their lives. They also have a right to the consequences of their mistakes. However, no one is entitled to take undue advantage of them just because they're in a weak position. By the same token, if their screw-ups have harmful effects on the rest of us, the rest of us have a right to some reasonable measure of protection.
In the case of prostitution, there is a threat to the public health. And, there are reasonable ways of controlling that threat via condoms, etc. Beyond that, what demonstrable risk does the transaction pose for any third party? Any? If so, then we do need to impose reasonable regulations to mitigate those risks--the least onerous measures that are effective.
But that's not the "conservative" position. Social conservatives want to ban the entire transaction because it doesn't fit their picture of a "moral," or rather, "Godly," society. If these "conservatives" can legislate moralityin this way in order to engineer a society that fits their preferences, then why can't "liberals" redistribute wealth to do the same? How is it that one form of seemingly unjustified interference in the market is OK while the other isn't? At least when it comes to "unfair" tax policy, gangland violence is not an inevitiable and entirely predictable side effect that jeopardizes the lives of innocent citizens.
Still, there are both conservatives and liberals who are against legalizing prostitution because they don't want to tolerate situations in which women are forced by circumstance to compromise their essential human dignity for money. However, if the transaction does that to the women, it also does that to the men. What could be more humiliating than having to pay for sex? Near as I can tell, no one has the right not to feel humiliated when they exercise poor judgment. So, humiliating though such transactions might be for all concerned, that is still no legal justification for banning them.
However, there is some legitimacy in taking a protective stance against prostitution because some consideration of individual rights is involved. No one should be allowed to use the threat of starvation or homelessness to coerce physical contact with an unwilling person. That is tantamount to rape.
The way I see it, the question boils down to this:
What is more dangerous for those who are most vulnerable and therefore most likely to be taken advantage of in such a transaction: safe, legal, and consensual involvement? or unsafe, illegal, and possibly coerced participation with no legal recourse?
When you make prostitution illegal, you deny the prostitute's right to pursue legal redress against those who take advantage of her. What could be more degrading than that?
Child abuse, human trafficking, and other crimes associated with prostitution are crimes in and of themselves. They can, and should, be prosecuted on their own.
If conservatives mean what they say about the market, then when when individual clients and service providers meet as relative equals, are competent to consent, are free to walk away if they cannot agree on a price, and both negotiate in good faith, they will have to agree that no real crime has occurred regardless of what the law might currently say. What jurisdiction does the state actually have in a situation like that? What rights were violated? Any?
Name one and I will concede that the current laws against prostitution are legitimate. If you cannot name any, then you must consider the possibility that they are not, regardless of your emotional alliegances.
As an aside, and not to take anything away from those who see prostitution as rape, there are many "moralists" among us who don't seem to have a problem with allowing such threats to coerce people into performing other forms of work that are designed to be as degrading and exploitive as possible. When I see them come in just as strongly to protect the rights and dignity of exploited workers (those who perform hard labor for less-than-subsistence pay), I'll take their outrage over the unseemly appearance of prostitution a lot more seriously.
Until then, I can only call it what it is: conservative social engineering, and bad engineering at that.
Posted: 6/11/2009 12:16:13 PM
The amount of money involved in the Arizona case is staggering, and it must be many times that in California. Some unknown part of it's supporting a booming traffic in narcotics and slaves. Some of these are women--and probably even girls--brought here to be prostitutes. Yet our city fathers praise the matricular consular cards, as B of A profits from performing the transfers. Now that the U.S. has such a big interest in B of A, it's sickening to think U.S. taxpayers may be unwitting accomplices in slave trading.
Yes, it is.
Posted: 6/11/2009 12:25:35 PM
These people even try to tell other people how to describe their own ideas. That is just one more case of a ploy they favor--the use of emotionally loaded words as a shortcut to reasoned argument. The term "homophobic" is one example. Here's how it works: You choose (or in this case, invent) a term whose meaning neatly incorporates the conclusion you've jumped to. Then, you all repeat this term so often that millions of people come to accept it as accurate. And presto--you've gotten them to accept your assertion along with it--here, that anyone who disapproves of homosexual behavior must be motivated by personal fear, and by implication, personal animosity. It's magic! You've won without ever having had to defend your assertion with any facts or logic.
What other basis is there for discrimination on the basis of homosexuality?
If you can name one, something that doesn't boil down to unreasoned fear, I will concede the point that the term was coined in order to manipulate opinion rather than to bring an observable phenomenon to light.
Posted: 6/25/2009 11:24:55 PM
I have no problem with prostitution if it's off of the streets... ie... escorting.
Neither do I, and any laws against it are almost certainly unconstitutional (along with "public morals" laws in general) after the Court's decision a few years ago in Lawrence v. Kennedy. If the sex is private and not public, any law against it that's still on the books is almost certainly invalid.
