| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/19/2011 10:30:22 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by disassociation:
An incredible majority of sex workers are in favor of decriminalization and legalization. These surely has to mean something. |
Do you have a source for this?
I'm pretty sure an incredible majority of all criminals are in favor of decriminalization of their crime, so I'm not sure it means anything after all... |
What if the majority of the criminals' victims were also in favor, would that change anything? Thats essentially what disassociation is claiming.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2011 10:37:42 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by disassociation:
//www.bayswan.org/
And again I pose the question - What about adult film work? How does that differ from prostitution, fundamentally? You can have sex with as many hookers as you want as long as you film it and distribute it for money... |
I haven't said anything about the adult film industry. I'll let you draw your own conclusions, but I think it's a weak argument to imply that there is no sane way one could prohibit the adult industry and therefore prostitution must also be legal. A similar style argument would be to ask what's fundamentally different between having sex with someone who turned 18 last week and someone who turns 18 next week? |
|
|
|
05/19/2011 10:48:59 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by disassociation:
An incredible majority of sex workers are in favor of decriminalization and legalization. These surely has to mean something. |
Do you have a source for this?
I'm pretty sure an incredible majority of all criminals are in favor of decriminalization of their crime, so I'm not sure it means anything after all... |
What if the majority of the criminals' victims were also in favor, would that change anything? Thats essentially what disassociation is claiming. |
I assume you mean the victims are the prostitutes themselves and not the johns, right? I would point to seatbelt laws. I am comfortable with both the legal standing of such laws as well as the ethical considerations. |
|
|
|
05/20/2011 12:04:58 AM · #154 |
Originally posted by disassociation:
Prostitution is going to happen anyway. Making it a crime has certainly never effected the trade, much like the criminalization of drugs or alcohol. Having weighed the pros and cons of a legalized system, I am for legalization as I believe it can only make it safer for everyone involved. I am pro legalization of drugs too though. Anytime you create a black market for a desirable product crime goes hand in hand. If Apple products were banned tomorrow I bet there would be some sketchy trade going on extremely quickly... |
But, isn't legalization really just a band-aid approach to a deeper issue? Simply put, without demand...what's the point of the supply? As a society, aren't we all guilty of prostitution (legal or otherwise) simply because we allow it to exist? Why is it too much to ask of ourselves to find a more positive and healthy outlet for this type of primal energy?
Just my two cents...;-)
Message edited by author 2011-05-20 00:05:36. |
|
|
|
05/20/2011 05:21:55 AM · #155 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... A similar style argument would be to ask what's fundamentally different between having sex with someone who turned 18 last week and someone who turns 18 next week? |
...In this country, several years in prison for the adult. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
05/20/2011 08:06:43 AM · #156 |
| It is agreed that forced, underage, violent and sexually violent "slave trade"-style prostitution is bad... but what no one says is, it is not called the oldest profession for a lack of reason. To remove All prostitution might be seen as classist- an ugly rich man can pay for dinner and tiffany jewelry for a woman old enough to be his granddaughter, and expect and receive a bit of "action" in his jaguar, and thats legal. There are whole marriages that are simply glorified, legally ratified prostitution(anna nicole smith, etc.) an ugly poor man can't buy a date- no we can't let that happen. |
|
|
|
05/22/2011 06:42:51 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by disassociation:
An incredible majority of sex workers are in favor of decriminalization and legalization. These surely has to mean something. |
Do you have a source for this?
I'm pretty sure an incredible majority of all criminals are in favor of decriminalization of their crime, so I'm not sure it means anything after all... |
Who is the victim in an agreement between two consenting adults to exchange money for sex?
|
|
|
|
05/22/2011 06:45:11 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A similar style argument would be to ask what's fundamentally different between having sex with someone who turned 18 last week and someone who turns 18 next week? |
That's a separate issue; one of consent. |
|
|
|
05/22/2011 07:00:49 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by disassociation:
An incredible majority of sex workers are in favor of decriminalization and legalization. These surely has to mean something. |
Do you have a source for this?
I'm pretty sure an incredible majority of all criminals are in favor of decriminalization of their crime, so I'm not sure it means anything after all... |
Who is the victim in an agreement between two consenting adults to exchange money for sex? |
I guess I see it as one of coercive consent which is hardly consent at all. But why are you continuing the conversation? You've already stated, in your opinion, that "consent" means, ipso facto, that no harm is done. How can I have a conversation with that?
