Why can't "right to privacy" be used to force legalization of prostitution?

[arkirk]

What's an MCP? And I want to make it legal, which would help everybody involved, prostitutes, clients, the city itself.

It is almost as if he were saying no society can be really healthy without a significant prostitution factor in it.

How significant a factor it is should be determined by supply and demand, not threat of arrest and prosecution.

In many parts of the world it is just "sex work." Somehow those places (Thailand for example) are not really an improvement over our country.

The big problem with Thailand is that they do not do enough to stamp out child prostitution. So theirs a too hands off attitude.

- - - Updated - - -

Abortion is a medical procedure, and medicine is given a special treatment in privacy law. You'll have a hard time arguing that prostitution is a medical procedure.

Well it does concern the human body and it's basic functions.

Maybe next step after legalization is to get it on Obamacare

Derec: MCP =MALE CHAUVANIST PIG. What seems to be lacking here is the understanding that sex for pay is not sex for sex's sake or any other interest than to get money, whether for pimps or for the girls in the business. I think it is only a kind of desperation that would force a woman or man into prostitution and in a healthy economy, prostitution would be absent. That does not mean you can write laws and make it go away without dealing with underlying problems that lead to prostitution.

If you feel this occupation is healthy and leads to the greatest good for the prostitute, just walk down the street and pick the very next man or woman you see and imagine yourself having sex with them, getting paid then asked to leave. There is nothing to recommend it except that it may be regarded as easy money by some, who have ever dwindling chances of health sexual relations in their future. I have known a lot of prostitutes in my life and they all were in it because they saw very limited opportunity outside prostitution for them to meet their needs. They were hardened to romance and to any notion of anything leading to a happier tomorrow. That doesn't seem to have changed.

Lastly, I do believe there is such a thing as sexual addiction and prostitution seems to hold some people captive long past the best part of their career. Aging prostitutes seem like they have very little chance at legitimate careers after their stint as a prostitute. That is not because of rap sheets, but because of sexual addiction. We all pretend there is such a thing as hip and safe and rewarding in this activity that truly robs people of anything but a kind of twisted money based sexuality.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

If I go to a prostitute and have sex with her in her hotel room how is that not private? Why should exchange of money make it non-private?

If two people have sex in a hotel room, make a video of it, and post it on the internet, would you still call that "private" just because they did it in a hotel room? I doubt it.

Oral copulation and sodomy performed in private between consenting adults are lawful and do not constitute an independently defined crime. In other words, at the time the video was made it was a private act because it had not yet been posted. Intent could modify that but I don't know of sure. For example, if the video was made with the intent of the parties to publish it, it may then not be a private act. But I don't think that argument would go very far because at the time the video was made, it was not public and could have very well stayed that way.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/20/4_r...er/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

4 reasons to decriminalize prostitution

1. Protect sex workers.



2. Reduce sex trafficking and street prostitution.




3. Reduce rape and STDs among sex workers.



4. Cut government expenditures and increase tax revenues.

 

[RavenSky]

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/20/4_r...er/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

4 reasons to decriminalize prostitution

1. Protect sex workers.



2. Reduce sex trafficking and street prostitution.




3. Reduce rape and STDs among sex workers.



4. Cut government expenditures and increase tax revenues.

yeah, but Salon.com is not a liberal-leaning publication.

Oh, wait...

 

[credoconsolans]

What do you consider "sleazy" and how do you quantify it?

Sleazy: Shabby, dirty, and vulgar; tawdry

Obviously brothels have and can advertise by hanging out shingles of naked people, various sexual organs, have women posing in windows, dressed scantily.

Even Amsterdam couldn't make the red light district look high end and classy. And they had many years to try.

And making it safer is a good step.

Well, it's much safer for the Johns. The prostitutes still risk torn condoms and STDs after which they're promptly fired. I hope they have good pension benefits after catching a disease and getting tossed. The infected John is, of course, welcome to come back.

Not wasting time and money on trying to bust voluntary prostitutes and their clients with sting operations while collecting taxes is yet another benefit although those freed resources could be used to go after actual traffickers more.

Actually that pretty much makes legalizing the profession a break-even proposition. We legalize a crime to pay for pursuing those who still pursue the same profession illegally.