So anyone who enjoys (and I blush to mention these things, which modesty forbids but truthfulness demands) fornication, sodomy, adultery, Wesson lessons, erotic asphyxiation, Saran wrap bondage, electrical stimulation, blindfolds, handcuffs, riding crops, and boots; speculum and sounding play, frolicking with midgets in diapers, bringing ponies and hermaphrodites in on the action--in short, imitating the Romans--well, go for broke.
But do keep the blinds closed. If little Timmy, walking home from school, should see anyone inside "in flagrante delicto," he might tell his parents, and they might sue you. Even worse, the shock to the lad's impressionable mind might turn him into a NAMBLA cadet!
Posted: 6/25/2009 11:39:04 PM
So anyone who enjoys fornication, sodomy, adultery, Wesson lessons, erotic asphyxiation, Saran wrap bondage, electrical stimulation, blindfolds, handcuffs, riding crops, and boots; speculum and sounding play, frolicking with midgets in diapers, bringing ponies and hermaphrodites in on the action--in short, imitating the Romans--...
I think you just described the best third date ideas here on Plenty of Fish.
Posted: 6/26/2009 12:28:14 AM
Google doesn't help me here.
Take a waterproof sheet, preferably rubber, and lay it out on the floor. Then take a bottle of your favorite vegetable oil. ... oh, nevermnd.
Posted: 6/26/2009 1:00:45 AM
what is a Wesson lesson?
Well, as the pretty young lady I once went out with described it to me, she'd first wait for her parents to go out of town. Then she'd start calling old boyfriends to invite them over for a party--and bring some acid, please. In the meantime, she'd clear part of the garage floor, get the concrete very clean, and put down a plastic tarp. That night, when everyone was sufficiently warmed up and ripped, she'd put on some music, and everyone would undress. She'd then pour the Wesson (I'm told some feel Mazola is even slipperier) on the tarp, turn up the music, and all the guys would have at her.
I was never invited to one of these bacchanals, but being a moral Christian lad I'm sure I wouldn't have been interested. But IF I'd been the only guy involved, well . . . who knows. Sometimes, the devil's temptations work on us, don't they?
Posted: 6/26/2009 8:51:49 AM
I think you just described the best third date ideas here on Plenty of Fish.
You hit that one right out of the park!
Posted: 6/26/2009 11:49:15 PM
Wesson would eat through a condom.
What condom? In the case of the young lady I mentioned, at least, I'm sure no condoms were involved.
Posted: 6/27/2009 11:16:17 AM
|Back in the day, Match, it would have seemed like overkill. Not now. |
Wesson lesson for today: Use glide!
Posted: 6/27/2009 2:38:49 PM
|"it is a fascist law that says motorcycle riders are required to wear a helmet when cruising around on THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY (THEIR motorcycle),"|
Just don't ride on the roads paid for by my taxes
And if you get hurt be sure to 100% pay all of your medical and other bills ... nothing to raise my insurance costs, my nationalized health care (which already exists) costs, nothing to create a cost to my judicial system.
So long as the only person you hurt is you with solely your private party - go for it. As the lawyer in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice said, take your skin, but not one drop of my blood.
Posted: 12/5/2009 8:49:44 AM
|prostution is legal in all 50 states.....it is called marrige.|
yet the payment is dependent on barter skills.
Posted: 12/18/2009 10:01:06 AM
|uhm those same roads that are paids for by your taxes were also paid for by their taxes....So your point is kind of invalidated. You might wish to rethink that idea.|
I you want to ban them pick something ONLY you paid for?
Posted: 12/18/2009 11:01:19 AM
those same roads that are paids for by your taxes were also paid for by their taxes
So the road taxes one motorcycle rider contributes, in a state of 30 million, is enough so that the state should not be able to require him to wear a helmet when riding on its roads. And he should have a right to emergency and medical services if he ever has an accident, even if these cost thousands of times more than what he's paid in road taxes.
If he lives next to a state forest, should the state also be unable to require his house to meet certain fire standards? It's his house--why can't he have a shingle roof? After all, he's paying his 1/30,000,000 share of the taxes to maintain the forest.
Posted: 1/29/2010 3:24:03 PM
|Your logic is flawed. all I said was that you could not deny is use of the road based on whom payed taxes . we tax you for maintence to the road. If we all pay we should all have equal access.|
If he does wear a helmet and you dont wear a seat belt do we automatically take you off the road ?
just because women earn money in strp clubs does not mean that they are free from negative situations. There are women being brought into this country and forced into illegal prostitution every day. It is a complex problem.
Across the board women should have the right to do as they wish free from recrimination.
A woman marries a 65 year old man for whatever reason and she is young she's a gold digger.
Yet the double standard is the old guy in just a sugar daddy.
A kind old guy getting what he wants.
Its all perspecive.
It;s no different than the drug problem. There is a major market that will always be there. The law cannot handle the size and scope. We could reduce the whole problem if we could remove the need for an illegal market. Ifn there was a way to fulfill the desire for the service then whom would they be forced into prostitution to service. The second way is to remove the value of the service they provide. There for is peole could find jobs that made what they could make stripping they would not be stripping.
