Exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by Admin
Nothing hurts the criminal element worse than legalisation and control. Not many crooks make money from moonshine these days.
Printable View
Exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by Admin
Nothing hurts the criminal element worse than legalisation and control. Not many crooks make money from moonshine these days.
There are places in the US where prostitution is legal...well, perhaps it is the houses of prostitution that are legal, I don't know about the solicitation part. There was a big broadway musical years ago about one of them, The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, the music wasn't too bad, if I remember correctly.
If it is not illegal to have sex without a marriage contract then why pick nits about whether they had an expensive dinner first, too many drinks at the bar or money exchanged on the street?
I agree with many of the comments so far. Leagalise it. Definately.
It is known as the oldest profession for a reason. It will not go away because we try to criminalise it. And there is no reason for it to be illegal in the first place. In terms of my personal feelings on it, they are irrelavant; all that is relevant is to ask why it should be made illegal. Most of the reasons given are to do with awful aspects such as mistreatment of women and child prostitution. As others have pointed out, the best way to tackle these issues is to make prostitution legal so that it is harder for the really nasty aspects to be hidden.
1. As was said above, if prostitution were made legal then the shady pimps and crack whore prostitutes would go out of business, and the more legit prostitution circles would come about. Dealing with mistreatment and stuff, that person would have legal rights under the law and all parties could take any of them to court.
Also, at least in the case of the American government, there would be many laws dealing with:
Testing of STD's (and most likely this would come from simple medical records being faxed to the place, and just a simple self test at some point before the act of sex, on the part of the customer. And, as it is the same for porn stars upon hiring, testing for the prostitutes as well. Obviously this never eliminates all of them, but it is certainly efficient.
2. On the part of humiliation, I think it's necessary to understand that in America one of the largest media businesses revolves around pornography, and with people who probably couldnt care less if they are humiliated or not. America houses the largest corporations for porn in the world, and many come here simply to make it big in that industry. And some of these stars, i'm sure, get turned on by this sort of humiliation in some sort of fashion. Legal prostitution allows for these people to make MORE money running a legit escort service. Having sex with one person and no one seeing it is certainly less humiliating then millions of videos being displayed of you worldwide performing sexual acts.
I have to say I am all for legalisation, its not going away, its known as the world's oldest profession for a reason. and I have to say I kind of object to knowing people are making money and not paying taxes on it. Plus I do think it would also reducce some of the human trafficing. Then again alot of the realy nasty human trafficing would still be going on becasue obvious child sex realted stuff is NEVER going to be leagl or at least SHOULD never be. But if we know more about the human trafficing moving then maybe it would be easier to find the people dealing in children?
Just a thought.
OK, it's settled then, correct?
So, who will take charge of writing this up and sending it to the floor of the House?
I apologize if that sounds flip, and perhaps it was, and this is a serious discussion.
So let me amend my comment to include that sometimes I think it is better not to legalize or illegalize a thing, but to remove legislation about it entirely. Kind of like not putting a foot path in right away, but watching where people walk and then deciding which is the best, safest most effective path.
~L
I am against legalizing prostitution.
I think there is something sacred about human intimacy, between any two people, and that the practice of prostitution violates this thing that is sacred. It violates it because prostitution is a hired intimacy, a unilateral relationship; it is not a sought-after and consensual relationship formed for the sake of intimacy itself. To legalize prostitution would send the message to society that such endeavors are not our ideal, and would leave the persons involved in such a practice without the guilty conscience of having acted counter to a human ideal.
You may ask, who is the legislator to say that one is to accord himself with the human ideals, when to act otherwise injures none other than the person himself? Who is the legislator to impose that condition on one's freedom?
The legislator would answer, who are you to use the microwave, to reheat your leftover chicken parmesan? You did not invent the microwave; you did not formulate the physics or engineer the devices. Your microwave is a gift from civilization; you are indebted to humanity.
