To my knowledge there are only two 'western' countries in the world where a person is allowed to have sex with another for monetary compensation. Those countries are The Neterlands and none-other than the greatest place on earth and one of the safest countries in the world: New Zealand.

Now, the reasoning behind legalising prostitution is that it's going to happen no matter what. That when you force an "occupation" into the underworld then all of those participating in said occupation are going to be exposed to criminals as their boss. A prostitute can't report to the police that some guy was extra rough to her during "service" or he didn't pay for the "service". Since it's going to happen anyway the government might as well get a cut of it via taxes and use those taxes to police the illegal prostitution that occurs. It's a victimless crime, both parties enter into the arrangement with a clear expectation of what's going to happen.

The arguments against are often the morality about it and that prostitution is the core incentive behind cetain types of slavery. Morality is subjective. Human slavery is illegal anyway and legalising prostitution can only reduce the slavery since if it's no longer illegal then why would somebody go through all the effort and bribes and so forth to run an illegal prostitution/slave operation when they could just do so legally and charge the clients MORE because of it?

So, is prostitution legal in your country? Why? Why not? Should it be illegal/legal? If it should be legal what safeguards should be put in place? What special rulings should surround it?

Legalize it. Its a win-win situation:

1. Better protection for the workers
2. More tax for the government
3. I don't get hassled when I am bar crawling in Belfast by ugly old women in tracksuite bottoms!

Sure, legalize it. But tax them. Oh yes, tax them to the hilt.

Down sides:
1.Every damn street corner will be full of them.
2.You meet a hottie. In the morning she tells what she does for living (Yeah possible before, but chances will be bigger).
3. Nasty, just imagine a conversation:
"Mom came just back from work."
-"Oh, what does she do?"
"She's a prostitute"
-"My sister's also!"
"I know :evil: "

Hmm... I'm going to get flamed, but:

1. Prostitution is about the same kind of victimless crime as forgery is. There is a good which is struck against by this crime. There are ill effects.

2. Legalising prostitution will not force illegal brothels with slaves out of business.

3. Clients might as well be charged more for the additional risk associated with running an illegal business. If they don't have to pay bribes and guns and grunts and all, they won't have to charge the clients more.

4. Certain women will not go into prostitution so easily if it's illegal. This may hold true for some clients.

Here, prostitution is not a crime, but neither is it a legal business. They act as public houses, escort agencies etc and they don't sell sex directly. Pimping or otherwise profiting from someone else's dissolution is a crime.

BTW, in Germany, I think prostitution is legal. They had issues with jobless women potentially losing welfare rights for refusing to take up jobs in the sex industry.

BTW, in Germany, I think prostitution is legal. They had issues with jobless women potentially losing welfare rights for refusing to take up jobs in the sex industry. From what I've heard this has been fixed so it's really a non-issue and simply a hole in the legistlation and nothing that anyone really thinks should be.

In any case I'm a bit torn with this situation. I have to agree with Chev that it really would not affect the slave trade in Europe. Plenty of the human trade is targetted for German market and prostitution is legal there. So I'm not convinced that the work enviorment will get much better for those least fortunate. Those born in their own country hardly ever end up as targets for human trade, so the legalised prostitution would not help those who needed the most support. Also as Chev pointed out it might increase the popularity of prostitution which I certainly don't view as a good thing.

In Finland we have a very similar laws as in Poland it is illegal to advertise prostitutional services and outside profiting from it is illegal. There are certain groups that wish to make the buying of sex services illegal but selling legal and that kind of dual morality I really can't accept.

Prostititution is illegal in 49 of the 50 states in the U.S. The lone exception is Nevada. However, there are no states where "escort agencies" or "escort services" are illegal, but these are tantamount to prostitution.

These are basically places where you hire a woman to "escort" you to some event for the night. They don't *technically* qualify as prostitution as the agency says the customer is paying for the escort's time, and sex is not included in that price. They claim that sex may occur, but that happens after the event, and it is between two consenting adults. However, most website of these escort agencies (so I'm told - I don't have firsthand knowledge) tell which sexual acts certain escort are willing to perform, so it's prostitution for all intenets and purposes.

As long as it would be legal for the two individuals to have consentual sex I see no reason why there should be a law prohibiting one of the individuals from providing compensation to the other for engaging in sex. What possible rationale can there be for saying that it is illegal to pay someone to do something when it is not illegal to do that thing in the first place?

Should we also say that giving flowers, chocolates, jewellery etc. in order to facilitate a sexual relationship should be illegal? How is that any different from giving money?

Heh, I'm actually a member of a sex-board which lists the escort-services of Finland. Unfortunately, there are no service-providers in Vaasa. Sucks to be in a whole-family-town. Or Finland for that matter. On top of that, the service-providers are difficult to reach and even if you find one, she quite likely already has 50+ candidates to choose from. To put it simply: the prices are high, the people difficult to reach, and still there are thousands and thousands looking for them. The law be damned when you got a very primitive need to fulfill.

I have to agree with most of the people here: prostitution should be legalized. There is just one problem: the conservatives have put down their foot on this matter (like they have with abortion, stem-cells, conscript-service, and euthanasia). For example, there was this radio-show some months ago where they were discussing about prostitution with a certain, elderly woman. In the end, the "discussion" turned into what it always does with topics like this: I'm right, you are wrong, and god help us. The woman basically kept ranting on about sinning, slavery, and the immorality of it.

