Should prostitution be legal?

P. Breathnach

AARRRGH wrote: »

The problem with a lot of anti-prostitution organisations is they are extremist feminists who believe women are incapable of choosing to have sex for money. They believe they are either being manipulated, or are "forced"...

Sadly, however, they are often right. Many prostitutes are victims, and never had an opportunity to make a free choice. Some are victims of their own messy or unfortunate life circumstances, and others are coerced by unscrupulous people.

I have no objection if a woman who has some reasonable level of control over her life chooses to become a prostitute, and I think that making it fully legal and combining with that some other social measures (e.g. licensed brothels with occasional visits from health/welfare officers) could make it more likely that participants in the business were their of their own free choice.

AARRRGH

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Sadly, however, they are often right. Many prostitutes are victims, and never had an opportunity to make a free choice. Some are victims of their own messy or unfortunate life circumstances, and others are coerced by unscrupulous people.

I have no objection if a woman who has some reasonable level of control over her life chooses to become a prostitute, and I think that making it fully legal and combining with that some other social measures (e.g. licensed brothels with occasional visits from health/welfare officers) could make it more likely that participants in the business were their of their own free choice.

My own experience with prostitutes (I used to run porn websites, I know loads of prostitutes) is that the image of the helpless prostitute is a bit of a myth. The girls I know were all loaded, were doing it by choice, and didn't want to stop doing it because they were used to a certain lifestyle.

However, I know there are some 'junkie' prostitutes, and some women who feel they've no choice, e.g. a single mother illegal immigrant who believes working as a cleaner won't provide enough money for her family.

But I agree with you - the solution is to make it fully legal so everything is above board.

P. Breathnach

,8,1 wrote: »

... But at the end of the day the question is one of morality. Do you think prostitution is a moral activity to be fully condoned by the law?

Yes.

More particularly, I think that coercing women (or men) into becoming prostitutes is immoral, and making prostitution legal can allow systems to be developed to protect the unwilling from being forced into the business.

,8,1

Well that's one moral justification for liberal laws, isn't it?

And one can have a moral justification for prohibitive laws outside of economic concerns [e.g. poverty is the key issue so let's make it legal] also.

Point is, there are many moral justifications for and against that go beyond the "choices", "taxes" and "consenting adults" paradigms that leftists typically like to argue in.

Affable

AARRRGH wrote: »

The girls I know were all loaded, were doing it by choice, and didn't want to stop doing it because they were used to a certain lifestyle.
.

Were any of them nice or trustworthy people? Not pre-judging, just curious.

,8,1

My own experience with prostitutes (I used to run porn websites, I know loads of prostitutes) is that the image of the helpless prostitute is a bit of a myth. The girls I know were all loaded, were doing it by choice, and didn't want to stop doing it because they were used to a certain lifestyle.

I'd imagine that is the case for most women in the porn/prostitution industries.

But in any case it hardly matters. Advocacy regarding prostitution will depend on whether a person believes prostitution is a morally acceptable activity or not.

The perpetuation of myths about the helpless prostitute by feminist groups such as Ruhama is unfortunate because (1) it grounds the debate in falsehoods and (2) it's intellectual dishonesty.

Proof of abuse of women within porn/prostitution is not necessary re your position on the law. You just advocate a certain moral position, that it's acceptable or not, and that's all that's required really. The rest is rhetorical window-dressing.

AARRRGH

Affable wrote: »

Were any of them nice or trustworthy people? Not pre-judging, just curious.

Yes, they were nice people. The ones who have left the industry now have relatively 'normal' lives.

But trustworthy? Not really. For example, two of them had partners who didn't know they were prostitutes...

Everyone is different though. I'm sure there are just as many untrustworthy politicians and solicitors as there are untrustworthy prostitutes.

,8,1

What a load of utter ****e. Why should we have to have the blessing of the law to tell us what we can and cannot do with consenting people in private residences?

There are plenty of activities that take place in private residences which are unacceptable. For example, child abuse and domestic violence.