Part of this debt is to pursue the few principles that have founded civilization. One of them is the pursuit of intimacy, the bonds that have made us a collective, a culture, a State. And, as I have already said, prostitution runs against this principle.
I think sex is a proof of intimacy. It makes a feeling into a fact. In the same way, law is a proof of morality. It makes an infraction undeniable, and recorded by law. Without it we could wade our way through the grey corners of morality without ever transgressing the lines that shape it. This is why prostitution should not only be immoral, but contrary to our laws.
Of course, there is an idealism to this, but I think we should put the human ideals into play when they are practical. The practical consequence of keeping it illegal is that illegal prostitution is less safe than legal prostitution. It will never go away, and people will always die from STDs contracted from prostitution. But this is a risk people take when they violate human intimacy, and spurn an ideal that has given them civilization and the microwave. Society is not responsible for the consequences of immoral action. If we wipe away the consequences, making it perfectly safe to engage in prostitution, then the perceived immorality of such a practice would fade with time, and we would eventually remove a block from the Jenga of civilization.
Done and dusted here, mate!Quote:
Originally Posted by LMK
Just move to NZ, the most liberal country on the planet.
How do you reconcile that sacredness with one-night stands, adultery and drunken debauchery? There's precious little sacred about that kind of sex, or were you looking to ban that behaviour as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm5124
Why is it "ideal"? Why does sex have anything to do with ideals? It seems to me that you're trying to push your own rather peculiar idea (and ideals) on what sex should be, and it isn't so much ideal as unreal.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm5124
It looks to me as though you're just confused, because I have no idea what you're trying to say here.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm5124
Now you're really confused, because law and morality are not related in any way beyond the morality of the majority being enforced as law. To me, it seems far more immoral to impose restrictions on what one may do with one's body than having paid sex.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm5124
Unfortunately, neither laws nor morality are universal, so your attempted point falls to bits. Bigamy is illegal in the west, yet sanctioned under Islam, while adultery is not illegal in the west, but punishable by death under some cultures.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm5124
You mean your ideals, because they certainly aren't mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm5124
This is terribly confused. Science gave us the microwave and while I think microwaves are stupid, useless things, I wouldn't seek to ban them. Odd that you're able to see that illegal prostitution is more likely to cause harm than legal prostitution, yet you see banning it as "ideal".Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm5124
No, this is just fallacy. You're attempting to use legalisation as a slippery slope and it clearly is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm5124
I wasn't using the adjective form of "ideal", I was using the noun form. There's a difference. You twisted my words.
What don't you understand about the fact that we have a give-and-take relationship with our cultural inheritance? You may not care about the microwave (I do), but that computer you're using was inherited; you may have spent $1,000-$2,000 for it, but that is nowhere close to repaying the two or three thousand years of progress in science and engineering that went into its manufacture.
These are the things we "take" from our inheritance. A part of what we give back is love and affection for others, and reverence for the human capacity to love. But prostitution runs against this idea, in that it is a purchased, unilateral pseudo-relationship. People owe it to the world to become a good person.
No, I have not. You can use "ideal" as a noun, but it's only an ideal if the result is ideal. You're the one playing semantics with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm5124
Sorry, but this is meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm5124
The history of science has got nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, nor does the history of morality.
In case you missed it, morality is not universal, so the idea of any "ideal" is simply fantasy.
They most certainly do not. People don't owe anything - we are brought into the world through no choice of our own and we owe nothing at all to anyone, ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm5124
Instead of making up your argument as you go along, why don't you look at - and answer - some of the clear points I made. I'll repeat the most important ones:
In what way is a drunken one-night stand as morally desirable as sex during marriage?
Should adulterers be stoned?
