Prostitution, The legal morality of

Remove all ads!

WARNING: long post ahead (sorry)

This is sad, that in western culture today we pay profesionals to do what we shoould be doing for each other out of feelings of love and friendship. In an ideal world, we would raise our own children- spending as much time as possible with them as opposed to paying a nanny to do it for us. We would go to our family and friends to help us with our problems, not a psychiatrist. And we would reserve our sexual experiences for those times when we can share sex with someone we love deeply. Unfortunatley, this is obviously not an ideal world. Parents are often too busy providing for their children's monotary wellfare to spend time at home watching over them. Friends and family can not always provide the best advice, often because they have issues of their own. Finailly, people will always want sex with no strings attached, and those who cannot get this on their own will turn to paying prostitutes. Personally, I think prostitution is an ugly thing. It does objectify the prostitute, and it does, at least in a small way, encourage love-less relationships. However to try to eradicate prostitution is like trying to wage a war on terrorism. There will always be terrorists, and no amount of force will stop desperate people from acting irrationally in order to push their cause. Likewise, prostitution, having existed for milenium, is something that can never be completely eradicated. People will always turn to sex (a skill that practically everyone posseses the capability of preforming) for money if they believe it is there only choice. Why, I'm sure there are even a few rare prostitutes who enjoy there profession. Regrdless of whether they enjoy it or not, if someone wants to stoop to the level of selling his or her body, let him or her do jsut that. I find it obvious from the above posts that legalizing prostitution would make it safer (less criminal assosciation, better health protection , and more secure payment) for all involved. Since prostitution will exist whether it is legal or not, is it right for us to punish those who turn to it just because we think it a dirty profesion? I think not.

I am curious as to what this would be. Also the idea of one's sexual services being un-sellable intrigues me. I would like to hear the reasoning behind this.

 

First off, prostitues must be much more valued then they are here in the States, where most prostitues, even if they are able to maintain all of their cash, struggle to remain above poverty. Sex is cheap in the States, just like another type of human capital. I've read enough on the issues of prostitution in the States to that prostitution gives no chance of having an income that leads to a quality life style. Maybe call girls can make good money, but generally to be a call girl requires an amount of attractiveness most prostitues no longer or never had. Most women in prostitution in the United States would be considered members of the lower class.

As for prostitues, can't say I've known any, but I've known a few social justice advocates and they've met their fair share of prostitues. I have yet to meet someone whose been working to improve the conditions of prostitues say the prostitues enjoy standing on a street corner in some major metropolitan area waiting for some john to come along and pick them up and pay them what is essentally pocket change for a hour in some hotel.

As for questions 1, sex doesn't matter, a male prostitue simply just less common and less likely to be destitue like so many female prostitues.

Question 2 is entirely situational. It is unethical to condone the exploitation of human beings who sacrifice human dignity to make ends meet. This is no different then what was happening to the workers in the meat factories of the 1900s. Prostitution simply becomes more of an issue, because when these women are objectified, they are prone to become victims of violence. As I said previously, low income women, along with low income child, is the group most at risk of being kidnapped. If the legal system can't currently protect against this, legalizing prostitution isn't going to stop those who abduct the most vulnerable members of society.

A large number of African American women constitue the "working girls" in the Twin Cities and with the relative indifference towards the black community by the police, these women need help getting out, not a go head for johns to legally pick them up. Blacks end up dead in the TC all the time and their murders are rarely solved (mind you soon as a white person gets murdered, everything goes into action). Manhattan, LA and Chicago have to be far worse then the relatively small TC.

3. Again, it's the state of vulnerability thats the issue at hand. So arguably both acts are highly unethical; you're taking advantage of someone who would likely make a different action if they where in a "rational" state of mind.

 

It's legal in Australia AFAIK.

As for whether it's a good thing - well, I think that given the right cultural climate it could be a lot better than it is (or better yet - be made totally unnecessary). I do not think that making it illegal helps anything at all, mind you...