Edit: I guess I should ask, do you think all consensual acts are harmless? My hope is no because that can easily be shown to not be the case. So, more probably, you are saying that prostitution is an example of a consensual act that does not cause harm. But you must have a reasoning for this. Or, at the least, you have to present the standard which I must meet to prove your position wrong. Short of that you are just saying, "it's the case because I say so"...
EDIT again: I just wasn't being very clear.
Message edited by author 2011-05-22 20:12:59. |
|
|
|
05/22/2011 08:08:12 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Who is the victim in an agreement between two consenting adults to exchange money for sex? |
The state which fails to collect sales/use/VAT tax revenues from the transaction? |
|
|
|
05/22/2011 08:25:35 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by dmadden:
The fact that prostitution is illegal slows the spread of HIV? |
The Dominican has a thriving legal sex industry. HIV prevalence in the country's estimated 100,000 female sex workers ranges from 2.5% to 12.4%, depending on the locale... coincidence?
Also, child prostitution has been problematic to the Dominican government. |
And in Nevada they haven't seen one case amoung the weekly tested brothel workers.... |
|
|
|
05/22/2011 08:55:11 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Who is the victim in an agreement between two consenting adults to exchange money for sex? |
The state which fails to collect sales/use/VAT tax revenues from the transaction? |
Wouldn't that be the state's fault?
|
|
|
|
05/22/2011 10:27:36 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by disassociation:
An incredible majority of sex workers are in favor of decriminalization and legalization. These surely has to mean something. |
Do you have a source for this?
I'm pretty sure an incredible majority of all criminals are in favor of decriminalization of their crime, so I'm not sure it means anything after all... |
Who is the victim in an agreement between two consenting adults to exchange money for sex? |
I guess I see it as one of coercive consent which is hardly consent at all. But why are you continuing the conversation? You've already stated, in your opinion, that "consent" means, ipso facto, that no harm is done. How can I have a conversation with that?
Edit: I guess I should ask, do you think all consensual acts are harmless? My hope is no because that can easily be shown to not be the case. So, more probably, you are saying that prostitution is an example of a consensual act that does not cause harm. But you must have a reasoning for this. Or, at the least, you have to present the standard which I must meet to prove your position wrong. Short of that you are just saying, "it's the case because I say so"...
EDIT again: I just wasn't being very clear. |
In the case of two adults consenting to have sex in exchange for money, there is no harm. You keep pointing to other criminal acts that surround prostitution simply because it is now illegal and say those mean that prostitution is harmful. Generally, I agree that involving kids, using drugs to enslave people or other means to force people into prostitution are wrong...but those by definition are no longer consensual, are they?
You could use that same argument about crimes related to alcohol during prohibition to say, "Alcohol is bad because gangsters shoot and kill people in turf wars, so, alcohol should be illegal."
Just how did that prohibition thing pan out anyway?
ETA: "Consent" does not always mean that no harm is done...if I give you consent to punch me in the face...your fist would harm my face, but should I then be able to sue you for the harm you've done? I say no, because I consented to your act, despite its harmful effect on my face.
Message edited by author 2011-05-22 22:31:35. |
|
|
|
05/22/2011 11:22:41 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
ETA: "Consent" does not always mean that no harm is done...if I give you consent to punch me in the face...your fist would harm my face, but should I then be able to sue you for the harm you've done? I say no, because I consented to your act, despite its harmful effect on my face. |
So if I ask you, my friend, to shoot me up with heroin because I'm really no good at hitting my veins and you do it, is that a harmless consensual act? I think it would be pretty hard to say yes.
In the prostitution question we've been talking about physical violence etc, but what about the psychological harm? Did you read about the dissociation required by prostitutes to stay in the business? That isn't going to go away by making it legal and it is pretty hard to argue with a straight face that such mental states can be just turned on/off when they try to foster their meaningful relationships outside their work. The increased rate of STDs (not only considering HIV) makes the profession harmful as well. Sure you can try to legislate in as much "safety" as you want, but the bottom line is your risk for a STD is higher if you have sex with 80 people a week versus a handful in a lifetime. |
|
|
|
05/22/2011 11:40:35 PM · #165 |
I just read your last comments Doc and can't say that I agree with them.
The issue of one's mental state could very well change if the activity was something that the prostitute engaged in in a voluntary basis versus being beaten, drugged or subjegated into this type of activity, regardless of the reason.
Increased rates of STDs would in all probability be lower in an environment that is controlled, closely monitored and where the prostitutes were required to undergo mandatory physical check-ups on a regular basis.