If you can get past those couple of easy ones you might like to scroll up and answer some of the others.
people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want regarding their own lives even if its damn stupid. what is it with all these preachers trying to drag a flock of sheep around, screaming "i have seen the light"; take care of your own lantern, people. if everyone took care of their own lives instead of trying to decide what everyone else should be doing, this world would certainly be much more civilized place.
the problem of this world started EXACTLY when one mighty dude grabbed a stick and said "everyone, listen to me, i know better". no one knows anything, and everyone is equally stupid. if you like prostitutes, go ahead and have them. you if you like being a prostitute, good for you. who cares, do whatever you want and be happy with the crap you chose for yourself, but just make sure that you were the one who chose it and not someone else. no one owns the right to judge anything, everyone is just as stupid and imperfect as the next person.
grab your prostitutes and your crack and be happy, whatever you want is fine.
just dont come into my hypercube and tell me what i should be doing.
Bingo!Quote:
Originally Posted by weltanschauung
You damned libertarian you!
:)
Umm Atheist I could be wrong ( but I dont think I am- Im on about the semantics rather than the rules) but youve got it a bit wrong. Bigamy where by the spouses are unaware of each other is not sanctioned in Islam, it falls under the secret marraiges thing where by secret marraiges are null and void becasue the purpose is to let everyone know you are married-its why there is always so much dramatics about it in egyptian ssoap poeras because while legal in the law of the land they are illegal in religion law ( the visa versa also can be done) -. Anyway were was I . Oh yes Bigamy is a nono. Its Polygyny ( one man many wives where everyone knows about everyone else- and actually there is a fixed number. ) That is OK. And actually there is currently this massive debate going on as to whether really that was supposed to be a law applicable only in times of extrodinary circumstances but has been dragged on dilbratly far far too long.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
:D
You're quite right, of course! (although the word is polygamy, I think)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
No Polygyny is right ( athough doubting my spelling is always a good thing to do!) Polygyny being one man many wives as opposed to polygamy.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
OED deffintions
Quote:
polygamy, n--1. a. The practice or custom of having more than one spouse at the same time. Contrasted with monogamy.
Chiefly applied to the practice or custom (more explicitly called polygyny) in which a man has several wives at once, but also including polyandry, in which a woman has several husbands.
Sometimes also used with reference to sexual partners rather than spouses.
.
polygyny, n.--- 1. A form of polygamy in which a man has more than one wife at the same time. Cf. POLYANDRY n. 1a.
nightshade, whats with you and all the defense of misogynistic causes?
im foe-ing you.
What you've decided I am a foe? :lol:
hey I didn't say I was FOR it, I said that's OK in islamic theory.
Something like 78% of people cheat with in the first year of marriage anyway, so how is making it official any worse than accepting the fact that most people can't stay the course of monogamy? but that is an OT point when this is about prostitution.
Last year my flatmates and I got into a debate about prostitution and the point arose that in some case marriage and prostitution aren't really that far apart. When you get married you are basically officially promising to have sex with someone for the rest of your life m( or until you get divorced) in exhcange for other things. Or less sex realted you are promising to exchange certain thinsg ( security, patership, friendship, love whatever) in exchange for things in return.
Silly me, doubting you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
Marriage is a lot more expensive than hookers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
OK, I am pulling out my trump cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by weltanschauung
"That which enslaves us all, vulgarity." (Goethe)
Matthew Arnold was fond of this quote. He believed that power could not be located in any one of the classes: he termed the working-class the Populace, the middle-class the Philistines, and the aristocracy the Barbarians. He argued that there are problems in making any one of these classes the ruling class -- the gist of it can be understood from his nomenclature. He argued, instead, that we must invest power in the State, so that it may produce the best self in all of us through the means of Culture. How did he define culture? He proclaimed culture to be the best that has been thought or said; it is the pursuit of perfection.
Now, I am not one to jump on the bandwagon -- a few years ago, I was quite a detestable, ultra-liberal atheist. However, reading Arnold's essay Culture and Anarchy has changed my views, and I have come to largely support his stance on culture and individual freedom. I think that legalizing prostitution will have a pernicious effect on culture, since law and culture are inseparable. This will affect all of us, not only the person involved; it will rob from the coffers of the collective.