 

When I go out and, for no particular reason, buy my son a present and give it to him, I'm a good father. If I go out and buy something nice for my wife, I'm......paying her for sex? I buy my wife flowers and other gifts ranging from non-sensical to, uh, private.......and those gifts make my wife feel more secure and more loved (which is not to say that she'd be insecure without them, but it's always nice to get tangible proof that your lover thinks about you when you aren't around). When my wife feels more secure it makes her happier. When she's happier, she tends to be more interested in sex. The silly romantic gestures that serve as a part of any good marriage do not constitute prostitution.

When I hire a babysitter, buy my wife flowers, bring home a nice bottle of wine, and prepare a nice, candle-lit dinner I'm not doing it so we can have a quiet evening watching Bonanza.....and, when my wife sleeps with me, it doesn't make her a prostitute, either. Romance is part of a good relationship. Gifts and gestures are part of romance. Once you get married, you'll understand (or maybe you won't and she'll divorce you).

 

From what I understand, it is illegal in the UK but is only enforced if it becomes a particular problem (which I gather is usually caused by the users, rather than the prositutes - Curb crawlers accosting people for example)

I find the letter of the law to be somewhat hypocritical, as making porn movies is not illegal (and never likely to be), which is basically poeple getting paid to have sex.

1 - Forgery obviously isn't a victimless crime, but that might have been your point. I think you'd find it impossible to prove that ALL prostitution had a victim, purely on the grounds it would be fairly easy to get witnesses in court from both sides of the deal to proclaim otherwise. Obviously there are instances where there are victims - but how many of these are because there are no safe-guards available to the working girls? Hell, you get unscupulous characters in any business.

2 - Even if true, and none close down, it shouldn't impact on the decision. If you don't legalise some brothels these places will continue to exist anyway. Personally, I don't believe it is true. It may not directly force them out of business because only market forces (and criminal prosecutions) can do that. Who are clients more likely to go to? I would guess that it would be the legalised brothel where they can have more assurance they won't come away with an STD, and won't get raided by the police. (You could even increase penalties for visitors to illegal brothels).

3.) Not sure of the point you're making, is it that it would be cheaper in legalised brothels? If so, it supports my view above. In Legalised brothels, you have a much better chance of preventing sexual slavery and harm coming to the prostitutes.

4.) I'm not sure on this one, but I would guess you are right to some degree. However, it's a bit of an irrelevant arguement. If you're going to make a decision on legalisation, this can't be used as an reason not to do it. If you're legalising prostitution, you're saying it is OK, so it doesn't matter if more people do it! That is, unless prostitution is only OK if it's only a small number of people doing it. Sounds a bit hypocritical.

I believe people have a right to do with their body as they like - and I'm sure a number of women are happy being prostitutes, make a load of money, and quit the proffession when they've had enough. As I've mentioned in the past, Louis Theroux did an intersting series, one episode of which was shot in a cat-house in the states. The women there seemed mostly well-adjusted and a lot better off than when they had been on the streets or at the mercy of pimps.


@ Drew,

I'm not sure Chev exactly meant it like that, but then again his belief of marriage entitlements doesn't match mine. There was a debate some months (years?) back where he states a belief that the wife is "obliged" to have sex with the husband if he asks for it.

[ November 03, 2006, 15:48: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

@Drew: Read it again and show me where I said gifts to wives are by definition given in exchange of sex, hmm? That's the assumption you seem to be making. If that's how you understood my post, I fully understand and even share your resentment. However, that's not what I said. I said when gifts were actually given in straight, direct exchange for sex (or even to oblige the person to comply with sexual requests out of gratitude), then it was a form of prostitution. The difference between this and the regular giving of gifts is like the difference between paying and just giving. So, essentially, if a man pays his wife for sexual favours with jewelry, furs etc, or the wife requests furs or jewelry or she won't sleep with him, that's prostitution and even marriage doesn't remove the prostitution vibe. Just the fact that you have a sexual relationship with someone doesn't mean your gifts to that person are given in exchange for sexual favours.