This is another rubbish libertarian argument. We are almost led to believe that private environments are sacrosanct and out of the jurisdiction of any Court or law. This is nonsense. What happens there can be and is up for the judgement of others, including the legal system.

These libertarian calls to "privacy" - like "choice" and "consent" - are just another way of avoiding a moral framing of the debate. I.e. it is, in a general sense, morally acceptable or not.

Indirectly of course libertarians forward that prostitution is morally acceptable.

AARRRGH

Can anyone tell me what's immoral about sex? Assume everyone is consenting.

,8,1

That's the beauty of morality based arguments, which is ultimately what the pro-porn/prostitution and anti-porn/prostitution campaigners employ.

I don't have to rationalise why I think prostitution is a morally unacceptable activity, I just assert that it is.

Note too that we're not talking about sex here, as such, we're talking about prostitution.

This is the typical libertarian view, which completely bypasses the question of moral acceptability. Which is just as much of a valid thing to consider as anything else.

The above is how leftists and prostitute groups would like to see the debate framed.

Morality shouldn't even come into it. Sex is not immoral.

Rape is a form of sex, so is incest. They are deemed immoral by society.

Your statement that "sex is not immoral" has limitations. It depends on context and is not something that can be applied universally.

happyoutscan

Yes I think prostitution should be legalized.

AARRRGH

Rape and incest have nothing to do with two consenting adults having sex.

I'm sorry, but if you are going to suggest consensual sex is immoral, you need to give me a reason.

P. Breathnach

AARRRGH wrote: »

Rape and incest have nothing to do with two consenting adults having sex...

Incest might be consensual between adults. If that is the case, is it immoral?

,8,1

Rape and incest have nothing to do with two consenting adults having sex.

They are still both forms of sex and if we take your statement "sex is not immoral" to its logical end, then these forms of sex would be legal and acceptable too.

I'm sorry, but if you are going to suggest consensual sex is immoral, you need to give me a reason.

We're not talking about consensual sex, we're talking about prostitution.

I don't need to rationalise my belief that prostitution is not morally acceptable, any more that you as a pornographer, or a prostitute, has to rationalise that it is. I can if I want, but it's not necessary.

AARRRGH

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Incest might be consensual between adults. If that is the case, is it immoral?

Incest is known to cause birth defects, and as a result it is illegal.

I would classify it as illegal instead of immoral. However, I personally would not have sex with a family member, and I do not know if it is healthy to do so. But I agree it should be illegal.

,8,1 wrote: »

They are still both forms of sex and if we take your statement "sex is not immoral" to its logical end, then these forms of sex would be legal and acceptable too.

But we are talking about sex between two consenting adults. We are not talking about any form of sex, e.g. rape.

It is absurd to take such a black and white view of sex.

,8,1 wrote: »

We're not talking about consensual sex, we're talking about prostitution.

Prostitution is consensual sex. The man and prostitute agree to have sex with each other.

You're beginning to sound a bit like an extremist now...

Affable

AARRRGH wrote: »

Yes, they were nice people. The ones who have left the industry now have relatively 'normal' lives.

But trustworthy? Not really. For example, two of them had partners who didn't know they were prostitutes...

Everyone is different though. I'm sure there are just as many untrustworthy politicians and solicitors as there are untrustworthy prostitutes.

Why did they join it? When you say nice though, weren't they kind of fickle, wild? It's hardly what you'd imagine the deepest people doing.
On that note, I get your point about politicians, and the intelligensia, but I reckon they probably have a little more depth and complexity, though sharing another kind of moral ambiguity in common with them.

ronbyrne2005

Some thoughts.
Having sex with strangers for money while making adult films is legal but having sex with strangers for money behind closed doors is illegal/immoral. Whats that all about?
Surely it's the most feminist thing in world for a woman to have complete control over her body and sexuality? Sure if women are coerced it's a problem and law should focus on that but not on women who willingly enter the "proffession". As hard as most people find it to beleive there are some women for whom sleeping with a stranger for money is no more repugnant than giving a massage to a stranger or wiping the arse of or washing a stranger.
The anti prostitution brigade you hear in Irish media seem to ahve their own agendas and deliberately mix the rare but horrendous human trafficking with women willingly entering into a well paid "profession", for some sort of gender based, politically correct ideology. Regulation and legalisation would make it easier to distinguish between the horrendous abuse and legitimate endeavours.

