Legal prostitution, a surprise benefit

[Derec]

This is a good point. It's not like the illegality of prostitution causes some kind of scarcity in the availability of prostitution that is remedied by making it legal.

Surely making it legal makes it more accessible.

Anyone who wants to go to a prostitute can go to a prostitute and, given the low priority of vice squads and the like by police forces, they can do so without much regard for legal consequences.

Unfortunately, that is not quite true. Anti sex-work raids do happen quite regularly, and innocent people get arrested for no good reason, other than to placate illiberals on both left and right.

 

[Derec]

the loser who has to pay for women.

 

[Treedbear]

the loser who has to pay for women.

That's not the point. Having enough money is only part of the equation. (Couldn't watch the video.)

 

[Derec]

That's not the point. Having enough money is only part of the equation. (Couldn't watch the video.)

You are calling people "losers" just because they are overtly paying for sex, instead of paying for sex covertly. That was the point.

 

[laughing dog]

That's not the point. Having enough money is only part of the equation. (Couldn't watch the video.)

You are calling people "losers" just because they are overtly paying for sex, instead of paying for sex covertly. That was the point.

Except the "covert" point assumes that sex is purely a transaction of some sort. How do a couple in loving relationship "pay" for sex?

 

[Derec]

Except the "covert" point assumes that sex is purely a transaction of some sort. How do a couple in loving relationship "pay" for sex?

Dinners, flowers, jewelery, and eventually alimony and child support payments. Cheaper just to pay a la carte.

 

[iolo]

I suppose some sort of prostitution should be provided as a social service for the vast numbers of sexual inadequates under capitalism, but to show up the nature of the system's human relations so seems a bit obvious, doesn't it?

 

[sharon45]

I'm not going to trust this one, because at the moment, I don't quite accept there is this much of a thing as "rape just for the sex."

The thing is what else explains it? Neighbor states didn't see the decline. They didn't see a decline in other crime, only rape. Something cut the rape rate, and only the rape rate, 30% while it was legal.

I want to see many more examples of this; if only other states would kindly oblige.

 

[Treedbear]

That's not the point. Having enough money is only part of the equation. (Couldn't watch the video.)

You are calling people "losers" just because they are overtly paying for sex, instead of paying for sex covertly. That was the point.

It's a generalization of course, but "loser" implies not being able to provide or foster commitment with someone of the opposite sex. I'm not calling them that. I'm commenting on a social stigma in some cultures.

 

[rousseau]

Correlation is not causation.

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

You didn't address my actual point. Prostitution is readily available already. Try googling escort services or asian massage parlors.

This is a good point. It's not like the illegality of prostitution causes some kind of scarcity in the availability of prostitution that is remedied by making it legal.

Anyone who wants to go to a prostitute can go to a prostitute and, given the low priority of vice squads and the like by police forces, they can do so without much regard for legal consequences.

The legality barrier is a big one, imo.

There is a stark difference between figuring out how to find a prostitute, and covertly doing so, with walking down the street and knocking on a door.

I liken it to marijuana access in Ontario. I try to avoid the drug if I can, and the fact that I need a go between, and to sneak into someone's home is enough of a deterrent that avoidance is easy. But once I can drive down the road and pick from a whole shelf of varieties, and carry it home in broad daylight, avoidance is much harder.

Similarly, if you're someone thinking of committing rape because your hormones are raging and you have no outlet, what's easier: committing a crime, or walking down the street? Between the two the choice is easy, and the fact that the legal avenue is there makes it a no-brainer.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Surely making it legal makes it more accessible.

Anyone who wants to go to a prostitute can go to a prostitute and, given the low priority of vice squads and the like by police forces, they can do so without much regard for legal consequences.

Unfortunately, that is not quite true. Anti sex-work raids do happen quite regularly, and innocent people get arrested for no good reason, other than to placate illiberals on both left and right.

That's fair. It is another barrier in the way of people choosing this option, which makes it less of a viable option.