@Carcaroth:

The wife is obliged to have sex with the husband and the husband is obliged to have sex with the wife. This doesn't mean whenever one of them wants, but disregarding each other's needs is surely uncharitable and defies the vows.

@deepfae: There are certain things which are not meant to be sold, even though you can technically sell them and abide by the contract of purchase. You could practically sell child custody, but this is forbidden for social reasons (protection of family), apart from the fact that such a transaction would be grossly immoral. The concept of contracts with immoral content being invalid is as old as the law. It's just that societies consider fewer and fewer things to be immoral. Prostitution is a classic example of what's immoral, because sex is not meant for sale. Let me remind you that sex without marriage has only recently been decriminalised, along with adultery (and not everywhere, especially the latter). Initially, such a step was taken to avoid punishing people for premarital sex by putting them in the same prison with thieves and bandits. However, there are many people who base their own private morality on the law in force. As a result, if fornication is not a crime, they don't see it as wrong. At some point, they begin to think it's completely moral. However, unless the particular person has a very liberal moral code, most people will have some problems with sex for mere pleasure. Or for material gain. Prostitution combines both. One doesn't sleep with a prostitute for not-really-publicly-sealed love or even because of a minute charm (like women considered easy, think white trash, night clubs...). Prostitution is a premeditated, cold exchange of money for sexual pleasure, in which the person of one "contracting" party is the tool of such pleasure. Not only does it reduce the prostitute practically to dit, but it's grossly immoral on the part of the customer (the prostitute is typically as willing as the customer is - if she were, she might be more immoral than the john is). Such deals strike against the basic foundations of the society, not to mention they make human persons into commodity.

 

@ Iku-Turso:

I get the feeling like you do not or do not want to understand a perfectly reasonable applaud for legal prostitution.

1) That is not an answer.

2) Indeed, who are the prostitutes to tell what they deserve? I'm simply quoting what they have said previously, so I have every right to represent them. What makes you think they are a threat to a society and what gives you the right to judge them?

3) Ah, questionable ethics. Guess that explains it all. You have set down your foot, haven't you? Remember that selling sex and becoming a slave are two, very different matters. If you sell sex, it shouldn't be a crime. Enslavery, on the other hand, should always stay illegal and punished harshly. Prostitutes shouldn't be punished because of the crimes of others.

Lack of unions and minimal wages due of legistlation outlawing the profession. MP's and unionmen can't improve the situation if they become criminals by knowing about their clients.

So that makes it right? Males are a minority that deserves to suffer too, since we are only interested of women and what we think they deserve?

Second time the magic-word "unethical" comes up. Hope I get an euro every time it comes up. This might sound obvious, but prostitutes aren't helpless if they are helped by the officials. The police can't do much if they have to arrest both prostitutes and the real criminals. On the other hand, if sex helps them to find food on the plate, then it is a GOOD thing.

Three euros. I'm getting rich. Still 47 to go for a free quick-BJ. Oh, and what makes you think that women selling sex for money are less rational?

[ November 03, 2006, 17:26: Message edited by: Wordplay ]

 

@Wordlplay: Then your feelings do not serve you well.

For men or for women. It makes no difference. This is what I put into question. Not that the prostitute would necessarily be a poor wretched sex-object, which depends on the situation. However, in too many situations this is so and I do not hink that legalization would improve the situation of those who fall under the system of oppression. Still no countering on human trade I see. I wonder why.

I'm not thinking that the threat to society on prostitution would come from the prostitutes themselves. Making the prostitutes criminals isn't the best possible option. Making the buyers of sex criminals is better and more accurate. It is their morals that are questionable.