Max Weber once argued that Protestantism and particularly Calvinism gave us the work ethic required for capitalism. However, at the end of his immortal essay, in a supreme pathos for humanity, he lamented the erosion of religion and foreboded the autonomy of capitalism.
Richard Sennnett, in his seminal work The Corrosion of Character, took this trend one step further than Weber. He argued that not only has the source of our work ethic, religion, eroded, but the work ethic itself, and the very thing we call "character," are quickly vanishing. He argues that the Fordist work ethic is being replaced by a new regime of flexible accumulation, in which risk-taking, chance, and simply being available to move to a new job are largely what determine success in the job market.
So you see, The Atheist, that the very religion that you renounce gave you your capitalist society. In fact, an extreme form of the religion you renounce -- Calvinism -- perhaps gave you your computer. While religion had its faults, it had some kind of culture to it, in which a work ethos and ethical discipline were thoroughly developed. While a return to religion is not the solution, we still need culture to correct the maladies of our time -- we need to take the good from religion and leave the bad. And people need the humility to accept some of these teachings as law, since, after all, it is the best that has been thought or said. Who are you in comparison?
By legalizing prostitution, we will only contribute to the maladies of modern culture, which Weber and Sennnett identify through their life-long research. We simply need something to teach us ethical discipline, because it is shown by sociology that when left to our own resources we, as a people, are too stupid to be disciplined.
Besides, legalizing incest is not a far cry away from legalizing prostitution. By weltanschauung's logic, incestual sex hurts no one so long as birth control (or sterilization for sure measure) are employed.
OK, The Atheist, now I will quickly do away with your questions.
1. Of course a drunken one-night stand is not as morally desirable as marital sex. However, let's make recourse to the Goethe quote: "That which enslaves us all, vulgarity". Do you think he meant all kinds of vulgarity in this quote? Of course not, he meant only those kinds that epitomize vulgarity. One-night stands do not; prostitution does; one is bilateral (however hasty), and the other is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
2. Of course adulterers should not be stoned. The real question, of course, that you do not respect me enough to ask, is whether adultery should be illegal. As I said before, prostitution epitomizes vulgarity; adultery does not. Furthermore, a marriage is a complex relationship and adultery a complex consequence; prostitution, on the other hand, is a simple degradation. Lastly, a law against adultery would be impractical and impossible to enforce.
I would like to remind people to respect everyone’s opinions and beliefs. The purpose of this thread is not to criticise individual posters, posts or opinions but to discuss the matter at hand, i.e. Prostitution. Further infringement of forum ruleswill lead to the deletion of posts and/or the closing of this thread without further warning.
Thank you and have a nice day,
Nightshade
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
Given the direction of the thread, I'll just restructure my other posts to finish up with this, which is the nub of the problem:
This is subjective opinion only and I don't agree with it at all. It's simply an a priori assumption, based on a morality I have no wish to embrace. As it's the cornerstone of your argument, there's nothing else to discuss.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm5124
Ok I have a point: Prostitution is known as the world's oldest profession, right?
SO Does anyone belive it can be irradicated? Should it be? Does it in fact provide a vital role to society though many may find it distasteful?
I dont know the answers they are just question points that came to mind.
:D
You know, I am just substituting prostitution with homosexuality in your post, and you, sir/madam, creep me out.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm5124
Also, Calvinism is responsible for a terrible anti-humanistic, masochistic, work-hating (yes, work-hating - by making work a punishment you take all the joy out of working) worldview. Occasionally I think that it is a curse.
I like to think that it was not only the god-damned Calvinism but also, for example, Humanism, Enlightenment, Positivism, Pragmatism etc which are responsible for my computer. So saying that if we start to go into conflict with the religious/calvinist worldview, we are on the swift course to hell, because that's the system all our society is based on is ignoring that we also have a bunch of pragmatic, humanist, utilitarian, rationalist principles that also uphold our society.
