Why is prostitution illegal?

[idb]

Yes! Don't they know it's much more dignified to trade their bodies for free drinks, dinners, movies, or other miscellaneous entertainment, and not cash?

Is there a point to this sarcasm?

A woman trading the sanctity of her body for anything--cash, drinks, dinners, or Netflix--is placing worth on something that is invaluable.

That's her business, not yours.

I could give the slightest damn whose choice it is. The children who come from this have no choice. I can't imagine those young ones being born into that kind of world. I was a product of a one night fling between my mom and pop. Mom ran away, never knew her, pop ran away and didn't come back until I was 16.

I was destined to a life of foster care until my grandmother came along.

Funny too, we all think it's her choice here, but when it comes to abortion... oh well. At least you're... consistent.

One night flings are entirely legal. Are you proposing to outlaw those? Do you want to make the government the enforcer of shotgun weddings?

Yes. No and No. I'm not talking about "one night flings" being outlawed, I'm talking about prostitution.

You fail to consider the detriments should a child arise out of it. Oh well, at least she had fun at the Holiday Inn last night.

It seems we want government to intervene when it's suitable to our beliefs. I mean we want the government to enforce everything else. This thread shows just exactly how very inconsistent both sides are about the choices of a woman.

This thread shows just exactly how very inconsistent both sides are about the choices of a woman.

No it doesn't.
One lot wants control what women can and can't do...and the other lot wants them to have the same freedoms over themselves and their lives as men.
Everything's as it was.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If a woman is careless enough to get pregnant, then she's going to get pregnant whether she's a prostitute or just dating some men. Child birth is a weak reason to not have prostitution legal.

No it isn't. Explain your reasoning.

 

[idb]

I note in this discussion that many of the same people that argue against gun control are also arguing against prostitution.

The main argument against prostitution seems to be that we need protect the group of women that might get forced into prostitution, or might get into it by making poor choices, or to save them from possibly getting STDs or having unwanted pregnancies.
This is at the expense of women that are able to make good choices but that's just too bad for them.

One of the main arguments against gun control is that it's unfair to penalise the responsible gun owners because of the irresponsible gun owners.

There seems to be a double standard here.

To make a fair comparison, it's like saying because prostitutes have a high chance of passing something on to guys, all men must use condoms whether they are with a prostitute or not.

Make it your way if you want.
The argument is that prostitution should be illegal.
It's either to protect the women from bad choices or exploitation...or to protect the men from getting diseases.

Whatever.

How is it fair to penalise all of the women and men that are able to look after themselves?

It looks suspiciously like a slippery slope.

No, YOU"RE the one trying to make the comparison between prostitution and gun regulation. I gave you a fair example of both. Gun regulations want to punish all gun owners because of a few kooks and criminals. So again, it's like saying because there is prostitution, all men who have sex must use a condom whether they are with a prostitute or not.

I made no such comparison.
I pointed out the inconsistency in argument.

Because some women won't be able to look after themselves then prostitution should be banned even though it will penalise women who are able to look after themselves.
Even though a few kooks and criminals are causing mayhem guns should remain legal because it will penalise non-kooks and criminals.

How can you (not you specifically) argue both of those points?

 

[TemplarKormac]

With all due respect to the married men here in this thread if there are any... I don't know how you even got married with attitudes like those. Surely you wouldn't let your wife go out and have sex with 30 other men " just because it was her choice."

Call me strict, but I was taught by my grandmother, a woman of the silent generation, that women ought to have respect for their bodies; not to go out and give them away for money or freely outside the bonds of matrimony. But I guess that concept is lost on the lot of you and I'm just one of those wayward overbearing religious types. So be it.

I know, I know, morality is probably the best reason either. But there it is. I don't think a child should be subjected to that kind of lifestyle/atmosphere.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I note in this discussion that many of the same people that argue against gun control are also arguing against prostitution.