Yes it is questionable ethics indeed. What would law be if it would not be based on ethics and morals? Selling sex and slavery might be very different matters, but the line between them isn't clear cut. On questionable practises that could be legalized, narcotics business is very close to prostitution. Tell me, what would happen, if you would legalize heroin or cocaine? Sure, the tax increase would be noticeable, but what of the possible consequences? Legalizing prostitution has consequences as well, although not as dramatic as legalizing narcotics, and if the consequences cannot be proven to improve the situation of the society as a whole, then it shouldn't necessarily be legalized.

If selling organs helps to bring the food on the plate then it is a good thing? If working for any money you can get helps to bring the food in the table then it is a good thing? Yes, let's organize some unions for everyone. Ever wondered from what kind of situations unions got their origin? It wasn't the government organizing any union for any workers. It was workers making strikes, refusing to do slave labour that got them started. I bet you're seeing prostitutes getting on a strike for their rights after it prostitution has been legalized, right? Refusing to sell sex if their conditions wouldn't be improved, fighting for their rights?

And might I add that I can be swayed? You're just not doing very good job at it. Sorry.

 

I think that this argument is heading towards an impass, because it has begun to lean too heavily on everyone's opinion of whether prostitution is ethical or not. This should not be the case. Laws need to have a logical backing to them. Theft is not just illegal because most people agree it is unethical. It is illegal because there is hard evidence and logical proof that one has no right to steal, and that if theft were alowed society would not function.

Now the question we have to ask ourselves is what effect legalizing prostitution would have on society. Not whether it would encourage other, more destructive, unethical behavior. Not whether it would be saying that selling your body for money is the best thing to do-after all, people need to realise that legalising something is not (or at least should not) be the governments way of encouraging something, but only the governments way of saying that it (the government) has no right to deny its citizens a particular occupation. All we should be evaluating is if legal prostitution, in itself, would decrease the wellbeing of society at large.

 

@Chev: Giving your wife a present so that she will (be more likely to) put out is not prostitution. You quite clearly said that it was. When you are married and buy your wife a gift in the hopes she'll (be more likely to) put out it still isn't prostitution because doing such a thing, even if getting laid is your only motivation for doing it, doesn't garauntee sex. If I pay a hooker for a blow job, on the other hand, I'm garaunteed to get a blow job. I'd call that a pretty big difference.

 

Legalise it, but with taxation and rules and guidelines and what not to keep it within reasonable limits...

Because when everything is said and done, just because its illegal doesn't mean it isn't going to happen...

 

Yes. Anything that helps you live off another day is a good thing. Why? Because death is not an option.

More euros for me. By the way, this was heavily discussed in both swedish and finnish parlaments, because they were going to vote for this thing. You know what? It passed. Those who buy sex in Finland or Sweden are criminals now.

The end result is that the moment money enters into sex, everyone involved becomes a criminal that needs to be punished. This includes 1) buyers, 2) sellers, and 3) people who *should had known* it happens, but did not stop it. E.g: if the sex takes in place a hotel and the pair came there by a taxi, then the hotel can be shut down and the taxi-driver arrested. They should had known sex can take place between a man and a possible whore. This is what the ethics commitee thought to be the best solution against the "reigning immorality."

@ deepfae

Sad, but true. It is always so in these topics. The ones who oppose liberation always shut inside their shell and go like "La-la-la! I can't hear you!" after the word ethics has been brought up. Now the foot has been put down and nothing the rest of us says will have any effect. Exactly like with the other topics I mentioned earlier.

Which, of course, only means that we have won. They can't rationally argument against us, so it proves our cause is right.

 

It is illegal here and most people here can't image it to be legal, because of their understanding of morality, which is not very well established. It is better stay illegal because of only one reason: slavery. Some mafia-type men can force somebody to do it and as it is legal, it won't be realized so easily; at least in most of the world. But if this problem is solved and only the willing ones will do that job, why not?

 

@Wordplay: You would do well to update your views on rationality. They're old, man. Binary. Human rationality without a basis on a sense of quality and ethics doesn't work. Neurologically proven fact.

I wouldn't go saying that we're on different sides, as long as we're all interested in making a better world for people to live in.