So it's a tossup between proving legal, safe jobs, making another source of taxable income, while driving up bureaucracy costs and lowering property values around brothels while not really curbing the profession as a crime.

Even under your assessment it seems a quite clear net positive, although it could be improved.

I don't see it as a 'clear net positive'. It failed to do the one thing it was sold to the populace that it would do - End illegal sex trafficking.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

I don't see it as a 'clear net positive'. It failed to do the one thing it was sold to the populace that it would do - End illegal sex trafficking.

I don't think that's a realistic goal anyway. Look at alcohol. It's legal, controlled, regulated, and heavily taxed. But that doesn't prevent all the bullshit that surrounds the consumption of it. All the physical abuse, car accidents, underage use, etc.

Prohibition had noble goals. To end the scourge of alcohol. But it did nothing of the sort. Instead it went underground (barely) and law enforcement had to spend huge resources fighting it. For whatever reason, the human need to alter its consciousness isn't going away. So all you can do is manage it.

The same applies here. It's called the world's oldest profession for a reason.

It will never be wholly clean and crime-free. And it will never go away. The only sensible thing to do is to legalize and begin to manage it. And with a focus on sex trafficking rather than employing idiotic sting operations to bust some horny guy and a desperate woman, it'll unclog the system to some degree. It won't be perfect. But it will be better than what we have now: an impossible goal of stopping something that has never been and never will be stopped.

 

[Toni]

I don't see it as a 'clear net positive'. It failed to do the one thing it was sold to the populace that it would do - End illegal sex trafficking.

I don't think that's a realistic goal anyway. Look at alcohol. It's legal, controlled, regulated, and heavily taxed. But that doesn't prevent all the bullshit that surrounds the consumption of it. All the physical abuse, car accidents, underage use, etc.

Prohibition had noble goals. To end the scourge of alcohol. But it did nothing of the sort. Instead it went underground (barely) and law enforcement had to spend huge resources fighting it. For whatever reason, the human need to alter its consciousness isn't going away. So all you can do is manage it.

The same applies here. It's called the world's oldest profession for a reason.

It will never be wholly clean and crime-free. And it will never go away. The only sensible thing to do is to legalize and begin to manage it. And with a focus on sex trafficking rather than employing idiotic sting operations to bust some horny guy and a desperate woman, it'll unclog the system to some degree. It won't be perfect. But it will be better than what we have now: an impossible goal of stopping something that has never been and never will be stopped.

However, re- legalization of alcohol production and consumption HAS tremendously reduced the amount of illegal and unsafe production alcohol for sale.

Unfortunately, legalizing prostitution has not seemed to do that. Women and children are still being trafficked. In Amsterdam. Legalization will never come close to addressing why some people wish to have sex with children and why some people are turned on by the ability to procure something forbidden, and to force someone to do something because they paid money.

Honestly, I do wish that I believed that legalizing prostitution would make a dent in trafficking of children and underaged kids and unwilling adults. I just haven't seen evidence that it does that.

We already have tools that make it possible--easy, even, to treat underaged victims as victims rather than criminals. Some jurisdictions do just that. Others continue to treat 10 year old sex workers as criminals.

 

[zorq]

Nevermind.

 

[Malintent]

none of those are "special rights" - they are only your twisted exaggerations to further your anti-women, anti-minority postings on this board.

And finally, and relevant to this
- claiming that women are, by definition, victims of prostitution even if they engage in it voluntarily and earn good money (which is radical feminist dogma) while men who buy services or prostitutes are a bunch of oppressors (also radical feminist digma) is special rights.

More baseless twisted exaggerations on your part.

and your vile language ("femifisting" for instance).

I do not think that ridiculous, extremist, misandrist forum needs to be given any respect whatsoever.

Had you limited yourself to saying "I do not think that ridiculous, extremist, misandrist forum needs to be given any respect whatsoever", I would have no objection whether I agreed with you or not.

It is your CONTINUOUS vile vicious disgusting language with regard to women and minorities. It is the CONSTANT use of words like "feminazi" and "thug" to refer to "women" and "black men". And don't try to pretend that you only use such anti-women, anti-minority language in select situations, because you use it in EVERY thread that remotely touches on any issue pertaining to women or blacks.

