Should prostitution be legalized?

[H. Ross Peron]

Selling sex legal, but the purchase illegal

I know its sounds like paradox, but it goes about penalizing clients only and to prevent malpractices (like human trafficking, forced or child prostitution) in it

Such way of regulating prostitution is present in ex. Canada, France, Norway or Sweden

This.

[136or142]

I don't really understand what the hang up is about prostitution.  A lot of this seems to come from the idea that 'good women' don't have sex.  I agree that nobody should be forced into prostitution, but in terms of physical labor, I don't think sex is all that much different than hard physical labor, and I don't see anybody pushing for banning digging ditches.

[The Mikado]

Legal, but heavily regulated.

Envisioning a situation where only a limited number of brothel licenses are given out per city, with mandatory police supervision, mandatory condom use, regular STD checks for all workers, mandatory registration of all workers to make sure they're all over 18 and legally able to work. Workers get steady rates, file tax returns with withholding, etc. All aboveboard. Prostitution outside of this system remains illegal.

EDIT: of course, you could have both brothels with male and female workers.

[RINO Tom]

I don't really understand what the hang up is about prostitution.  A lot of this seems to come from the idea that 'good women' don't have sex.  I agree that nobody should be forced into prostitution, but in terms of physical labor, I don't think sex is all that much different than hard physical labor, and I don't see anybody pushing for banning digging ditches.

What?  Digging ditches wouldn't directly enable an underground human trafficking world; I do not see how those are remotely the same.  To act like opposition to the legalization of prostitution must hinge on some type of paternal sexism seems quite far-fetched.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I don't really understand what the hang up is about prostitution.  A lot of this seems to come from the idea that 'good women' don't have sex.  I agree that nobody should be forced into prostitution, but in terms of physical labor, I don't think sex is all that much different than hard physical labor, and I don't see anybody pushing for banning digging ditches.

What?  Digging ditches wouldn't directly enable an underground human trafficking world; I do not see how those are remotely the same.  To act like opposition to the legalization of prostitution must hinge on some type of paternal sexism seems quite far-fetched.

The types who would render sex a simple commodity, equivalent to labor, are beyond description. If this becomes something that cannot only be handed out at various times based on indeigejce, but as well something that can be owed or confiscated. This is a bad thing.

[136or142]

I don't really understand what the hang up is about prostitution.  A lot of this seems to come from the idea that 'good women' don't have sex.  I agree that nobody should be forced into prostitution, but in terms of physical labor, I don't think sex is all that much different than hard physical labor, and I don't see anybody pushing for banning digging ditches.

What?  Digging ditches wouldn't directly enable an underground human trafficking world; I do not see how those are remotely the same.  To act like opposition to the legalization of prostitution must hinge on some type of paternal sexism seems quite far-fetched.

I suspect you don't know much of anything about real human trafficking.

[136or142]

I don't really understand what the hang up is about prostitution.  A lot of this seems to come from the idea that 'good women' don't have sex.  I agree that nobody should be forced into prostitution, but in terms of physical labor, I don't think sex is all that much different than hard physical labor, and I don't see anybody pushing for banning digging ditches.

What?  Digging ditches wouldn't directly enable an underground human trafficking world; I do not see how those are remotely the same.  To act like opposition to the legalization of prostitution must hinge on some type of paternal sexism seems quite far-fetched.

The types who would render sex a simple commodity, equivalent to labor, are beyond description. If this becomes something that cannot only be handed out at various times based on indeigejce, but as well something that can be owed or confiscated. This is a bad thing.

There are a number of normative statements here.  The correct response to a normative statement is: why?

[DC Al Fine]

I don't think sex is all that much different than hard physical labor

No one ever got pregnant or caught gonnorhea digging a ditch.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I don't really understand what the hang up is about prostitution.  A lot of this seems to come from the idea that 'good women' don't have sex.  I agree that nobody should be forced into prostitution, but in terms of physical labor, I don't think sex is all that much different than hard physical labor, and I don't see anybody pushing for banning digging ditches.

What?  Digging ditches wouldn't directly enable an underground human trafficking world; I do not see how those are remotely the same.  To act like opposition to the legalization of prostitution must hinge on some type of paternal sexism seems quite far-fetched.

The types who would render sex a simple commodity, equivalent to labor, are beyond description. If this becomes something that cannot only be handed out at various times based on indeigejce, but as well something that can be owed or confiscated. This is a bad thing.

There are a number of normative statements here.  The correct response to a normative statement is: why?