Posted: 11/27/2010 7:29:55 PM
|And I thought this thread had died. The ones I remember seeing up close, as a 17-year-old raising he!! with my buddies in Tijuana, seemed to enjoy their work OK. But as far as I got was to have a smiling, 30-something woman in a tight dress sit on my lap and start playing with my hair and unbuttoning my shirt, as the whole room watched an old B&W stag film to get in the mood. I lost my nerve and slipped away--but so did my friends, so they couldn't rag me too much.|
Posted: 12/5/2010 5:32:35 PM
|In my opinion, prostitution should never be legalized. Many people who feel that it should be concentrate on the "willing" prostitute (i.e. the ones who would be sluts if not charging for it). However, in my law enforcement experience, I find that most prostitution situations are actually forced and/or involved trafficked women. The United States did away with slavery 145 years ago (counting from the end of the Civil War). Enough said.|
Posted: 1/9/2011 3:33:39 AM
|barbe1963, re: To sell her body to feed that desperation, and then to have it sanctioned by the government for profit just seems morally bankrupt. Why are you limiting this to just the prostitution of women, you do realize that men do get whored out as well, its not a one sided business. |
But what really ruffles my feathers, is your comment on the government and how them allowing such practices to be a sign of moral bankruptcy, I dunno if you have been paying attention, but this country has been morally bankrupt for a long time, and the socialize entity in our whitehouse isn't helping much.
When has it been morally right to help out a failing business, with tax payer dollars, not helping the tax payer, but big corporate america. whatever it is, there will always be an issue of what is moral, and what is not moral.
Morality is something that is different in each person's mind. There are many things the government does for profit, many of those things we will never read about or see on tv.
I don't go out and get hookers, but if you look back into history, you will see that sex is something that sells, its everywhere, in the news paper, on tv, a friggin carl's Jr commercial..... I don't think prostitution is hurting anyone in Amsterdam, but then again, no one is going there for the ice cream
Posted: 1/11/2011 11:02:55 AM
|I say Legalize it, Morally in the long run, It's Safer if regulated, The women won't get abused like they do by their "Pimps" because their is no one to protect them, Their Narcotic use will drop, the Women would be of a higher caliber (Meaning they are more likely to actually have morals verses doing it for the Next High or Some Pimp That's gonna Kick the Crap out of her). BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY: If regulated they would be Tested for STD's regularly.|
We live in one of the Most Sexually Promiscuous society this world has ever known, Might as well tax it, and create a Safe environment for it.... We can Debate the bad and good on both sides and never agree, because both sides exist!
The reality is it's never gonna stop, men & women alike will always be willing to pay for sex, But the Safe environment is what I would like to see out of Legalizing it! Why not Tax it, If it's a Job, the money is switching hand anyway legally or illegally, I'd rather it Generate some taxes, create some safe legal jobs, and free up the police to actually protect and go after real crime!
Posted: 1/11/2011 12:18:24 PM
Total Abortions since 1973
and people find prostitution immoral.
amazing what people are willing justify
Posted: 1/11/2011 1:18:51 PM
|I'm generally for decriminalizing things where there's no clear victim. Prostitution is often thought of as one of those "victimless" crimes, and in most cases it may be. As far as the prostitutes themselves or their clients are concerned, I really don't care what kind of agreements they choose to make.|
But it's not quite that simple, because in some situations the whole thing can become a sort of public nuisance. I learned a little more about this when I worked for a month in the L.A. City Attorney's office as a volunteer, doing misdemeanor prosecutions to get some experience with jury trials. (At least you don't have to call the judge "Your Worship," as I hear they do in some English courts.) The police are all over street prostitution--at least in the Van Nuys area--because people complain.
One intersection they know all about is right across the street from single-family homes. And many of these homeowners have young children. Sometimes they'll report that the sex has taken place right on the spot, almost in plain view. They really don't think that adds much to the family atmosphere of their neighborhood, and what are the police going to do about it?!
Side note: One of the cops on the teams that go after the prostitution in this neighborhood played a hooker. She was a very confident, experienced witness. She was also very pretty--so I assume she looked convincing out there wearing her outfit. Their goal (besides training new officers) is to make enough arrests to discourage things, and to do that they need probable cause of solicitation.
To get it, this officer first would get the john to say what he wanted and agree to a price. After they'd done that at his car window, she'd get in and tell him to pull behind a building nearby, where it was more private. But as soon as they got close, a police car would come out of its hiding place, follow and stop the john's car, and the other officers would make the arrest. It was kind of funny to hear the ridiculous stories some guys would try to sell. The brighter ones just plead guilty and take their slap on the wrist.
Posted: 1/11/2011 1:38:34 PM
|I actually wrote a paper in high school about legalizing prostitution in CA. With legalization comes revenue from taxes and the ability to reulate it. Honestly what one person is willing to do for money and another is willing to pay for that, why does anybody else need to get involved? Isn't a guy going to a bar at 1 am picking up on drunk chicks to take home worse than two people coming to a business agreement. |
Well, thats my 2 cents
7 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)