To me it means only one thing: you can't discuss or make decisions with people like that. They have to be overruled if there are to be any liberties at all. It's a no-win situation for any politicians if they can't come up with a *really* good compromise. Most of them are too smart to even try, so I doubt any change will be coming very soon.

Then the feminists begin to nag about men doing "vacation-trips" to places like Bangkok, Pattaya, Puhket, Patong, or maybe Moscow (if you prefer russians). Some spend as much as 1.000 € per week on such trips, so it is, of course, a big money-route for the locals.

[ November 02, 2006, 18:15: Message edited by: Wordplay ]

As a secular humanist, I find prostitution absolutely appalling. Not only does it in the most direct sense turn a human into a material good, but it's a humiliating occupation in which next to no one chooses to go into when they have other options. Legalizing prostitution is legalizing the exploitation of runaways and victimized women.

It's not uncommon for single mothers or battered mothers to go into this "profession" in order to support their children. Regardless of legislation around prostitution, every time that mother goes out to work, she puts herself in danger; johns look for their own pleasure, they aren't concerned about the spread of STDs they have or the health of the prostitue in any other way.

Street walkers aren't going to be magically safe with the legalization of what they are doing. Poor women in the States go missing everyday and they usually aren't found alive again. Prostitution shouldn't be legalized, instead the Government should take steps to get prostitutes out of the situation they are in.

Not only does it in the most direct sense turn a human into a material good, but it's a humiliating occupation in which next to no one chooses to go into when they have other options.Ah, yes; the standard denial. That's exactly what the granny said in radio: "They wouldn't sell sex if they had the choise. They know they will become sex-objects."

So the best thing to do for them is a) forbid them taking the option, b) punishing them if they do, and c) labeling the current practitioners as criminals and poor wretches who do not know how to take care of themselves. Many people even make a hobby of hunting them down so that the police can throw them out of the city. Throw them to where? Not our problem.

It infuriates me to no end when the conservatives bring this argument up again and again despite what is said to them either by the escorts themselves or anyone else. Let's try the following questions:

1) What if the prostitute is a male? Many men sell sex-services for those women who can't get it otherwise. Are they poor, wretched sex-objects too?

2) Who are you to tell who can buy and sell sex? People make their own decisions are if the option of selling sex is the most lucrative one, then that's exactly what they have right to do. If they have to do it to feed themselves, would you prefer to starve them instead (or throw to jail)? In such cases the underlying faults are always elsewhere, like poor social-security or drug-addiction. Those are the things that require attention.

3) Can you tell the difference between sex that has been bought by money and sex that has been bought by a few drinks? Of course, you could say that they both are evil, but that would be only your own sexual preference and forbidding the alternative would be discrimination. Which, ironically, is illegal.

As long as it would be legal for the two individuals to have consentual sex I see no reason why there should be a law prohibiting one of the individuals from providing compensation to the other for engaging in sex. What possible rationale can there be for saying that it is illegal to pay someone to do something when it is not illegal to do that thing in the first place? That's the most logical and sensible thing I have ever heard said about this topic. :thumb:

Ah, yes; the standard denial. That's exactly what the granny said in radio: "They wouldn't sell sex if they had the choise. They know they will become sex-objects."

So the best thing to do for them is a) forbid them taking the option, b) punishing them if they do, and c) labeling the current practitioners as criminals and poor wretches who do not know how to take care of themselves. Many people even make a hobby of hunting them down so that the police can throw them out of the city. Throw them to where? Not our problem. I said that the Government was to provide assistance to move them into a different mode of producing income. It is the government's responsibility to aid its citizens in need.

As for prostitution, man, all the research that is been done into this by non-profit groups is that prostitues would get out if they had the ability to get out. They don't leave because they can't leave. Prostitution is a low income occupation with almost no chance of advancement and it dangerous all the same. I don't know what prostitues you know Wordplay, but any prostitue advocate would tell you that prostitues wouldn't be selling sex if they had another means of income.

Ilmater's Suffering is right for the most part. This isn't true for all prostitutes by any means, but the majority of them would much rather work in McDonald's 9-5 for the same pay. Add to that the spread of STDs (condoms aren't a guarantee, and no one's really there to enforce the use of condoms anyway) and the risks of abuse and this just isn't a good occupation. For those that say these things would be minimized by legalization, think again. Even in legal professions like the porn industry STDs are a major concern, and they have an organized industry-run set-up to try and control it. As for the risks of abuse, you're still doing something that tends to arrouse passions, while you're alone, pretty much defenseless, and with little/no prior knowledge of the other person.

As for prostitution, man, all the research that is been done into this by non-profit groups is that prostitues would get out if they had the ability to get out. They don't leave because they can't leave. Prostitution is a low income occupation with almost no chance of advancement and it dangerous all the same The same can be said for many dead-end low wage paying jobs. Do you think the uneducated guy who has a warehouse job doing heavy lifting should have his job made illegal too? He is using/abusing his body to earn some bucks too - should we say that he is being exploited and take away the only job that his limited skills will enable him to do?