So you're insisting on missing my point, fine. I'll just say it once again:

If legalizing prostitution will increase overall well-being of both private individuals and the society. Then it should be done. Now I want proof that this will be the result. Show me the studies! Are you even trying to convince me, because it doesn't seem like it.

I know that this might not convince you, but some of my stance has the basis on that the history of the western countries is a success story. A christian success story. Why? For many things, but at least two significant, very specific things which are tied tightly to this topic, make christianity different from other religions:

A) The emphasis put on the importance of martyrship in christian faith, especially with the early church. The idea of christian martyrdom differs from islam in that it is for the large part an idealization of a passive sufferer. This leads partially to

B) The importance of women in the early church. Significant amount of the first martyrs were women.

C) Christianity has improved the women's situation through it's two thousand years of history by teaching and upholding morals and a specific kind of ethical behaviour.

Get the picture already? I can put it this way as well: Specific ethics --> Improvement of women's condition and possibilities in the society --> A society that functions more efficiently for the wellbeing of the individuals and the whole than anything else in the history of mankind as of yet.

The danger in legalizing prostitution is that it is quite probable that it will lessen the value of women in general in the eyes of men. This will lead to the worsening of the position of women in the society. Women in general, not a selected group of prostitutes or porn actors. As for the prostitutes, it might be a good thing, I agree. As for the society...

Oh. Wow. I'm speechless. Have you any idea where we'd be as a society if everyone would think this way? And once again you're missing my point. About the unions you see? Do you see any union activity coming from this kind of thinking? Any improvements in the society?

@deepfae:

That's right. I'm agreeing with you on this. However, what would you propose to make as the appropriate time scale for evaluating this? And let me remind you, that morals and ethics are an integral part of the well being of individuals and society. You can't remove them from the equation without the calculation going haywire.

 

I can't agree with this. How exactly are the buyers more guilty than the sellers? If both parts are willing then I find both parts exactly equally questionable in their morals.

Are you certain that this has passed? I've been away for quite a while so it might have slipped past me. If it's true then it is a very unfair law and should be remade asap. No Finn is so poor that he/she is forced into prostitution. The wellfare supports one enough to live without the need to sell sexual services and I do think that exceptions can be made with foreigners who are in a less fortunate situations.

Which is why we should look at the social consequences of legalized prostitution. Now I have little problem in keeping it technically legal but preventing institutionalized prostitution. If we fully legalize it however there will be negative consequences most in the ways of STD's which are not so rare as one might hope.

 

Yeah, sorry. Might be a bit of my very own biased thinking at work here as I am inclined to be more forgiving towards women. Not saying that they'd be poor wretched sex-objects in finland if they do it by their own volition, mind you.

I might have been thinking on the lines that it's the buyers that make the demand and if this could be discouraged there'd be less side effects like human trade. Then again, legislative measures as means to suppress immoral behaviour does tend to fail if the public opinion isn't backing them up.

It might be that with our society getting more and more over-sexed, prostitution will eventually be legalized. I know I'll be opposing this trend unless it can be proved that even more over-sexed society is better than the one we're living in now.

[ November 04, 2006, 21:31: Message edited by: Iku-Turso ]

 

Well, In america we tried prohibition for roughly a decade and found it ultimately unfavorable, mabye a similar time scale would work for prostitution?

Prostitution is a disgusting thing, IMO, particularily because it objectifies women. But the genralization made above does not hold true. First of all, its not as though by hiring a (female) prostitute does one suddenly begin to objectify women. The kind of people who hire prostitutes are going to tend be the kind of people who view women as objects already. Second, I have a hard time believing that if the governement said poeple (women) have a right to sell their body that society will lower their respect for ALL women. By the same logic applied in the above quote, one could take the section of the white american population that is part of the KKK and take that to mean that all white americans are racist. The law should not accomodate people who buy into and discriminate based on stereotypes.