With regards to your last comment, I seem to recall that one of areas where the greatest rise of STDs currently occurs is amongst the elderly community and that this factor is not at all due to the fact that they have multiple partners but rather due to the fact that they have a limited number of partners available.
While not suggesting that legalized prostitution is totally victimless, I would argue that it is most certainly preferential to the system which currently exists in North America at present.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/23/2011 12:56:00 AM · #166 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
While not suggesting that legalized prostitution is totally victimless, |
Well, for the purposes of my coversation with Spork we're then on the same side. I'm a bit away from the legal/illegal thing and just more on the "what harm does it cause if two people have sex and exchange money?"
Here, we can just shut this thread down and go to this interesting site:
ProCon.org Should prostitution be legal?
They actually do a fairly decent job of having someone represent both sides. I'm sure everybody can take away what they want so they feel comfortable with their position... |
|
|
|
05/24/2011 03:07:12 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
ETA: "Consent" does not always mean that no harm is done...if I give you consent to punch me in the face...your fist would harm my face, but should I then be able to sue you for the harm you've done? I say no, because I consented to your act, despite its harmful effect on my face. |
So if I ask you, my friend, to shoot me up with heroin because I'm really no good at hitting my veins and you do it, is that a harmless consensual act? I think it would be pretty hard to say yes.
In the prostitution question we've been talking about physical violence etc, but what about the psychological harm? Did you read about the dissociation required by prostitutes to stay in the business? That isn't going to go away by making it legal and it is pretty hard to argue with a straight face that such mental states can be just turned on/off when they try to foster their meaningful relationships outside their work. The increased rate of STDs (not only considering HIV) makes the profession harmful as well. Sure you can try to legislate in as much "safety" as you want, but the bottom line is your risk for a STD is higher if you have sex with 80 people a week versus a handful in a lifetime. |
Your heroin example is the same as my example. There is harm, but you've consented to it. What about going to get a tattoo? I ask the tattoo artist to harm me and I give them money. How is that different? What about going to get my ear(s) pierced? What about taking my 11 yo child to get her ears pierced?
Self destruction by an adult should not be illegal. Why on earth should it be?
As to the psychological issue, my answer is: So what? There are any number of jobs that can have adverse psychological effects on those who work in them. Police officers, soldiers, 911 operators, EMTs, prison guards, bus drivers, schoolteachers, convenience store clerks and so on, maybe even allergists. Should those occupations also be illegal?
Message edited by author 2011-05-24 15:12:09. |
|
|
|
05/24/2011 03:26:58 PM · #168 |
There are lines over which society will not allow even consenting adults to cross. This little nugget is an example. Even if you find a willing partner, you can not kill and eat another person. Sorry.
Message edited by author 2011-05-24 15:29:11. |
|
|
|
05/24/2011 03:49:42 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by mike_311:
i think society is ready for gay marriage, polygamy would wreck havoc with the legal system of divorce, custody and wills.
|
Polygamy would be no more F'ed up than an episode of Maury Pauvich.
Personally, one wife was an expensive pain in the ass to get rid of, never again. I can't imagine 2 or more. Ugh. |
What about 1/2? :) |
|
|
|
05/24/2011 04:40:08 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
As to the psychological issue, my answer is: So what? There are any number of jobs that can have adverse psychological effects on those who work in them. Police officers, soldiers, 911 operators, EMTs, prison guards, bus drivers, schoolteachers, convenience store clerks and so on, maybe even allergists. Should those occupations also be illegal? |
My answer on a fundamental level could be yes. I do not believe in personal liberty uber alles. There are times when society knows better than the individual and can outlaw something that is good for neither the society nor the individual. Not wearing a seatbelt is a classic example. Not smoking in public is another.
I understand the libertarian point of view. Heaven knows we have enough libertarians on this site to choke a horse. I just don't agree with it and find it lacking when pushed too far.
Message edited by author 2011-05-24 16:41:46. |
|
|
|
05/24/2011 05:30:19 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... There are times when society knows better than the individual and can outlaw something that is good for neither the society nor the individual. Not wearing a seatbelt is a classic example. Not smoking in public is another. |
Considering that most high speed accidents involving people not wearing seat belts result in grievous bodily injuries or death, the only people that are inconvenienced are the police and medical personnel. There truly is not need to legislate common sense...you take a risk you pay the price.
Not smoking in public is truly laughable. When one considers all the fumes emitted by buses, trucks, cars, aircrafts, sewers, and countless other sources of toxic agents, one would think that society would attack those sources first... but then again that is not a political hot button now is it.