I don't know what prostitues you know Wordplay, but any prostitue advocate would tell you that prostitues wouldn't be selling sex if they had another means of income.I know three prostitutes that say that they do the job because they want to do it. When they want to quit, they simply lose the number (pre-paid = no registration), leave the city, and never look back. And you? How many prostitutes do you know for real? C'mon, don't be shy; even if you use their services, it's not a problem if you preach against them too. :shake:

Let me ask you another thing. How much do you think they earn per customer in developed countries? 100 € from 30 minutes. That's right: they earn six times more than a well-to-do businessman who earns 15 € for every hour of hard work. 30 minutes in bed and whoopdee****ingdoo: day's work done. Leaves a lot free time to party in the city, don't you think? Even better, party in city, take the guys in twice a weekend, and earn 800€ of the same you would otherwise do for free.

Then there are the extra services and those people who want to hire you for a good, old-fashioned dinner with candles and all (yes, some men prefer to have a romantic dinner which ends to sex instead of just hopping on the bed). Escorts do that too and those same guys would be happy to pay the 500 € price instead of having the same with a regular gal that possibly ends to sex. 'Possibly' because, to have sex with a regular gal, you must not only be pleasant, all-around-acceptable, willing to commit to a long-term relationship, put her pregnant, and pay the bills if you divorce (in which case you are either cursed with kids or monthly support-fees). Escorts, in this sense, are a very solid option.

Now, are you guys going to ignore my other questions completely? 1, 2, and 3? They are very central questions, so if they can't be answered, the legistlation really should be liberalized. How? Like with all careers, there needs to be unions, watchdogs, and enforcers. Abuse and crime can then be dealt the normal way.

@Wordplay: Well, I might question those by

1) Sex as a basic human right, is that it? C'mon.

2) This question bounces right back. Who are you to say who can buy or sell sex? Having only lucrativeness as a standard is a bad way of judging and doing business. Other standards should be met as well. Unless you're only concerned about short-term profits and perfectly unconcerned about the society. Which brings me to this If they have to do it to feed themselves, would you prefer to starve them insteadThis would lead to "it's ok to harvest organs from the poor for a monetary compensation", let's have an union for them, that'll make the black market on organs to go away.

Are you saying that it's ok to have social inequality as long as the poor can sustain themselves, which would make improving their situation unnecessary since they can feed themselves? Might I remind you of India's struggle for independence? Sometimes it is better to starve yourself, or to have you put to jail than have another people's will imposed on yourself. However, the choice is for each one of us to make for ourselves, but there is right and wrong, and injustice should be fought against. Don't get excited, this deals with some of the consequences of the logic you, dear Wordplay, are using, not prostitution as such, and not necessarily the way you see prostitution.

3) If legality would be derived only from something being lucrative or not, I wouldn't have to disagree with you. Or with Abomination saying that it's a victimless crime. I wouldn't say that buying sex with drinks should be illegal, but it is very questionable. Saying that it's ok is following questionable ethics and this does not lead to good.

Funnily enough, legalizing prostitution might improve the prostitutes conditions. I might even remember one prostitute advocate speaking for legalizing prostitution on that basis. But the question I'd like to have answered would be that would it improve the society's condition and more specifically, women's condition as male prostitutes are exceedingly rare. If you can prove that it does, then fine. I have my suspicions however.

By the way, how many people do you know that have been abducted, forced to work as sex-slaves and raped repeatedly? Don't be shy now. And since prostitution pays so well then why aren't you doing it? Now this is something I'd really like an answer to. Let's hear it.

As Chev and Morgoroth pointed out already, which none has tried to counter, would legalizing prostitution make human trade go away? The problem is that in an atmosphere that says that people can be bought and sold with money, that it is ok to do that, would not likely increase people seeing each other as equal human beings.

@JSBB: How about applying that to child labour in third world countries? They've got no future, might as well make their living while they still can? When did the exploitation of uneducated and the poor become an allright thing to do again?

Legalization would be better. It's definitely not a panacea, but it would improve a lot of problems. Less money to the mafia (more to the state), better health and quality of the "services", and probably a bit less stigma involved. If the women do it because they have no choice, they should not deserve shame - they don't kill or rob people. If they do it because they want to, then they should not be made to associate with criminals and become such if we could help it. I don't think the illegal part will go away - but I think it will decrease. That, and the state will have the more incentive to actually put more money in fighiting it: it's a bit unfair towards the competition, but I could tolerate it in such cases.

I can't equate forgery with prostitution, as forgery directly harms the country's economy by devaluating the money, which eventually hits everyone, especially those with least money. Prostitution offends some people's morality, and could transmit STDs. Well, so does premarital sex. The difference between the two is that prostitution involves less romantic affiliations (usually) and more direct money transfers. It may diminish romantic feelings to a degree, but sex is not always romantic in society either. Look at pornography, for example. Or, for that matter, all advertisements alluding to sex, and there are tons of them.

Ironically, the business/market approach preached today tends to have similar effect on other relations once considered sacral and intimate. Raising a child through a babysitter, for example: you pay someone to do something that traditionally is one of the family's most intimate activities: taking care of their children. Or how the sharing of secrets and help by a friend or parent has been replaced by such with a psychiatrist.

Edit: It is more drastic, granted - but the rationale is the same: you pay a professional for a service that ideally should be given freely.

[ November 03, 2006, 00:09: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

Legalization + mandatory health screening for the 'providers' and 'customers' alike = ideal.