AARRRGH

Affable wrote: »

Why did they join it?

They could work in a low paying job, or they could work in a high paying job; they chose the latter.

Affable wrote: »

When you say nice though, weren't they kind of fickle, wild?

No, they were fairly 'normal'.

ionix5891

AARRRGH wrote: »

The man and prostitute agtee to have sex with each other.

You're beginning to sound a bit like an extremist now...

could also be a woman and prostitute (ahem no need to be stereotypical it is 21st century after all) or any combination of


anyways why not, i seen Amsterdam style prostitution, them girls are safer and more respected than the ones walking Dublin streets (and please dont anyone deny that theres no prostitution in Ireland!)

why dont someone throw up an anonymous poll on this thread? should be interesting

some things like

I am male > support
I am female > support
I am male > dont support
I am female > sont support

AARRRGH

ionix5891 wrote: »

anyways why not, i seen Amsterdam style prostitution, them girls are safer and more respected than the ones walking Dublin streets

Amsterdam prostitution isn't perfect though. When they first legalised it, the prices were too high, so a black market developed for cheaper, 'off the books' prostitution.

So if it is totally decriminalised, they need to think it through.

They also need to implement better facilities for helping people kick their heroin problem: as long as there are junkies, there will always be desperate women working the streets.

Lizzykins

Thanks Aarrrgh for reminding me of who had done the research for that article. I really can't believe a woman would choose prostitution as a career even if it was highly paid. Maybe the Pretty Woman type of escort service would live up to that lifestyle. I can't think of anything more demeaning or demoralizing.
Anyhow it looks like my age and upbringing is influencing my opinions so apologies to the libertarians out there!

AARRRGH

Lizzykins wrote: »

Thanks Aarrrgh for reminding me of who had done the research for that article. I really can't believe a woman would choose prostitution as a career even if it was highly paid. Maybe the Pretty Woman type of escort service would live up to that lifestyle. I can't think of anything more demeaning or demoralizing.
Anyhow it looks like my age and upbringing is influencing my opinions so apologies to the libertarians out there!

As amazing as it sounds, the vast majority of women who work as prostitutes have chosen to do it, i.e. no one put a gun to their head.

The girls I know who don't like it - but continue to work as prostitutes - are basically putting money ahead of their mental health.

For example, one girl who really dislikes it has thousands (over 100k) stashed in her apartment. That's more than enough to quit, but she wants to continue making money so she can buy a restaurant.

I do also know some girls who enjoy the job.

turgon

,8,1 wrote: »

This is another rubbish libertarian argument. We are almost led to believe that private environments are sacrosanct and out of the jurisdiction of any Court or law. This is nonsense.

So two consenting adults cant do something in a bedroom, just the two of them? Two CONSENTING adults! And yet you should have a say...

,8,1 wrote: »

Indirectly of course libertarians forward that prostitution is morally acceptable.

Erm, not really. I have never, and will likely never, have sex with a prostitute. Is this hard to understand that I think it should be legalized and would yet not engage in it? Is it strange that I would not want to force other people to have the same views as me?

,8,1 wrote: »

Your statement that "sex is not immoral" has limitations.

Yes and this is why he put the "between two consenting adults" afterwards, which was keenly ignored by you.

,8,1

Having sex with strangers for money while making adult films is legal but having sex with strangers for money behind closed doors is illegal/immoral. Whats that all about?

Yes it's a disconnect. Pornography is a form of prostitution, and it is legal.

The situation re porn is another reason why questions like "should prostitution be legal?" are flawed.

One should also bear in mind that under current law only pimping and trafficking are illegal, not prostitution itself.

Surely it's the most feminist thing in world for a woman to have complete control over her body and sexuality?