Back to the topic, I happen to agree that prostitution should be legal (and highly regulated) and that "privacy" might be a valid avenue to argue for it. Unfortunately, due to your very very very long history on these boards of the very same vile disgusting anti-women, anti-minority language I just commented on, I can't take your advocacy for legalized prostitution as coming from a place of caring about the women.

It is a FACT that too many women are forced into prostitution, and/or forced to stay prostitutes. It is a FACT that the sex worker trade is full of violence against women. It is a FACT that most prostitution is not actually truly "consensual". I think all of those issues could be addressed in sensible legislation that would necessarily include financial aid to women (and gay men) to allow them to chose NOT to prostitute themselves because they have no other financial options. Other civilized countries have done it. The U.S. could too.

The problem is not, in my opinion, liberals "in US these days opposes prostitution due to its alliance with radical feminism". The problem is people like you who want prostitution legalized, but ignore/deny/don't give a shit about the very real anti-women issues involved in the industry. And before you try to whine that the previous sentence was another attack on your character, it wasn't. It was an observation of your comments - starting with the OP - in this thread. It was all a bunch of frothing at the mouth about "radical feminists"; but not even a single observation of the horrors women do IN FACT experience in the sex worker trade with any ideas on how to protect women in this push for legalization.

I disagree with Raven... mostly to hear her take on how oppressed women are because of my posting history (If I can get that lucky)... but also because she is just flat wrong. ALL of those things ARE special rights... <snip>- - - Updated - - -

But you MIGHT notice that you cannot use 'right to privacy' to practice medicine. The State still controls who gets to cut into who and under what conditions. so not everything in the transaction is based on 'right to privacy.' Your 'right to privacy' would probably cover your choice of who to fuck. Getting money for it is still a discrete function.

Interestingly, there is one circumstance where getting paid to have sex is legal in US jurisdictions other than Nevada, and it occurs when the idea of privacy is explicitly absent - the making of pornography.

Truly, American law makers are nuts.

This is curious... that I never thought of this, that is... but indeed... WHY is being paid to have sex on camera legal, but absent the camera, it is illegal? I need to understand that....

 

[dystopian]

Unfortunately, legalizing prostitution has not seemed to do that. Women and children are still being trafficked. In Amsterdam.

Actually, reports on sex trafficking in Amsterdam show the problem to be routinely overstated by politicians/police; with the actual number of cases having dramatically decreased and representing only a small number to begin with. It also shows that the majority of trafficking cases in Amsterdam happened in cases involving illegal (unregulated) prostitution; as opposed to the regulated variety. ( http://www.bestuur.centrum.amsterda...kken/ABST20140909-05-ProgPros-BestMonitor.pdf - dutch report )

There's an interesting article written by a blogger who'se a Romanian prostitute living/working in Amsterdam on this issue, who very much takes the opposite view as you on legalization (in fact, anyone who wants to talk about prostitution from any side should probably read her blog, she's likely to take away quite a few illusions about issues surrounding prostitution, at least in Amsterdam): http://behindtheredlightdistrict.blogspot.nl/2014/09/less-human-trafficking-in-amsterdam.html

http://behindtheredlightdistrict.bl...max=2016-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=43] (Both links in english)

tl;dr version: Human trafficking does happen in Amsterdam (as it does everywhere), but it is nowhere near as common as its often made out to be (generally by people with an explicit interest in having it appear to be a big problem) and legalization *does* in fact decrease the numbers.

 

[fromderinside]

It would seem right up the privacy alley really. I mean if it can be used to legalize abortion, a much less private act, why not prostitution?
From a legal standpoint I can't think of any reason why right to privacy should apply to one, but not the other. From the ideological standpoint, of course, what passes for "liberal" in US these days opposes prostitution due to its alliance with radical feminism so I can't believe the likes of Sotomayor or Kagan would vote for it, although I do think Ginsburg and Breyer could be principled enough to extend right to privacy to consensual commercial sex.

When the playing field is already so uneven it's tough to determine whether there is a willing seller. Is it "I'll give you money for labor which you willingly accept" or is it "you'll get 20 bucks because you needing money and being willing to have sex in trade for it is illegal because that's how men wrote the laws"?

 

[Toni]

Unfortunately, legalizing prostitution has not seemed to do that. Women and children are still being trafficked. In Amsterdam.