@JSBB: Giving and taking flowers in more or less direct exchange for sex is prostitution all the same. Showering with gifts with the mind of obtaining sexual favours is the same as getting billed for N hours of sexual services. This means that if a guy buys his wife some jewelry so she would sleep with him (more eagerly), it's prostitution. And no, adding a kiss to a sincere "thank you", is not a pay-for-favours thing.

@Ilmater's Suffering: I have a problem with it not only as a humanist or a religious person, but also as a lawyer, surprisingly. There are just some things you can't sign away. Some things you can't sell. You can sell property but you can't sell dignity. Or liberty. You can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't sell permission to beat you up, you can't allow someone to kill you at impunity. Same way, sex for money should and can be banned. I wouldn't advocate any rash action without good planning and a real, well-thought solution, instead of just outlawing it. After all, the source of the problem lies deep there. The mentality that makes some people sell or buy it. The situation in which some people are...

Legalising prostitution doesn't cut it, but where it is legal, outlawing it right away wouldn't better the fate of prostitutes or eliminate the customers, so as I said, complex action would be needed.

WARNING: long post ahead (sorry)


Edit: It is more drastic, granted - but the rationale is the same: you pay a professional for a service that ideally should be given freely. 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.

so as I said, complex action would be needed. 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.

I know three prostitutes that say that they do the job because they want to do it. When they want to quit, they simply lose the number (pre-paid = no registration), leave the city, and never look back. And you? How many prostitutes do you know for real? C'mon, don't be shy; even if you use their services, it's not a problem if you preach against them too. [grinning, shaking head]

Let me ask you another thing. How much do you think they earn per customer in developed countries? 100 € from 30 minutes. That's right: they earn six times more than a well-to-do businessman who earns 15 € for every hour of hard work. 30 minutes in bed and whoopdee****ingdoo: day's work done. Leaves a lot free time to party in the city, don't you think? Even better, party in city, take the guys in twice a weekend, and earn 800€ of the same you would otherwise do for free.

Then there are the extra services and those people who want to hire you for a good, old-fashioned dinner with candles and all (yes, some men prefer to have a romantic dinner which ends to sex instead of just hopping on the bed). Escorts do that too and those same guys would be happy to pay the 500 € price instead of having the same with a regular gal that possibly ends to sex. 'Possibly' because, to have sex with a regular gal, you must not only be pleasant, all-around-acceptable, willing to commit to a long-term relationship, put her pregnant, and pay the bills if you divorce (in which case you are either cursed with kids or monthly support-fees). Escorts, in this sense, are a very solid option.

Now, are you guys going to ignore my other questions completely? 1, 2, and 3? They are very central questions, so if they can't be answered, the legistlation really should be liberalized. How? Like with all careers, there needs to be unions, watchdogs, and enforcers. Abuse and crime can then be dealt the normal way. 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...

This means that if a guy buys his wife some jewelry so she would sleep with him (more eagerly), it's prostitutionWhen 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. Prostitution is about the same kind of victimless crime as forgery is. There is a good which is struck against by this crime. There are ill effects.

2. Legalising prostitution will not force illegal brothels with slaves out of business.

3. Clients might as well be charged more for the additional risk associated with running an illegal business. If they don't have to pay bribes and guns and grunts and all, they won't have to charge the clients more.

4. Certain women will not go into prostitution so easily if it's illegal. This may hold true for some clients.

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:

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.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.

Sex is cheap in the States, just like another type of human capital. 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.

a male prostitue simply just less common and less likely to be destitue like so many female prostitues. 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?

It is unethical to condone the exploitation of human beings who sacrifice human dignity to make ends meet. 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.

3. Again, it's the state of vulnerability thats the issue at hand. So arguably both acts are highly unethical 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 those women who can't get it otherwiseFor 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 sex helps them to find food on the plate, then it is a GOOD thingIf 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...

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

Making the buyers of sex criminals is better and more accurate. It is their morals that are questionable.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...

Yes. Anything that helps you live off another day is a good thing. Why? Because death is not an option.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: Now the question we have to ask ourselves is what effect legalizing prostitution would have on society...All we should be evaluating is if legal prostitution, in itself, would decrease the wellbeing of society at large.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'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. 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.

You know what? It passed. Those who buy sex in Finland or Sweden are criminals now. 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.

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 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.

How exactly are the buyers more guilty than the sellers?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 ]

However, what would you propose to make as the appropriate time scale for evaluating this? Well, In america we tried prohibition for roughly a decade and found it ultimately unfavorable, mabye a similar time scale would work for prostitution?


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. 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.

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. 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. (http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/jointsessions/paperarchive/copenhagen/ws12/holli.PDF) 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 (http://www.jstor.org/view/02750392/ap030044/03a00030/0)

This was pretty interesting as well Sexual Abuse as a Precursor to Prostitution and Victimization Among Adolescent and Adult Homeless Women (http://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/3/361)

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...
Secondly, the new political situation has forced women, their organisations and representatives to
search for new answers for dealing with the problem of prostitution. The result of this soulsearching
looks very much like a division between a radical feminist and a liberal feminist
approach. The former sees prostitutes as victims of a masculine culture, whereas the latter,
prominent in the 1990's debate, is convinced of the 'equality' between the prostitute and the client,
and thus also rations the guilt equally. The two approaches nevertheless share the conviction of a
need for client criminalisationAll 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:
Previous research indicates that women who were sexually abused as children are more likely to become involved in prostitutionThen 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?"

honestly i cant see the problem with legalising it, as far as i can see it gives the girls and boys a better chance to protect themself and improve thier standards. to the best of my knowledge sexual deseases arent spred more with legalising prostitution, because most people that uses the service provided by them, do it wether its legal or not.