Ray
Message edited by author 2011-05-24 18:01:23. |
|
|
|
05/24/2011 05:48:36 PM · #172 |
this perfectly illustrates the point- libertarian personal rights and consenting adult theories cannot be absolute; It does not mean we have to base the law on morality derived from religion, Judeo-Christian based or otherwise... we don't allow cannibalism even with consenting adults;
if you peel back the layers of so called "consenting adult activities" there can be a side that cannot be justified at times- the way pimps operate and get so called consenting female prostitutes to hook for drugs... or start them under aged... perhaps people see multiple wives as a similar problem- the people that seem into it most are "childhood" brides. |
|
|
|
05/24/2011 06:06:58 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
As to the psychological issue, my answer is: So what? There are any number of jobs that can have adverse psychological effects on those who work in them. Police officers, soldiers, 911 operators, EMTs, prison guards, bus drivers, schoolteachers, convenience store clerks and so on, maybe even allergists. Should those occupations also be illegal? |
My answer on a fundamental level could be yes. I do not believe in personal liberty uber alles. There are times when society knows better than the individual and can outlaw something that is good for neither the society nor the individual. Not wearing a seatbelt is a classic example. Not smoking in public is another.
I understand the libertarian point of view. Heaven knows we have enough libertarians on this site to choke a horse. I just don't agree with it and find it lacking when pushed too far. |
Please elaborate on which of those professions you think should be eliminated because of the psychological damage they cause to the workers in that field. I'd love to hear how you'd propose we get along without police officers or the like. Perhaps you'd just give the criminals a big hug, hope they'd have a change of heart and instead of stealing from you, they'd want to sit around, hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
By your reasoning, government should return to prohibition and ban alcohol...just think of the lives that would save...far more than seatbelt laws, helmet laws and the like. (Didn't we try that before?) While we're at it, why not just ban all tobacco use, fast food, motorcycles, snack food, refined sugar, contact sports, any "extreme" sports and sex (unless a license to reproduce has been issued, of course) along with any other "risky behavior". Then require mandatory exercise, legislate nutritional meals and physicals...how about universal public health care while we're at it.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2011 06:10:58 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
this perfectly illustrates the point- libertarian personal rights and consenting adult theories cannot be absolute; It does not mean we have to base the law on morality derived from religion, Judeo-Christian based or otherwise... we don't allow cannibalism even with consenting adults;
if you peel back the layers of so called "consenting adult activities" there can be a side that cannot be justified at times- the way pimps operate and get so called consenting female prostitutes to hook for drugs... or start them under aged... perhaps people see multiple wives as a similar problem- the people that seem into it most are "childhood" brides. |
Again...all of those examples involve other criminal activities that either invalidate consent (using drugs to create a dependence upon the pimp) or where it's not possible for consent to be given (underage prostitutes). |
|
|
|
05/24/2011 06:20:59 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
As to the psychological issue, my answer is: So what? There are any number of jobs that can have adverse psychological effects on those who work in them. Police officers, soldiers, 911 operators, EMTs, prison guards, bus drivers, schoolteachers, convenience store clerks and so on, maybe even allergists. Should those occupations also be illegal? |
My answer on a fundamental level could be yes. I do not believe in personal liberty uber alles. There are times when society knows better than the individual and can outlaw something that is good for neither the society nor the individual. Not wearing a seatbelt is a classic example. Not smoking in public is another.
I understand the libertarian point of view. Heaven knows we have enough libertarians on this site to choke a horse. I just don't agree with it and find it lacking when pushed too far. |
Please elaborate on which of those professions you think should be eliminated because of the psychological damage they cause to the workers in that field. I'd love to hear how you'd propose we get along without police officers or the like. Perhaps you'd just give the criminals a big hug, hope they'd have a change of heart and instead of stealing from you, they'd want to sit around, hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
By your reasoning, government should return to prohibition and ban alcohol...just think of the lives that would save...far more than seatbelt laws, helmet laws and the like. (Didn't we try that before?) While we're at it, why not just ban all tobacco use, fast food, motorcycles, snack food, refined sugar, contact sports, any "extreme" sports and sex (unless a license to reproduce has been issued, of course) along with any other "risky behavior". Then require mandatory exercise, legislate nutritional meals and physicals...how about universal public health care while we're at it. |
Well there is a bit of a difference there. Police officers are serving the public not themselves. I doubt any of them would claim that being an officer is a right.
|
|