It is and that is why restrictions on porn and prostitution are very minority opinion in feminism.

Anti-porn/prostitution is mischaracterised as a feminist interest.

As amazing as it sounds, the vast majority of women who work as prostitutes have chosen to do it, i.e. no one put a gun to their head.

It doesn't sound amazing at all.

The anti prostitution brigade you hear in Irish media seem to ahve their own agendas and deliberately mix the rare but horrendous human trafficking with women willingly entering into a well paid "profession", for some sort of gender based, politically correct ideology. Regulation and legalisation would make it easier to distinguish between the horrendous abuse and legitimate endeavours.

Of course it's largely feminists who set up this bogus paradigm in the first place: "horrendous abuse and legitimate endevours".

One can be opposed to prostitution and seek legal reform on different, more general grounds.

Indirectly of course libertarians forward that prostitution is morally acceptable.

Erm, not really. I have never, and will likely never, have sex with a prostitute.

I didn't ask whether you used prostitutes or not. I said that you don't see anything fundamentally wrong about prostitution.

Is this hard to understand that I think it should be legalized and would yet not engage in it? Is it strange that I would not want to force other people to have the same views as me?

Refusing to take prohibitive action is passively imposing your approving views on others.

P. Breathnach

,8,1 wrote: »

... Refusing to take prohibitive action is passively imposing your approving views on others.

There are lots of things I am not interested in prohibiting. That is no basis on which to infer that I approve of them. I might not have considered them, and it might be that I am barely aware of them. [There may even be things of which I am not aware, but I wouldn't know.]

Lockstep

Yes it should be legalised, regulated and the prostitutes given the option of joining unions (they;'re strikes would be fantastic)

The State shouldn't be penalising people on their choice of career, purely because they believe it to be immoral.

Ultimately, it should be up the prostitutes to decide and efforts taken to ensure those who want out can get out.
However, I got lambasted for suggesting this at a Labour Youth conference.

(I remember hearing some brilliant argument from an arch-feminsit who claimed that legalising prostition somehow drives it further underground and out of governemnt control as the women's anonymity is removed)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

,8,1 wrote: »

The above is how leftists and prostitute groups would like to see the debate framed.

Leftism and personal liberty are two different things.

Both myself and DF would disagree on almost every economic policy in the book, we would broadly agree on personal liberty.

,8,1 wrote: »

There are plenty of activities that take place in private residences which are unacceptable. For example, child abuse and domestic violence.

Domestic violence and child abuse are not consenting though.
That is the key difference.

population

I am personally of the opinion that like drugs, prostitution should be legalized. If you take the criminals out of the loop it becomes a safer industry.

However I do feel that with this legalization comes a responsibility on the behalf of those who profit from it to highlight the health risks involved with either consuming drugs, or indeed having sex with sex workers (male or female).

AIDS is still an issue as well as other less harmful std's. No messing should be allowed in terms of allowing transactional sex to be unprotected imho

Joey the lips

I was always a believer that prostitution should be legal until i read a fantastic book that explained why it should be not. It was formulated by a man named ricardo in 1817. Its a model still used today to explain the world by economists...Yeah it's boreing but brilliant!

Then I heard a brilliant article 2 weeks later on LMFM and it basically goes like this.

For every man selling a product for 100 euro on the main street

There will be a man selling the same product for 50 euro on the side street

Legalising prostitution allows it to be controlled regulated and taxed, but like the taxi markets in the uk have proved for every legal market there is a black market offering the same goods at a cheaper price. The dutch thought by legalising prostitution it would allow its regulation. This is not the case. Amsterdam is the largest capital in europe for illegal, criminal prostitution where women work not for a wage but for there life. They usually have no healthcare or std checks and usually are forced to have sex without condoms.

While i would love no better than to believe there is a women or man out there looking forward to a good ride and getting payed for the pleasure I am afraid after listening to the program that I hope the men that use prostitutes loose there manhoods and the women become sterile. Thats how much I hate prostitution after listening to this program.

No offence ment to anybody but its very serious!