The main argument against prostitution seems to be that we need protect the group of women that might get forced into prostitution, or might get into it by making poor choices, or to save them from possibly getting STDs or having unwanted pregnancies.
This is at the expense of women that are able to make good choices but that's just too bad for them.

One of the main arguments against gun control is that it's unfair to penalise the responsible gun owners because of the irresponsible gun owners.

There seems to be a double standard here.

To make a fair comparison, it's like saying because prostitutes have a high chance of passing something on to guys, all men must use condoms whether they are with a prostitute or not.

Make it your way if you want.
The argument is that prostitution should be illegal.
It's either to protect the women from bad choices or exploitation...or to protect the men from getting diseases.

Whatever.

How is it fair to penalise all of the women and men that are able to look after themselves?

It looks suspiciously like a slippery slope.

No, YOU"RE the one trying to make the comparison between prostitution and gun regulation. I gave you a fair example of both. Gun regulations want to punish all gun owners because of a few kooks and criminals. So again, it's like saying because there is prostitution, all men who have sex must use a condom whether they are with a prostitute or not.

I made no such comparison.
I pointed out the inconsistency in argument.

Because some women won't be able to look after themselves then prostitution should be banned even though it will penalise women who are able to look after themselves.
Even though a few kooks and criminals are causing mayhem guns should remain legal because it will penalise non-kooks and criminals.

How can you (not you specifically) argue both of those points?

But more gun regulations penalize all that own or want to own guns. See the comparison now?

Did you see Hilarious the other night in the debates? She said her agenda includes holding gun manufacturers responsible for gun deaths. In other words, sue them out of business.

Well if we allow Democrats to sue all the gun manufacturers out of business, then we will have no new guns in this country. In essence, they will be able to disarm Americans without making laws against guns.

 

[anotherlife]

I hope it stays illegal. There's something... disturbing... about women demeaning themselves and their bodies that way. Hey, their choice, but I would hope women would think more of themselves than that. That's why there are so many kids out there who don't know their mom or their dad because of some one night fling that got the woman pregnant, and that because she can't support him/her afterwards.

That's shameful. You, OP, don't understand the damage this does to society.

Wait, is this going to get me called a misogynist? Oh well. I can't help you if you think women should have the right to sell their bodies and expose themselves to all sorts of dangerous diseases and people.

How does prostitution damage society? By reducing husbands from cheating on their wives? Or by reducing wedlock pregnancies? Or by reducing crime linked to illegal markets?

I don't see anything wrong with legalizing the whoring game so long as they are licensed upon certification that they are disease free (catch the clap, lose the license) and that this minimal regulation is financed through a special purpose fee paid by the whores or brothels.

In addition, the price for the whores need to be sufficiently high so as to make it cost-prohibitive for the riffraff who tend to carry disease and use IV drugs.

I really have no problem with the moral aspect of whoring. It has existed for ages and ages. Besides, it will probably make for better marriages if the wife knows that the hubby will go to a whore if he is not kept satisfied.

I can imagine that a wife would be more accepting of her husband's whores than his new mistress, both financially and relationship-wise.

I hope it stays illegal. There's something... disturbing... about women demeaning themselves and their bodies that way. Hey, their choice, but I would hope women would think more of themselves than that.

Yes! Don't they know it's much more dignified to trade their bodies for free drinks, dinners, movies, or other miscellaneous entertainment, and not cash?

Is there a point to this sarcasm?

A woman trading the sanctity of her body for anything--cash, drinks, dinners, or Netflix--is placing worth on something that is invaluable.

But isn't that her choice or is it ours?

A little of both. What of the children who come out of this? Aren't they just as invaluable as her body? Why should children be subjected to that kind of lifestyle? I wouldn't.

Children don't get born out of prostitution, they get born out of drunken sex. What sanctity of women's bodies are we talking about? Their potbellies?