I now remember from my time living in Atlanta the shocked expressions on reporters' faces when they did their one-a-year report about police raids on all the massage parlours around town and how everyone was terribly surprised to yet again discover that there was prostitution going on in them, so the raids do happen.

 

[Derec]

I now remember from my time living in Atlanta the shocked expressions on reporters' faces when they did their one-a-year report about police raids on all the massage parlours around town and how everyone was terribly surprised to yet again discover that there was prostitution going on in them, so the raids do happen.

Tell me about it! It seems they do these raids whenever soccer moms in the neignhborhood start complaining.

 

[sharon45]

I didn't necessarily mean you, but there are many pro-criminalization people both among posters here and among politicians.

Yes, I just wanted to make my stance known.

Why do you "severely disagree" with it? If adults have autonomy over their bodies, should they not be free to decide why they engage in sex?

They do have that right; that's why I am not for keeping it illegal. However, just because I feel people should be allowed to freely choose something or not, that doesn't necessarily eqate that I ultimately approve of their final decision.

I largely clash with many other forms of work too, yet that dosen't necessarily mean any of them should be outlawed.

Interesting. What for example?

I don't wish to derail this thread; so I'll only leave it at that I have a problem with numerous services, out of government and private/public companies, which help to keep individuals from being as independent as possible.

 

[laughing dog]

Except the "covert" point assumes that sex is purely a transaction of some sort. How do a couple in loving relationship "pay" for sex?

Dinners, flowers, jewelery, and eventually alimony and child support payments. Cheaper just to pay a la carte.

Once again, you assume that sex is purely a transaction of some sort. That is not necessarily the case, especially for couples in a loving relationship.

 

[sharon45]

It's probably more to do with the social stigma when your picture appears in the paper as the loser who has to pay for women.

And they could say: "We all essentially pay for sex in many different ways."

 

[sharon45]

Surely making it legal makes it more accessible.

Anyone who wants to go to a prostitute can go to a prostitute and, given the low priority of vice squads and the like by police forces, they can do so without much regard for legal consequences.

Unfortunately, that is not quite true. Anti sex-work raids do happen quite regularly, and innocent people get arrested for no good reason, other than to placate illiberals on both left and right.

I can imagine many could get an extra positive kick from prostitution, specifically because it is largely illegal. This adds to its sexual naughiness.

 

[Treedbear]

It's probably more to do with the social stigma when your picture appears in the paper as the loser who has to pay for women.

And they could say: "We all essentially pay for sex in many different ways."

See post #29:

You are calling people "losers" just because they are overtly paying for sex, instead of paying for sex covertly. That was the point.

It's a generalization of course, but "loser" implies not being able to provide or foster commitment with someone of the opposite sex. I'm not calling them that. I'm commenting on a social stigma in some cultures.

 

[sharon45]

And they could say: "We all essentially pay for sex in many different ways."

See post #29:

You are calling people "losers" just because they are overtly paying for sex, instead of paying for sex covertly. That was the point.

It's a generalization of course, but "loser" implies not being able to provide or foster commitment with someone of the opposite sex. I'm not calling them that. I'm commenting on a social stigma in some cultures.

This is just part of the aspect, with even love being many times a simple transaction, but of emotions.

 

[rousseau]

The idea of a mutual relationship being made up of 'transactions' is a weird one to me. Yes, relationships are often contingent on things like finances and genuine emotion, but the relationships where partner's actually treat each other like bank accounts they can debit from, are usually the shittiest relationships, with the shittiest people, who end up divorced.

 

[Treedbear]

See post #29:

You are calling people "losers" just because they are overtly paying for sex, instead of paying for sex covertly. That was the point.

It's a generalization of course, but "loser" implies not being able to provide or foster commitment with someone of the opposite sex. I'm not calling them that. I'm commenting on a social stigma in some cultures.

This is just part of the aspect, with even love being many times a simple transaction, but of emotions.

There are those of us having few resources of either. Society values both types, but humanity puts a premium on the latter.