Yes, prostitution should be legal for both men and women. I don't think the prices should be regulated though. Just as with any other product, you should have to pay for the quality. It seems like the only reason that it's not legal is because it's a way to get quick money. Just like drugs, gambling, theft, and just about all other non-violent crimes.
It's not legal because the Judeo-Christian moral framework on which our laws are based exhorts us to only have sex within the sanctity of marriage - not to pay for it with dirty crackheads. Like drugs it should, of course, be legalised and regulated, which would remove the health risks and the stigma. It strikes me as illogical that porn, lapdance clubs, etc. (which raise the libido, and therefore increase the likelihood of sexual assaults by the mentally and emotionally unstable) should be legal, whilst prostitution (which decreases it) should remain illegal. It's an especially curious state of affairs when pornstars are allowed to have sex for money but prostitutes aren't. Officer of the Law: "Spit it out ma'am or I'll arrest you". Lady of the Night: "Oh it's OK, officer - we're filming it and we're going to sell the DVDs on the internet." Officer of the Law: "Oh right, why didn't you say so? Here - hold my truncheon whilst I take down your particulars". I just don't understand it..
At twenty three you ought to know that a phrase such as "just means fresh meat for the men" would be offensive to many if not most women. I also doubt most teenage girls really have the knowledge or the experience to make a decision with the implications and consequences of becoming prostitutes.
With discussions about prostitution there is always this terrible atmosphere of a witch hunt. If there is girl somewhere willing to give it to anybody, warm heartedly and with nothing expected in return, then in my view she is fit for beatification, but I have yet to meet her. --- Ron.
my main problem is if prostitution becomes legal then more women will become abused by their so called *pimps*
True. Women really like the emotional aspect. This is why males are so much easier to please. We're hardly selective at all. All makes sense in light of our historical behavioral models.
Clearly not for the likes of you, my dear. You are far, far above average in your independence and intellect and therefore much more selective. No, we're talking about the average female population that can find no better alternative.
Its out of the governments hands even though youd hope otherwise. If women were prostituting out there late at night who will protect them from various dangers? No one. Why make porn legal and not prostitution? Because of the risk factors. There's no way to find out if a customer will use a condom or some other method of birth control. Hence, no safegaurding the spread of disease or birth. Prostitution by its very nature is beyond control. It goes under the category of drugs because of this. Porn can stay personal, prostitution impacts the economy and society.
You are obviously a deluded man, look at the Nevada brothels. Clean, respectable, protected, and safe. No pimps just house management who does have to answer to OSHA and the Health Department
That's funny. Dude, Brothels are an exception. How many prostitutes work in Brothels? A very small amount. I'm talking about street prostitution, its inevitable.
Dude there is always going to be people breaking the law. Brothels are the rule, street walkers are the exception. If there were brothels legalized throughout the country you'd see streetwalking decline drastically. Just facts.
New York #1, Las Vegas #2 ("sin city"), Chicago, Miami, San Fran & L.A. all have brothels and "street walk" districts. So what, the girl works on her own. The guy gets in the car and the girl says, "Pick out a cheap motel." Wam bam thank you mam. The girl could care less about emotions??? If it were legalized then we could control how young teenagers are coerced into the trade and have strict testings on STDs.
Prostitution, as selling yourself or your time for money, is already legal. We normally call whores those you sell themselves too cheaply. They value themselves so little that a few bucks and they will do anything. But there is also the more expensive whore who sells her or his favors for more and so is not called a whore. He/she has dignity in his prostitution.
If you'd stuck with the libertarian movement longer you would already know the answer to that question. We don't believe in restricting government controls on direct harm because of some lofty philosophical notion. We believe in it because government controls on direct harm are often barely workable, and government controls on indirect harm nearly always cause more harm than they prevent. Indirect harm is difficult to define, to observe, to measure, and to determine who caused it. What is the indirect harm caused by prostitution, drugs, pornography, bare-knuckle prizefighting, 24-hour taverns, or horsemeat burgers? Even if you manage to define it, it's even more difficult to devise a control that is fair, effective, and without ruinous second-order effects. Every law that now makes us scratch our heads and wonder what idiot thought it up started out as a good intention, usually to protect someone from indirect harm. Zoning laws. They're ruining cities, aribtrarily making some landowners wealthy and others poor, and providing a windfall for the well-connected. But they started out as a well-meaning attempt to stop someone from building an all-night supermarket outside your bedroom window. Drug laws. Like laws against prostitution, all of their alleged harm is indirect. It was feared that drugs would destroy the very fabric of our society, creating an environment in which children would choose not to go to school and adults would commit acts of violence. America's first experiment with prohibition created the very conditions it was meant to prevent. There weren't many good economists in those days and they weren't respected (viz. the creation of the Federal Reserve) so no one understood that making a popular commodity illegal creates a black market and black markets employ minors as runners and settle commercial disputes with gunfire. Now we know better. Whoops, I guess most of us don't. Anyway, Prohibition started out as the good intentions of women who thought they were being good Christians and good mothers. Even though Prohibition itself was ultimately rejected, the War on (other) Drugs that it spawned is still causing far more indirect harm than it prevents. Interracial marriage was once illegal because it was believed to be harmful to "society." If you'd been alive then, how would you have disproven that to a nation that had barely outlawed slavery? All you could say is that since the alleged harm is all indirect, the government has no business with it. In the final analysis, that's the only refuge we have from despotic government. If there's no direct harm, then get out of my face.
FR, A question then. In your practical example of the supermarket going up outside my bedroom window, what would you counsel an individual to do (assuming a fully entrenched libertarian government) to prevent the supermarket from being built? (also assuming that you don't enjoy the blazing flourescent nightlighting and the soothing sounds of grocery carts crashing into each other.