Secondly be legalising it, the women and men, gets a chance to form unions or be part of one, work out pension plan, and enforce certain rules, protected by the law instead of hunted the law.

thirdly i dont see the big problem in paying money for getting sex.
Sorry but its not that different then going to a bar, buying a girl drinks and sweattalking her in hope of a one night stand, except in the case with the prostitute your at least gaurrenteed sex.

i know that not all girls that are prostitute wants to be it, but I must say, that in denmark, your only forced to it (as a danish citizen, mind you), if you let yourself get forced to it. do to our social securit laws.
Regarding humans transported here illegally and inslaved, this has nothing to do with legalising prostitution. the people behind this should still be punished, for inslavering and forcing people to sex or other work. and honestly, if the prostitude had a union and werent outlawed themself, i think they would help the police strike down on these crimminals a lot more.

Sorry about the second link. My university seems to provide me access even from my home computer so I didn't notice that. Shame really since it's quite good stuff. It's an article in The Human Rights Quarterly, Prostitution as a Human Rights Question: Problems and Prospects of United Nations Action by Laura Reanda.

@Wordplay: As an unbiased study it only shows the arguments used to ban prostitution. There are other stuff in it as well that should be noted. The writer is outlining policy debates on prostitution concentrating on the feminists point of view. So yes, I can see you coming to that conclusion. But it is still an unbiased research which gives a good idea about what people in Finland have thought about prostitution during three decades. Not only feminists. There isn't a part in that study where the researcher herself says her opinion about prostitution.

The paper is prepared for European Consortium of Political Research. Not just feminist mumbo jumbo like you claim.

It is a study of politics, my dear friend How does interviewing prostitutes fit into a study of politics?

Feminists do not, I repeat, they do not have that kind of power to appeal to public opinion as you seem to think they do.

One of the problems in what you say is that you fall too much into ad hoc argumentation in the lines of "it's a feminist conspiracy, don't believe anything they're saying since they're trying to brainwash you" or "you moralists with your getting ethics into everything, you're not capable of listening so I don't care for your arguments".

My problem is that I am quite ready to listen to good argumentation and willing to change my way of looking things if the argument has a solid basis. It would seem that you're running out of ammo having to repeat your ad hoc argumentation over and over.

Why do you people think that sex is holy?What "you people"?

@Equester and others who missed this: google Prostitution Policy in Europe: A Time of Change?& check out what that's about.

[ November 05, 2006, 18:39: Message edited by: Iku-Turso ]

read the article, he does in fact point out that one of the sollution models could be legalising it fully so that the prostituets can form unions.

The major problems of prostitution for the workers remain exploitation, stigma, abuse and criminalization. These are not unique to the industry, and can only be tackled effectively by the self-organization of sex workers into unions and rights groups, along with full decriminalization the other sullotion is partly unions and a part where the union offers job training for people who dont want to be prostitutes. the thing is, job training for unemployed and uneducated, so here in denmark excist.

has he says, some of the buisnesses are driven underground, as any other criminal activity that will happend, but with the more normal prostitutes are legalized, the policy can focus more on the real criminals.

here is link to it: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/rfre/2001/00000067/00000001/art00007

I read the article. That's why I mentioned it. Re-read my posts if you still think that I'm all against legalizing prostitution.

But I disagree with what is said about tackling the stigmatization. Union of sex workers can't remove the stigma that has been affecting our way of thinking for at least two thousand years. This is a slow process and the stigmatization of prostitutes should be removed.

Of course I'd be a lot happier if prostitution wouldn't be an option for anyone to get money easily with minimal amount, or no education at all. That it is an option results from people willing to pay for sex. You don't sell anything if there are no people willing to buy. This willingness to buy sex and the objectification of other people, using them as means to satisfy your own pleasure is what I'm up against and I am willing to have laws against such activities.

By saying this I can already see some of you saying that prostitution is a service sector job just like any other, but I disagree. Not because what I think of sex as an individual, but because a lot of unnecessary suffering is created from the thwarted dynamics that come from the ideas that different types of people have concerning sex.

If everyone would think that sex is as mundane as waiting tables, then we wouldn't have this discussion and the same thing goes if everyone would think that sex should be something very special between two people.

As it is, this is not the case. As guys, it's easy to say that sex should be legalized. A lot of indoctrination has gone to ensure that many men think that romantic feelings and sex don't necessarily have to have anything to do with each other. At the same time, most of the women are indoctrinated that sex is something almost holy. As they grow older, this line of thinking with women will fade somewhat, but it's still there.

As western countries are still majorly christian societies, legalizing prostitution will not meet wide-scale acceptance. The political climate of the countries that have legalized prostitution are very liberal in many other cases as well. The increase of liberal thinking isn't something that you could expect for decades to come. The trend might even be seen to go in quite the opposite direction with many countries and as islam is on the rise in Europe, I wouldn't expect liberalism increasing much.