Courts can render community service or fines as a means of restorative justice. Business arrangements mandate certain practices in response to payment, and vice versa. That is because labor and money are seen as coherent and discrete units to be exacted from people upon arrangement. Beyond strict coercion, indigence can force people into a variety of professions. Given the current ideological regime surrounding sex, rendering it in this fashion is unacceptable. Prior moral regimes also would not have condoned this. Forcing someone to grab overtime when they don't want to is very obviously very different from rape; sex as a purely economic occurrence undermines this distinction.

[giezeni]

Tl;dr: "Muh feelings."

Sex is absolutely equivalent to physical labor when those engaging in it have settled on money as a means of exchange. This is objective fact, and quite beyond subjectivist-personalist value judgments rooted in religious sentimentality.  If "prior moral regimes" deny this basic fact, those prior moral regimes are grounded in incorrect presuppositions - that is to say they are rooted in unreality, in falsehood - and ought to be rejected accordingly. They are wrong, and the only option remaining their adherents is to discard them.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Normal commodities involve coercion is my point. It’s not my feelings I’m worried about. My point is that the legalization of sex work would require extra protections beyond those in place for workers who sell their strength or technical qualifications in a variety of other job markets.

[giezeni]

Normal commodities involve coercion is my point.

This is, in the most literal sense, the Marxist position on commodities. They aren't right about it, either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So what? There are any manner of professions which require technical regulations above and beyond less demanding occupations. This is no real argument against its legalization. And the continued prohibition of prostitution requires the ultimate in 'extra protections' - the existence of dedicated police units devoted to prostitutes and their clients. Legalization would amount to a reduction in regulation.

You have no grounds other than sentimentality (which is no ground at all) and tradition.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I’m not arguing against its legalization.

[DC Al Fine]

Tl;dr: "Muh feelings."

Sex is absolutely equivalent to physical labor when those engaging in it have settled on money as a means of exchange. This is objective fact, and quite beyond subjectivist-personalist value judgments rooted in religious sentimentality.  If "prior moral regimes" deny this basic fact, those prior moral regimes are grounded in incorrect presuppositions - that is to say they are rooted in unreality, in falsehood - and ought to be rejected accordingly. They are wrong, and the only option remaining their adherents is to discard them.

Declaring sex and manual labour to be equivalent on the basis of money changing hands is besides the point.

The conservative objection to this equivalency is that sexuality and sex acts are sufficiently different from manual labour, that they ought to be treated differently. Sex is pro-creative, and has a major impact on the human psyche in way that ditch digging doesn't. The mere fact that money changes hands doesn't effect that. Moreover the sex=labour crowd seem to be exhibiting a sort of willful blindness about sex. No one treats sexuality the same as labour in the rest of life, so why should it be treated the same in commerce?

As Cathcon noted, forced unpaid overtime is treated very differently from rape. A boss using his power to get a lunch companion out of his male subordinate is different than using his power to get sex from the secretary. Acting as though these distinctions disappear as soon as money changes hand is rather dubious.

[giezeni]

The conservative objection to this equivalency is that sexuality and sex acts are sufficiently different from manual labour, that they ought to be treated differently.

And my point is that they absolutely are not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The overwhelming majority of sexual encounters in the world are recreational and not procreative.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To the contrary - individual sex acts (as distinct from one's individual sexuality) are far less meaningful than one's occupation. Employment is a source of pride and self-worth in a way that a random encounter with a barfly over a long weekend is not for the overwhelming majority of human beings.

...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No one treats it with the deep reverence and awe a few undersexed Catholic lumpenintellectuals ascribe to it, either. Much less the case than the reverse.

Come to your senses, to reality. Sex, where it is commodified, is a commodity.  It consequently can be regulated like one. All objections otherwise are rooted in atavistic idealism.

Reality is cold. Reality is hard.

[136or142]

I don't really understand what the hang up is about prostitution.  A lot of this seems to come from the idea that 'good women' don't have sex.  I agree that nobody should be forced into prostitution, but in terms of physical labor, I don't think sex is all that much different than hard physical labor, and I don't see anybody pushing for banning digging ditches.

What?  Digging ditches wouldn't directly enable an underground human trafficking world; I do not see how those are remotely the same.  To act like opposition to the legalization of prostitution must hinge on some type of paternal sexism seems quite far-fetched.

The types who would render sex a simple commodity, equivalent to labor, are beyond description. If this becomes something that cannot only be handed out at various times based on indeigejce, but as well something that can be owed or confiscated. This is a bad thing.

There are a number of normative statements here.  The correct response to a normative statement is: why?