Actually, reports on sex trafficking in Amsterdam show the problem to be routinely overstated by politicians/police; with the actual number of cases having dramatically decreased and representing only a small number to begin with. It also shows that the majority of trafficking cases in Amsterdam happened in cases involving illegal (unregulated) prostitution; as opposed to the regulated variety. ( http://www.bestuur.centrum.amsterda...kken/ABST20140909-05-ProgPros-BestMonitor.pdf - dutch report )

There's an interesting article written by a blogger who'se a Romanian prostitute living/working in Amsterdam on this issue, who very much takes the opposite view as you on legalization (in fact, anyone who wants to talk about prostitution from any side should probably read her blog, she's likely to take away quite a few illusions about issues surrounding prostitution, at least in Amsterdam): http://behindtheredlightdistrict.blogspot.nl/2014/09/less-human-trafficking-in-amsterdam.html

http://behindtheredlightdistrict.bl...max=2016-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=43] (Both links in english)

tl;dr version: Human trafficking does happen in Amsterdam (as it does everywhere), but it is nowhere near as common as its often made out to be (generally by people with an explicit interest in having it appear to be a big problem) and legalization *does* in fact decrease the numbers.

When one talks about sex trafficking, one certainly is referring to illegal prostitution.

I do not have the time at the moment to read your link but I have read what a number of different sex workers have written about their experiences where prostitution is legal, such as Nevada and Amsterdam. There is still trafficking, still physical and sexual abuse, still coercion according to these women.

Isn't it just as likely that supporters of legalized sex trade minimize the dangers and abuses?

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

This is curious... that I never thought of this, that is... but indeed... WHY is being paid to have sex on camera legal, but absent the camera, it is illegal? I need to understand that....

I posted this on the previous page. It's the Court's basic distinction between the two.


Here's the gist:

Requisite to the crime of prostitution is the existence of a customer. And because none of the actors in an adult film are customers, but instead paid actors, no prostitution is involved and therefore no procurement for purposes of prostitution and no pandering. Whether or not prostitution must always involve a customer, it is clear that in order to constitute prostitution, the money or other consideration must be paid for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification. That is, none of the actors are paying to be in the film and the acts in the film are not interpreted by the courts to be for the purpose of sexual gratification of the actors. Rather, they are all being paid for the purpose of making a film, and adult films are protected speech/expression under the First Amendment.

Further, because sexual acts between adults are not considered obscene, an adult film is not obscene.

 

[arkirk]

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/20/4_r...er/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

yeah, but Salon.com is not a liberal-leaning publication.

Oh, wait...

While there may well be good reasons for decriminalizing prostitution, the perhaps need to decriminalize it does not make it necessarily a good thing.

 

[dystopian]

When one talks about sex trafficking, one certainly is referring to illegal prostitution.

I'm referring to the difference in number of trafficking cases in regulated/licensed brothels (ie; legal prostitution) and unlicensed establishments/street prostitution (illegal); I'm not suggesting trafficking itself is legal.

I do not have the time at the moment to read your link but I have read what a number of different sex workers have written about their experiences where prostitution is legal, such as Nevada and Amsterdam. There is still trafficking, still physical and sexual abuse, still coercion according to these women.

Of course, and according to those same kinds of women the actual numbers are nowhere *near* as high or problematic as authorities have claimed; and these women argue that the systematic over-inflation of the numbers is used to justify laws and policies which are detrimental to the vast majority of prostitutes in the country, who are not actually victims of trafficking. It's hard to disagree with them when the numbers are so obviously doctored (see the links I posted for a breakdown of how).

Isn't it just as likely that supporters of legalized sex trade minimize the dangers and abuses?

You forget, the supporters of the legalized sex trade in this care are the *prostitutes themselves*. They're the ones arguing that increased legalization is beneficial to them and that certain interests are overinflating the dangers and abuses for reasons that have nothing to do with protecting prostitutes (and which often end up making things worse). So is it just as likely that they're minimizing the dangers and abuses? No. These are the people who actually suffer said dangers and abuses.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, from what I've seen, the proponents of legalized prostitution are fully aware of the dangers and abuses and admit to them freely. What they're saying is that legalizing the industry is the best way to deal with them.

When prostitutes are operating outside of the law, the ability to protect them is diminished.