The legalization of prostitution might be a good idea if the public opinion is liberal enough. Public opinion can be changed, but it takes special and charismatic movements and people that can sway people supporting their ideas. So far liberal people haven't had much of those, at least not in Finland.

edit: Just had to take this into account: a lot of different leaders who have never even considered using their services. The information received has to be very one-sidedThe ministry of internal affairs and the social ministry don't know what they're doing? They're part of the feminist scheme? And are you saying that you have a better idea about prostitution in Finland than the leader of The Support Centre for Prostitutes who was interviewed for the report? I think it is possible that both of you might have opposite one-sided views. The truth about the situation of prostitutes is somewhere in between, but the situation is too muddled that I would be all for or against legalizing prostitution.

I don't like prostitution as a social phenomenon because of the way of thinking that is connected to it. I don't think that this way of thinking makes better people as you Wordplay are a parade example of them, saying things like for instance in war if you'd get a woman as a captive, you'd make her choose a bullet in the head or get raped by you.

You should try convince me that you supporting prostitution and the legalization of it has nothing to do with this kind of thinking and we might agree on this matter.

[ November 05, 2006, 21:22: Message edited by: Iku-Turso ]

concentrating on the feminists point of view. So yes, I can see you coming to that conclusion. But it is still an unbiasedLike asking from a woman if she would prefer to be a man. What would she answer, I wonder...

The ministry of internal affairs and the social ministry don't know what they're doing? You'd be surprised how similar the people in the leading positions are to people in regular grunt-work. I have interviewed my share of different leaders and I can tell you that they aren't aware of every possible thing going on in their company, much less society. Finnish Ministry of Internal Affairs deals exactly with that: internal affairs. Inside government. Social affairs means social security and etc. The sex-life of citizens really isn't their primary concern.

the situation is too muddled that I would be all for or against legalizing prostitution.Muddled? Only if you want to pretend it is. Either you legalize it or you don't. Of course the governments can't liberalize it in overnight, but 'how much' is the question. Perhaps prostitution could be allowed in control-zones, like Britain has suggested, or maybe the model of German would be the best for the time being. At the moment, though, the trend is the opposite: they want to limit it even more in the shadow of such shallow cover-words as criminality, immorality, and slavery. In relation, do phrases "axis of evil, weapons of mass destruction, and anti-terrorism" ring any bells?

In the end, though, it doesn't matter to the buyers. If Finland, Sweden, or Norway can't offer what they need, they take their money elsewhere. I intend to do the same in the future. As funny as it is, the developing countries will benefit of the restrictions in developed countries quite nicely... ;)

But most these have been said already. I see no reason for us to keep repeating it for a second or third time.

[ November 06, 2006, 02:03: Message edited by: Wordplay ]

I don't believe that I'm about to write this, but there are some good points about safety increased and tax revenue rolling in.

But this does beg a touchy moral question for the state. Does the state want to rule that sex is a service that can ge bought, sold or traded, as say a haircut or home renovations. Would they advocate devaluing it from something freely given from emotional drives to something that's pre-packaged. Something tells me that I'd enjoy less a sexual encounter if I knew she was only doing me because I paid for it, and that afterward she'd be saying "Next!" I don't think the state should go there. We've established that the state has no place in the bedroom, why should this be any different?

if they have no place in the bedroom, they cant make any laws neither for it or against it. so they cant forbid payment for sex. but i doubt thats what you ment

Nice thing Wordplay, you make this seem like a pointless tug of war with two distinct opposites while you ignore some questions completely. That kind of black and white thinking's not very progressive.

You seem to be very comfortable of using the stance of "Either you're with us or you're against us" for a person who questions the rhetorics of Bush.

Finnish Ministry of Internal Affairs deals exactly with that: internal affairs. Social affairs means social security and etc. The sex-life of citizens really isn't their primary concern.The spread of STD's is a major concern for them. I would think that social security of the citizens would be their concern. Criminal activity is a concern for the ministry of internal affairs. The sex-life of private individuals is not a concern for them unless it includes, and is closely associated with these.

Let's try to make some things clear again.

1) A good law is a bad thing for a bad person.

2) As many people have pointed out, getting more taxes and increasing the social security of a social minority is a good thing.

3) However, legalizing wouldn't solve the problems associated with prostitution.

4) The customers won't stop going to get what they wan't from the cheapest source, although this might lessen to some degree.

5) As there is sex-tourism, it does have some positive effects in the simplest economical sense to the target countries.

6) Major part of the STD infections in Finland are acquired while being abroad, most of the infected are men.

7) As it is highly doubtful that sex-tourism, child prostitution or human trafficking would decrease dramatically, and that these will continue to be the direct consequences of the same type of thinking and worldview that creates prostitution by creating the demand for it, using these as an argument for legalizing prostitution doesn't work.

8) If the current trend in public opinion is against legalizing or banning something, then the public opinion must change first or the law won't get any support. Now it's easy to say that the law should be changed if you feel like it, but in order to have laws changed you should make others feel like changing them as well.