One of the points I was trying to make in my last post was that the distinction needs to be made between what the law allows and what one personally believes is moral. If one cannot give a logical, evidence-supported reason for why something is detrimental to society, then it should not be prohibited by law. Giving one a right to do something is not the same as encouraging it. If this distinction is made, then people will realise that it really doesn't make any difference if a percieved unethical but harmless activity is legal or not. The ethical framework of society will crumble (in relation to certain ethical/religious codes) independiently of the law-illegalising an activity only makes it that much harder (and pricier and dangerous) to do, but does not ultimately stop the commited or desperate from doing it.

Now if you can give me evidence as to how prostitution effects society, aside from offending those whose morals label it as "wrong", I would gladely get behind keeping it illegal.

 

About prostitution as a legal issue in Finland, you might want to read THE FALL OF INNOCENCE AND THE RISE OF A NEW PROHIBITIONISM. PROSTITUTION, POLICIES AND WOMEN'S POLICY MACHINERY IN FINLAND. A dispassionate evaluation of the political discussion concerning prostitution from the 80's to present day in Finland.

About the different outcomes of legalizing or banning prostitution or buying sex you might find this googling Prostitution Policy in Europe: A Time of Change? useful. (since the url has parenthesis in it I can't put it here)

This seems as a pretty good evaluation of prostitution in general Prostitution as a Human Rights Question

This was pretty interesting as well Sexual Abuse as a Precursor to Prostitution and Victimization Among Adolescent and Adult Homeless Women

Prostitution as a problem and a legal issue is a complex matter. Dealing with it only on the level of the prostitutes themselves is not sufficient. As legalization can't disencourage unwanted activity efficiently, it cannot change the moral climate into making prostitution more acceptable either. The problems with prostitution won't dissappear even if it would be legalized. Unless the problems are solved first, I don't see any reason for legalizing prostitution.

[ November 05, 2006, 10:35: Message edited by: Iku-Turso ]

 

Coming from a country where prostitution is legal and currently staying in a country where prostitution is rife I must say that many assumptions about prostitutes are unfounded.

Women becoming objects? Not bloody likely. In some circumstances, yes, but not in all and most certainly not in most.If a woman was being objectified then the whole relationship would just be about sex however it is often not just about sex. There is the companionship and often the prostitute is an outgoing girl who will actually give the 'client' a good time both in and outside of the bedroom.

I 'know' prostitutes. I have friends who are prostitutes. I've seen prostitution in action and I've been in the situation where a girl wanted me to take her home and pay her, although it never got further than that. Most girls are in the business because they simply can earn a heck of alot more than another job they would be qualified to do.

The main problem with prostitution is the illegal activities that often accompany it. Slavery, drugs, violence and women simply being mistreated and abused... why? Because they can't exactly report their abusers to the police.

The question one must ask about prostitution is where is the victim? Both understand what they are getting into. Both understand what the other's obligation is. Much like a plumber will give you a quote before starting work and once the job is done you'll be charged accordingly. I fail to see how somebody is being harmed in the transaction, I dare say both parties are having fun and one is even getting paid for it.

The morality comes into it after being presented by the "sexual purists" who believe that sex is something that should be reserved to something between two people who love each other. It's just sex. Some guy sticks his penis in a girls vagina. The act itself isn't illegal so why should charging something for it be? Why does money suddenly make it such an immoral thing?

 

The Fall of Innocence and etc...

All in all, it's a feminist scheme to discriminate males and, again, simply presumes sex-for-money is unethical. Best of all, the woman behind the paper never interviewed a single prostitute about the matter. There isn't a single person titled as one under the "Interviewed" references, but a lot of different leaders who have never even considered using their services. The information received has to be very one-sided. Of course, I could give her a call and ask what she was thinking.

The second link cannot be accessed. Access denied.

The third link:

Then the abuse of under-aged children should be stopped. Not prostitution.

@ Abomination

That's the question: "Why do you people think that sex is holy?"