It seems that we have two camps here: "Sex is sacred!" and "Legalize prostitution!"
It just dawned on me that there is a wonderful compromise between those two camps, with a long historical tradition: Sacred prostitution!
It has a long tradition in Mesopotamia, after all, so why couldn't modern religion learn a bit and carry on the ancient and proud tradition of temple prostitution?
Inanna of the Hosts! Why didn't I think of this earlier? Quick! Does anybody know the e-mail of the Pope? I think I have an interesting suggestion to make.
I support gay marriage. I have gay friends. Some of my favorite writers were gay. I'm not against homosexuality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taliesin
A lot of what I have posted in this thread has been ironic melodrama ;) Everyone was arguing for legalizing prostitution so I thought I would play devil's advocate :) I am unsure of my real stance, though I may actually lean towards the position I took in this thread; if I am on the fence then I sway towards keeping it illegal. What I said does resonate with me.
And the "substitution" you made of homosexuality for prostitution doesn't work because there is nothing vulgar about homosexuality; what is vulgar about love? Even if you're not against prostitution, you probably have a low opinion of it, whereas you do not have a low opinion of homosexuality. These are the objective differences.
I never said that. Where did I ever mention hell? I am not even religious, although I have a lot of respect for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taliesin
I used Arnold's definition of culture as the best that has been thought or said. This includes all of those humanist, utilitarian, rationalist principles that you speak of.
The thing we can learn from religion, though, is how good it is at fostering ethical discipline. This is what I meant when I said "take the good and leave the bad". I think we should learn from it to create a strong modern culture that maintains that same moral and ethical discipline. Things like work ethic; kindness to your neighbors, peers, and co-workers; charity; strong families; appreciation for arts and education, etc.
I'm pretty sure there's strong evidence that removal of prostitution would clamp a large pressue valve on certain sexual practices which would ultimately blaze into social problems. The link between sexual violence and availability of parn is now completely established, and it's not drawing a long bow to link prostitution with porn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
Knowing many hookers and the behaviour and sexual requests of their "clients", I think it's pretty likely, myself.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Taliesin
I know, but any arguments against gay marriage (and gay people inQuote:
Originally Posted by ktm5124
general) are of the type "it would destroy our civilization" (well, except the "it's against my religion" and "yuck" arguments which are just outright ridiculous)
By the way, I think I don't have low opinion of all kinds of prostitutes - I think that, for example, courtesans from different cultures do have an air of respectability and style.
Quote:
I never said that. Where did I ever mention hell? I am not even religious, although I have a lot of respect for it.
I used Arnold's definition of culture as the best that has been thought or said. This includes all of those humanist, utilitarian, rationalist principles that you speak of.
The thing we can learn from religion, though, is how good it is at fostering ethical discipline. This is what I meant when I said "take the good and leave the bad". I think we should learn from it to create a strong modern culture that maintains that same moral and ethical discipline. Things like work ethic; kindness to your neighbors, peers, and co-workers; charity; strong families; appreciation for arts and education, etc.
Anyhow, sorry for misinterpreting your words, but I think I now understand better what you meant - did you mean that if we legalize prostitution, people's sense of moral discipline will weaken, causing generally bad things elsewhere? And that religion in general is good at maintaining that sort of discipline?
If I understood you correctly this time, I can't help but to feel a sort or Victorian thinking here - we're all morally upright people since we don't allow prostitution like those folks there but we still frequent prostitutes, only we do it underground - it feels like shoving the problem under the carpet. Of course, if the society has high standards then people can aspire to follow those standards but it also creates a lot of stress when people fail to do so and people become more neurotic compared to a more lax society. I think.
Also, we have the possibility to check whether the hypothesis holds water - Atheist, you seem to live in a society where they allow such things that weaken people's moral discipline - can you see any effects of it? Is the level of divorces, orphans, abortions, junkies, criminals etc higher than in other countries with a similar background?