[ November 06, 2006, 11:22: Message edited by: Iku-Turso ]

1) A good law is a bad thing for a bad person.'Good' and 'bad' are, as always, subjective and depend upon who is percieved to be 'good' or 'bad'. 2) As many people have pointed out, getting more taxes and increasing the social security of a social minority is a good thing.And if that was the only result of prostitution being legalised then it would be reason enough to legalise it. 3) However, legalizing wouldn't solve the problems associated with prostitution.By 'the problems' I assume you mean 'ALL the problems'. Well, yes, that statement is true however it would solve a number of the problems associated with prostitution. However I've yet to hear of any law that completely solves all the problems of something deemed negative. 4) The customers won't stop going to get what they wan't from the cheapest source, although this might lessen to some degree.Even if it's lessened by a small amount then the law has had a positive effect. 5) As there is sex-tourism, it does have some positive effects in the simplest economical sense to the target countries.The Thai people wouldn't be half as well off as they are now if it wasn't for the sex industry here. It turns over so much revenue and injects so much wealth into the country that it's just scary. 6) Major part of the STD infections in Finland are acquired while being abroad, most of the infected are men.Legalising prostitution would mean there would be compliance within the industry and workers would require possible monthly STD checks. 7) As it is highly doubtful that sex-tourism, child prostitution or human trafficking would decrease dramatically, and that these will continue to be the direct consequences of the same type of thinking and worldview that creates prostitution by creating the demand for it, using these as an argument for legalizing prostitution doesn't work.Although they wouldn't decrease dramatically the fact is that due to this law they would decrease and I fail to see how that can be a bad thing. 8) If the current trend in public opinion is against legalizing or banning something, then the public opinion must change first or the law won't get any support. Now it's easy to say that the law should be changed if you feel like it, but in order to have laws changed you should make others feel like changing them as well.Suprisingly enough, merely mentioning the aspects associated with prostitution due to it being illegal and the argument for legalising prostitution resulted in a massive pro-legalised-prostitution opinion in New Zealand. The act passed quickly and everyone got on with their lives and a bunch of people in the country are now far better off than they used to be.

Now this is more like it!

'Good' and 'bad' are, as always, subjective and depend upon who is percieved to be 'good' or 'bad'.Good and bad are subjective only up to a point. Human's have almost universal understanding to what is good or bad which doesn't depend on culture. When culture comes to play the limitations on what is perceived as good or bad the agreements within that culture give the people with different views very little space to manouver. New Zealand is quite liberal. Legalizing prostitution there isn't as problematic as it is in other countries.

And if that was the only result of prostitution being legalised then it would be reason enough to legalise it.If there are no other ways of improving the conditions of a social minority then it is possible that this should be done.

however it would solve a number of the problems associated with prostitutionTrue, but I'd see that as fixing the symptoms and not the cause. If the problems concerning prostitution would only be an issue about prostitution and prostitutes, I'd agree on legalizing it.

Even if it's lessened by a small amount then the law has had a positive effect.Criminalizing the buying of sex has had the same positive effect in Sweden, although it might be the case that Netherlands approach works more efficiently.

The Thai people wouldn't be half as well off as they are now if it wasn't for the sex industry here.If they'd have much less children and under-aged working as prostitutes they'd really have things better off. It's what causes prostitution that creates this situation so them having children working for the sex industry isn't a separate issue from prostitution.

Legalising prostitution would mean there would be compliance within the industry and workers would require possible monthly STD checks.Has this happened in New Zealand or in any other country? Then there's the fact that STD's don't show in tests until enough time has passed. A person can be a carrier and can infect a number of people without showing positive results on STD tests. The tests aren't that cheap either, which will raise the prices, which will result in people going to a cheaper source to satisfy themselves. When it comes to sex and many men, acting stupid can be taken almost as granted so you can't even rely on them having a proper protection against STD's even with legalized prostitutes.

Although they wouldn't decrease dramatically the fact is that due to this law they would decreaseI wouldn't be so sure about that: Netherlands and human trafficking, from U.S. State Dept Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2006 (http://www.gvnet.com/humantrafficking/Netherlands-2.htm)

Canada Considers Further Legalizing Prostitution While Amsterdam Mayor Admits Legalization's Failure (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/oct/05100508.html)

Street prostitution experiment ends (http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=2430)

Amsterdam city portal/policies/prostitution (http://www.iamsterdam.com/introducing/government_politics/policies/prostitution)

<a href="http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=April&x=20060424185515mbzemog0.2210504" target="_blank">Human Trafficking a Global Problem, U.N. Report Says

U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime finds all countries by problem</a>

The act passed quickly and everyone got on with their lives and a bunch of people in the country are now far better off than they used to be.So much better for New Zealand. But the problems concerning prostitution are dependent on geographical location and the culture, moral and political. In many cases New Zealand has been much better off for a long time concerning the problems linked to prostitution.

[ November 06, 2006, 21:04: Message edited by: Iku-Turso ]

I would agree with deepfae. The laws should not dictate what is immoral, but what is dangerous to society. Sorry, but if we have the laws safeguarding morality that smacks more than a little of theocracy and/or communism. The two are quite similar in that respect and for a good reason: in the first the religion takes over the state, in the second the state takes over religion (at least, its prerogative to dictate ethics).

Seriously, I don't see many things that would worsen if prostitution became legal. Ethics is a problem, but let's be fair. If it's ethical to make porn films and sell them, legally (and it's not as if there people don't make sex for money) - at least ethical enough to be legal - then prostitution is just as ethical. At least I'd argue prostitution is a more intimate act. You're not pushing it in the face of everybody else.