 

[dystopian]

Ya, from what I've seen, the proponents of legalized prostitution are fully aware of the dangers and abuses and admit to them freely. What they're saying is that legalizing the industry is the best way to deal with them.

When prostitutes are operating outside of the law, the ability to protect them is diminished.

Pretty much, although ironically regulation ostensibly meant to protect prostitutes can have adverse and opposite effects. It's tricky getting it right; legalization with the wrong kind of regulations in place can inadvertently increase problems rather than decrease them, which can give the false impression that criminalization is the better option, as opposed to smarter regulation.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I know that I am quote mining this from your post, but this following sentence really strikes me as an example of buying into "white knight" rhetoric that so annoys many women in the trade.

I think it is only a kind of desperation that would force a woman or man into prostitution and in a healthy economy, prostitution would be absent.

For that to be true, prostitution would have to pay only enough to live on and the trade would have to be about nothing but sex for money. Neither is universally true.

Prostitutes can actually make a lot more money than they need to survive. I have a few friends who used to be prostitutes. One did it to get herself through her undergrad and then law school, where I met her. Another did it to get the funds to start her own small business, which she is now running successfully. Both had other jobs available to them, that would have paid the bills. Both could have taken on debt and paid it off later. Both opted for the "quick and easy money" of prostitution (their words, not mine). They told me that they had "it" when they were young, so they decided to use it while they had it, cash in on it, and move on. You could have provided them with nice jobs, and unless it paid a hell of a lot, they'd still have chosen what they chose. Other women may choose the same for any number of reasons. Big money is big money, and they won't be making that kind of money elsewhere. The smart ones plan ahead and use the money wisely. Yes, the lure of the fast easy life that could crash and burn as they age is real, as is the lure of drugs etc, and as is the dangers of abusive pimps and clients, but that doesn't mean prostitution isn't a viable option if you are smart about it and can handle it. It isn't for everyone, but it is a good option for some.

One of the biggest complaints from both these women was about the social stigma of people judging them if they found out, and police and legislators treating them like invalids who can't make their own decisions. They find that "white knighting" (their words) very disrespectful and the one who went on to become a lawyer now works as a Criminal Defence lawyer and took a small part in the litigation that led to the striking of Canada's prostitution laws a couple of years ago.

Both of them also found out very quickly that there is much more to sex trade services than sex. They quickly became quasi therapists for all sorts of emotionally troubled men. That guy who is so afraid of rejection that he can't approach women? That old guy whose wife died years ago and he can't move on? That guy in a wheel chair, who doesn't even have functional genitals but wants to feel like a man and have some attention from women? That burn victim or otherwise ugly guy that most women won't even look at? These were all johns. They were all vulnerable, and they were all helped by prostitutes, who could look passed their issues, listen to their problems, and make them feel they were still men. Johns are not just rich businessmen who are bored with their wives.

Both of the women I mentioned above actually MISS that aspect of the work even today. They miss providing that service to people, and being made to feel like their attention is so valuable. It made them feel powerful and important and like they were doing something for someone that really meant something. One of their friends in particular, who I met and who proudly admitted to me she is still in the business, also gets off on the attention that she didn't think she'd be able to get. She's a "MILF BBW". She's a fat old lady and men come make her feel desirable, and actually pay to have sex with her. She's not complaining about it. You may find her lacking in moral character because of that, but she'd just tell you off if you tried to "save her".

These are sides of the industry that very rarely gets seen in these debates.

 

[fromderinside]

One did it to get herself through her undergrad and then law school, where I met her. Another did it to get the funds to start her own small business, which she is now running successfully.

Prostitutes who get good feelings from being 'liked' are shallow. I'm wondering why you thing they are free agents? They do have controllers, er, pimps. They're lying. Prostitutes do that.

The above comes from other than reading about it or listening to sophomores brag to attract.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Prostitutes who get good feelings from being 'liked' are shallow.

So? Let them be shallow.

I'm wondering why you thing they are free agents? They do have controllers, er, pimps. They're lying. Prostitutes do that.

Free agents do exist. All three of the women I described above are or were free agents. The two who left the industry have been out of it for a few years now and are close personal friends of mine. They have no reason to lie to me. No, I never was a client of any of them. I did not even know one of them while she was doing this work.