You can't compare country with country, but in the cases of Holland and a few Euro countries, now plus NZ, we can see the results of legalisation in the change of morals with the countries, albeit over a short term. So far, no adverse effects have shown up, and there is anecdotal evidence that crime is reduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taliesin
It's still too early to tell for sure, but society hasn't shown any signs of falling apart. Holland appears to show some very positive results from their liberal attitude to drugs & sex, but proving the causality isn't easy.
OK, so I am going to approach this topic seriously (as opposed to melodramatically as before). The Atheist, I apologize for being a bit obnoxious earlier on. By the way, I don't mean to argue this ad nauseam; I have a continuing interest in the debate, especially since I am tentative in my position and could be swayed either way.
I think the real reason I lean against prostitution (partly outlined by my previous posts) is because I fear the effect that mass culture has on arts and literature. I think we see it already in how sky-high tickets to the theatre can be, compared to tickets to the movies. Also, we see it in the decline of popularity of poetry. I believe the root of this is that the tastes of society, at large, are not intellectually, culturally, and ethically sophisticated enough to uphold the arts and literature on a more popular level. I realize this is sounds a bit elitist, but I don't know how to put it in any other way.
I see prostitution as one of those things that could indirectly contribute to this mentality -- the under-appreciation of arts and literature. Much like pulp fiction and Hollywood movies, prostitution is a short-term pleasure; it might encourage the mindset of squandering money for such transient purposes rather than saving it for long-term gains. Of course, it is also far worse than these things I have compared it to, as you are selling not only your money but your body.
I agree, though, that one-night stands resemble prostitution too closely to draw a distinct line between the two. It is clear, then, that keeping prostitution illegal is more about setting an example and sending a message to society, than actually trying to get rid of prostitution or similar practices. We can set this example and send a message through education, as well, but I don't think that is sufficient; I'm not sure how easy it would be to incorporate information about prostitution in a school curriculum, in any case.
weltanschauung, I encourage you to reproduce your PM here, since it is a trenchant reply to this issue that I raise. I would like to hear others' thoughts as well. I think that I am now putting myself in much more concrete terms (now that I am being completely serious) in citing my concern for arts and literature and other such tastes in relation to culture.
[QUOTE=ktm5124;757245]OK, so I am going to approach this topic seriously (as opposed to melodramatically as before). The Atheist, I apologize for being a bit obnoxious earlier on. By the way, I don't mean to argue this ad nauseam; I have a continuing interest in the debate, especially since I am tentative in my position and could be swayed either way.[/QUOE]
Fair enough, taken.
Everyone makes mistakes - admitting to them is a bit rarer!
Two things: I don't see the link at all, prostitution is about sex & power and I can't see how it affects arts at all. On your basis, all short-term pleasures would detract from arts and we'd be banning restaurant meals, gambling and any forms of gratification.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm5124
Secondly, since it's been reasonably well established that legalisation doesn't mean a proliferation of bordellos & hookers, what's going to change? We've had prostitution for thousands of years, during which time the arts have progressed pretty well.
Well, in terms of education the link is that more education lowers STD and teen pregnancy rates, so it certainly works. Not sure teaching kids about hookers at school's likely to happen!Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm5124
This is a mask or a title given by society; and society is also a masquerade, a bunch of This is really a hard question to answer in point of fact. Man evolutionarily speaking seems a very self centered person and all he does even acts of charity is not out of benevolence or altruism or philanthropy for that matter.
Every act of religious duty is motivated or instigated by a desire of securing a place in heaven, another world of luxury or sumptuousness or anything we do in the name of social welfare or philanthropy is out of the motive to earn popularity.
Then why is not man’s act is selfish ideas and ideologue or idée fixe. Prostitution is a tag on persons. Every one of us is sneakily a prostitute, as we have glands of sex that secrets sexual hormone. It is totally a biological content, and we kind of philosophizing or moralizing the issue.
In fact man evolutionarily an animal and we through books of religions is divinizing or giving man a status that is higher than animals.