Definitely the prostitutes themselves would enjoy greater rights, and that could limit some of the abuses they themselves are subjected to. The mere fact that the state gets the money that used to go in crime rings is a decent reason by itself. That will also weaken those rings indirectly, and the more ordered, legally protected competition could run them out of business. Given that these rings also deal in drugs, violence and other operations, weakening them in one area might weaken them enough to hurt them in other areas (such as their ability to pay bribes and recoup their losses after police operations). For me, that's also a very good thing.

Essentially, the problem is whether legalized prostitution is, itself, a hazard for society. Given that it exists, legalized or not, I don't see how legalizing it would exacerbate the situation. I don't think people in the Netherlands or New Zealand don't have normal relationships, or marriages, so probably any negative effect is going to be negligible.

Sorry it took me so long to respond, I have a knack for forcing myself to not getting very involved in arguments (mainly limiting the number of posts over the course of a week or so to a number I can count on a single hand).

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. Federal minimum wage is $5.15, $6.15 in the state of Minnesota, the federal minimum wage fails allow someone to live above the poverty line (12,000 dollars a year) while the Minnesota allows one to just clear the poverty line pulling in $12,792. As for unions, they've been rapidly eroding since the 1980s when Ronald Reagan quite handedly broke them. The unions can't often even their choices past the Democratic National Party anymore, let alone see them loose in the Primary elections.

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? Doesn't make any more or less right, men just typically are less vulnerable in American society then women.

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. Ethics aren't magical, they're typically the byproduct of the social or legal body one exists in. To operate within the context of that social or legal body, it's necessary to operate within the confines of ethics. The legal ethics of the United States (cynicism aside) express that it a breach of social ethics to partake in a bodily service provided in a situation where external factors lead to a power differential. For a drunken man or woman that power differential would be the difference in judgment between them those who would take advantage of them (hence the legal stance of drunken people being unable to give sexual consent). For the streetwalker, the differential is the need of money. Governmental intervention does not make anything ethical until the prostitute is removed from poverty (at least that's the basics of the current running political justification about taking action against prostitution).

Now, I don't care to argue over the nature of ethics, I'm just what an anthropologist would expect, I want to operate within the confines of my own cultural upbringing. This is not because I think my own culture is always right, but because the social ethics I espouse are essentially the base grammar Wittgensteinian language game I operate within. Removal of this base grammar and language falls apart, in philosophical theory.

[ November 19, 2006, 21:53: Message edited by: Ilmater's Suffering ]

I'm not sure where I stand on this. I myself have never and no plans of "consorting" with one, but the situation here is different from in non-third world/western countries.

I don't know if anyone is REALLY in this occupation by choice but my friend met a high-class call girl in Hawaii who he said was easily one of the most beautiful girls he's ever seen. She was a florist during the day and she drove a fully paid-up Benz and stuff :rolleyes: so maybe for her it's a matter of preference as she can choose her clients and charge high.

But in 3rd world type countries, I doubt anyone is there by choice. The lack of opportunity and poverty force them into the roles and it's degrading and demeaning. I think the luckiest ones have been able to latch onto your typical "foriegn mark" and marry him. Not to offend anyone, but the sterotype for this mark is white, lonely, middle-aged, heterosexual and earning in dollars.

So, I don't know if I'm for the legalization or not. I used to be "yeah, legalize it so the government can tax them and use it to improve the country" but now that I'm older, more cynical and, I like to think, more sensitive, I change my mind. The vampires that hold office will just tax these poor women into the ground and keep the money anyway.

The only positive effect I can see, locally, for the legalization is that jerk cops can't shakedown these women anymore or that it would eradicate the purpose of a pimp. However, I think this crap would just carryover even if it were legalized.

@ Ilmater's Suffering

Erm... Well, that's USA. I no longer really want to comment of how matters are handled there, especially concerning legal-rights, so I'll simply say that it's better here. More democracy, freedom, equality, wealth, and so forth... :hmm:

I would like to comment on the ethical issue of this interesting debate.
People seem to believe that prostitution is unethical, thus making the people working as prostitutes a low life figure.

It may come as a surprise but prostitution was not unethical during the ancient era, and in fact was a service that was respected a lot.
Venus was the goddess of love and protector of these women.

Furthermore the prostitutes of the ancient era, were the only females that were allowed to social festivities and were not only providing sex services but also were capable of providing and a good conversation on many subjects.

Truth is that when Christianity became the religion of the majority, somehow the prostitution was banned to hell.

Wrong and stupid decision if you ask me. Furthermore completely hypocritical, if one realizes that many authoritative figures of the Dark ages (where prostitutes where equalized to witches) funded and quite often used the services of such houses.

Hypocrisy is still predominant in our era where many people taste that fruit, only to shout afterwards that prostitution is unethical and the practicer's of this art should go to jail.

Maybe it's time to realize that prostitution and the people who practice this are still human. And they also have rights, and they also make choices.

From the many prostitutes i have been acquainted with (yes i do), few where forced to do this against their will. And in fact when i asked the rest why don't they choose another profession, they just stated that they are not interested in working 8 hours a day 28 days a month to make a paycheck that reflects the 1/5 of the money they make now.

Legalizing prostitution will solve more problems than it will create. And prostitution is not the problem frankly. The problem is the profit that organized crime is making by keeping prostitution illegal.
And that is a huge profit, a profit they won't let go easily.