And for my final point, read this study done in 2007, and see for yourself the dangers and risks associated with prostitution.

http://economics.uchicago.edu/pdf/Prostitution 5.pdf

With social studies, it is usually more important who paid for the study than what the study reports.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

With all due respect to the married men here in this thread if there are any... I don't know how you even got married with attitudes like those. Surely you wouldn't let your wife go out and have sex with 30 other men " just because it was her choice."

Call me strict, but I was taught by my grandmother, a woman of the silent generation, that women ought to have respect for their bodies; not to go out and give them away for money or freely. But I guess that concept is lost on the lot of you.

I know, I know, morality is probably the best reason either. But there it is. I don't think a child should be subjected to that kind of lifestyle/atmosphere.

The problem in this country is that we have two political parties: one wants to legislate morality, and the other wants to legislate mortality. In reality, neither can really be legislated.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How does prostitution damage society? By reducing husbands from cheating on their wives? Or by reducing wedlock pregnancies? Or by reducing crime linked to illegal markets?

I dunno. You tell me. Demonstrate to me how it helps, rather than harms, society. I'll drop my argument right here and concede if you can.

 

[kaz]

Good lord, are you a liberal?

If a guy and a chick want to swap sex for $$$, what does that have to do with you?

 

[kaz]

How does prostitution damage society? By reducing husbands from cheating on their wives? Or by reducing wedlock pregnancies? Or by reducing crime linked to illegal markets?

I dunno. You tell me. Demonstrate to me how it helps, rather than harms, society. I'll drop my argument right here and concede if you can.

It harms society because it sends the message that other people can make your decisons for you for your supposed own good. The only legitimate use of government force is to prevent me from harming someone else

 

[idb]

I note in this discussion that many of the same people that argue against gun control are also arguing against prostitution.

The main argument against prostitution seems to be that we need protect the group of women that might get forced into prostitution, or might get into it by making poor choices, or to save them from possibly getting STDs or having unwanted pregnancies.
This is at the expense of women that are able to make good choices but that's just too bad for them.

One of the main arguments against gun control is that it's unfair to penalise the responsible gun owners because of the irresponsible gun owners.

There seems to be a double standard here.

To make a fair comparison, it's like saying because prostitutes have a high chance of passing something on to guys, all men must use condoms whether they are with a prostitute or not.

Make it your way if you want.
The argument is that prostitution should be illegal.
It's either to protect the women from bad choices or exploitation...or to protect the men from getting diseases.

Whatever.

How is it fair to penalise all of the women and men that are able to look after themselves?

It looks suspiciously like a slippery slope.

No, YOU"RE the one trying to make the comparison between prostitution and gun regulation. I gave you a fair example of both. Gun regulations want to punish all gun owners because of a few kooks and criminals. So again, it's like saying because there is prostitution, all men who have sex must use a condom whether they are with a prostitute or not.

I made no such comparison.
I pointed out the inconsistency in argument.

Because some women won't be able to look after themselves then prostitution should be banned even though it will penalise women who are able to look after themselves.
Even though a few kooks and criminals are causing mayhem guns should remain legal because it will penalise non-kooks and criminals.

How can you (not you specifically) argue both of those points?

But more gun regulations penalize all that own or want to own guns. See the comparison now?

Did you see Hilarious the other night in the debates? She said her agenda includes holding gun manufacturers responsible for gun deaths. In other words, sue them out of business.

Well if we allow Democrats to sue all the gun manufacturers out of business, then we will have no new guns in this country. In essence, they will be able to disarm Americans without making laws against guns.

Hmmm....all very interesting


..........................


Aaannnyway...back to the discussion...

 

[TemplarKormac]

With all due respect to the married men here in this thread if there are any... I don't know how you even got married with attitudes like those. Surely you wouldn't let your wife go out and have sex with 30 other men " just because it was her choice."

Call me strict, but I was taught by my grandmother, a woman of the silent generation, that women ought to have respect for their bodies; not to go out and give them away for money or freely. But I guess that concept is lost on the lot of you.

I know, I know, morality is probably the best reason either. But there it is. I don't think a child should be subjected to that kind of lifestyle/atmosphere.