Courts can render community service or fines as a means of restorative justice. Business arrangements mandate certain practices in response to payment, and vice versa. That is because labor and money are seen as coherent and discrete units to be exacted from people upon arrangement. Beyond strict coercion, indigence can force people into a variety of professions. Given the current ideological regime surrounding sex, rendering it in this fashion is unacceptable. Prior moral regimes also would not have condoned this. Forcing someone to grab overtime when they don't want to is very obviously very different from rape; sex as a purely economic occurrence undermines this distinction.

My point is simply that some people do, in fact, regard sex as no different than physical labor, and in a free society, there needs to be significant evident harm to prevent these people from being able to buy and sell sex. Although that may look like a normative statement as well, it is, in fact, a positive statement, as that is the general definition of a 'free society.'

Since I'm not referring to it being unregulated, I regard all of your concerns as red herrings.

[136or142]

I don't think sex is all that much different than hard physical labor

No one ever got pregnant or caught gonnorhea digging a ditch.

I mentioned ditch digging as an example.  Coalworker's pneumoconiosis (CWP): also known as black lung disease or black lung, is caused by long-term exposure to coal dust.

In 2013 CWP resulted in 25,000 deaths down from 29,000 deaths in 1990

Should it be illegal for people to be coalworkers?  Should it be illegal for people to hire coalworkers?

[giezeni]

I enjoy baking pies. Because I enjoy doing it, I must never be allowed to actually sell my pies. My only reward should come in my enjoyment of it. Pleasure and business must be eternally separate; we must forever live with a Catholic guilt complex any time we have fun, even those of us who do not subscribe to that creed.

Baking pies is procreative, after all, because it generates a pie at the end of the process. Working a cash register, on the other hand, is non-procreative because it produces nothing as a product of itself. Accordingly, I can enjoy working a cash register without losing sleep at night.

[DC Al Fine]

I don't think sex is all that much different than hard physical labor

No one ever got pregnant or caught gonnorhea digging a ditch.

I mentioned ditch digging as an example.  Coalworker's pneumoconiosis (CWP): also known as black lung disease or black lung, is caused by long-term exposure to coal dust.

In 2013 CWP resulted in 25,000 deaths down from 29,000 deaths in 1990

Should it be illegal for people to be coalworkers?

I'm not familiar enough with the particulars to comment on that example, but yeah I generally favour restricting labour that causes workers to die en masse, even if the workers are 'consenting adults'.

[giezeni]

I don't think sex is all that much different than hard physical labor

No one ever got pregnant or caught gonnorhea digging a ditch.

I mentioned ditch digging as an example.  Coalworker's pneumoconiosis (CWP): also known as black lung disease or black lung, is caused by long-term exposure to coal dust.

In 2013 CWP resulted in 25,000 deaths down from 29,000 deaths in 1990

Should it be illegal for people to be coalworkers?

I'm not familiar enough with the particulars to comment on that example, but yeah I generally favour restricting labour that causes workers to die en masse, even if the workers are 'consenting adults'.

I'm sure I don't know the exact statistics, but I'd be willing to bet that the risk of dying en masse as a sex worker (rather than in private and individually as a sex worker, as a consequence of murder, STDs, etc.) is far less than that of doing so as a ditch digger.

[DC Al Fine]

I have to say, not seeing a distinction between sex and hard physical labor is just screaming "I've never done either!"

[giezeni]

I have to say, not seeing a distinction between sex and hard physical labor is just screaming "I've never done either!"

Is nonremunerative ditch digging for pleasure not "hard physical labor"?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Legal, but heavily regulated.

Envisioning a situation where only a limited number of brothel licenses are given out per city, with mandatory police supervision, mandatory condom use, regular STD checks for all workers, mandatory registration of all workers to make sure they're all over 18 and legally able to work. Workers get steady rates, file tax returns with withholding, etc. All aboveboard. Prostitution outside of this system remains illegal.

EDIT: of course, you could have both brothels with male and female workers.

The problem here, I feel, is you'd create a two tier system: a lower tier of prostitutes victimised by the police and with no protection from customers (and who would be disproportionately immigrants or addicts or other such people), and an upper tier that knows their continued employment is dependent on pleasing the small layer of managers and owners that between them have a monopoly on brothel keeping in a certain area.

[136or142]

I have to say, not seeing a distinction between sex and hard physical labor is just screaming "I've never done either!"

True!

However, that's not to say that there aren't people who have engaged in both who do see them as similar.

[Cory]

Very conflicted about it. My question is about consent. Is it really true consent if she is only consenting because she is getting paid or is it some sort of sex equivalent to bribing someone?

By that metric the majority of jobs in any case are against the consent of those working them.