The problem in this country is that we have two political parties: one wants to legislate morality, and the other wants to legislate mortality. In reality, neither can really be legislated.

No, I agree with you. I want to keep prostitution illegal, if not for moral reasons, but for other reasons. If a woman contracts an STD by engaging in prostitution, she risks spreading that to other people. Therefore you have the general welfare of the citizenship to consider. A government's role is to protect people from harm.

Morality and mortality in my case.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The only legitimate use of government force is to prevent me from harming someone else

My case. In not so many words.

 

[anotherlife]

How does prostitution damage society? By reducing husbands from cheating on their wives? Or by reducing wedlock pregnancies? Or by reducing crime linked to illegal markets?

I dunno. You tell me. Demonstrate to me how it helps, rather than harms, society. I'll drop my argument right here and concede if you can.

Very easy. Prostitution doesn't need to help society. It needs to help the two parties of the transaction, like every business does. So, the question still stands, what is that huge harm that the blue nosed legislators want to con everyone into believing?

 

[idb]

With all due respect to the married men here in this thread if there are any... I don't know how you even got married with attitudes like those. Surely you wouldn't let your wife go out and have sex with 30 other men " just because it was her choice."

Call me strict, but I was taught by my grandmother, a woman of the silent generation, that women ought to have respect for their bodies; not to go out and give them away for money or freely. But I guess that concept is lost on the lot of you.

I know, I know, morality is probably the best reason either. But there it is. I don't think a child should be subjected to that kind of lifestyle/atmosphere.

The problem in this country is that we have two political parties: one wants to legislate morality, and the other wants to legislate mortality. In reality, neither can really be legislated.

No, I agree with you. I want to keep prostitution illegal, if not for moral reasons, but for other reasons, such as the children. Where the possibility exists of a woman getting pregnant and having a child resulting from those activities there should be a safeguard, a law, a measure put in place to protect the child. And if a woman contracts an STD by engaging in prostitution, she risks spreading that to other people. Therefore you have the welfare of the citizenship to consider also.

Morality and mortality in my case.

Therefore you have the welfare of the citizenship to consider also.

Quite right...vaccination and public fluoridation should also be mandatory for the same reason.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Very easy. Prostitution doesn't need to help society.

Of course not. If it doesn't want to help society, the only other viable option is for it to hurt society. If you want to play philosophy we can.

It needs to help the two parties of the transaction, like every business does.

At what expense to everyone else?

So, the question still stands, what is that huge harm that the blue nosed legislators want to con everyone into believing?

Disease.

 

[kaz]

The only legitimate use of government force is to prevent me from harming someone else

My case. In not so many words.

I thought you were arguing for prostitution to be illegal

 

[TemplarKormac]

The only legitimate use of government force is to prevent me from harming someone else

My case. In not so many words.

I thought you were arguing for prostitution to be illegal

I am. The risk for disease if anything else should be one of the main reasons to keep it illegal. If government's role is to protect others from harm, preventing the spread of STDs is the first measure I'd want them to take.

 

[kaz]

The only legitimate use of government force is to prevent me from harming someone else

My case. In not so many words.

I thought you were arguing for prostitution to be illegal

I am. The risk for disease if anything else should be one of the main reasons to keep it illegal. If government's role is to protect others from harm, preventing the spread of STDs is the first measure I'd want them to take.

That's ridiculous, you just justified all of socialism, it's in society's interest to have welfare, healthcare, redistribution of wealth, what ever socialist want. You are using guns to protect you from you, not others. Pure social conservatism. I thought you said you were becoming libertarian?

BTW, if you wear a condom, you won't get someone else's disease

 

[bripat9643]

Even those are much reduced because legal prostitutes get regular checkups - at least they do in Nevada.

It's called regulation which is strictly enforced. Something Republicans don't like.

Wrong. It's lack of a particular regulation that makes it illegal. That solves 90% of the problems associated with prostitution.