Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| The politics of prostitution and polygamy |
| 06.29.04 (4:34 pm) [edit] |
|
That's right- I'm back! Sorry for going so long without posting; I hope none of you have been suffering through withdrawal or anything like that :wink:. I just returned from a lovely trip to Philadelphia/a really small hick town in northern PA, and I will hopefully be posting more frequently now. A discussion I had with [url=http://redtigress.tblog.com]RedTigress[/url] a few weeks ago inspired me to post my thoughts on prostitution and the law, but I had forgotten about it until reading [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]this post[/url] on polygamy, by RedTigress. In other words, this is all the influence of Red. :wink: In an attempt to make this brief, I am only going to highlight my views on the issues and then I'll argue/discuss matters further in the comments, as usual. In most areas of the United States, prostitution is illegal. It is a crime to have sex for money, or to pay money for sex. Most Americans would likely reach a consensus view that prostitution is an unethical act, thus it should not be condoned. And this is the basis for the illegality of the act. However, prostitution is really only harmful in certain situations, as is any act (going down a slide can be dangerous and injurious to others). So long as the act is between consenting adults, how is it that it should be against the law? For those who wish to legislate morality, whose morality should be legislated? As I said, I believe that most of us would be morally opposed to prostitution. But should our morals always dictate our laws? Just because you or I may not like the idea of prostitution, does that mean that no one should be allowed to do it? If I, or the majority of citizens, consider eating snails (or escargot, for those French-inclined) to be disgusting and unwholesome (or at least salty and squishy), does it follow that eating snails should be illegal? No- it is a personal decision, just as who we have sex with and under what circumstances is a private matter. The government should not interfere with such decisions, nor should it legislate our actions in regard to private morality. Prostitution is often called a victimless crime. So long as it is between consenting adults, there is no harm. Ironically, by making prostitution illegal, it has made the 'profession' very dangerous. Similar to bootlegging in the times of prohibition, prostitution now must be conducted in a very risky manner, and the prostitute faces constant danger. Perhaps prostitution shouldn't be heralded as a wonderful practice, but I see no reason for it to be illegal. Similarly, polygamy is an illegal form of marriage, though there is no reason for this. I may not agree with polygamy on principle (or marriage, you know), but that doesn't mean that no one should be allowed to practice this. RedTigress' [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]post[/url] on this subject effectively points out the unreasonable attributes of laws banning a person from participating in consensual polygamy. Morality can be separate from policy, and in a land with so-called separation of church and state, this is necessary. Being morally opposed to something does not have to result in opposing the right for others to act. We should view issues such as prostitution, polygamy, gay marriage, and abortion in this manner: there can be a moral view as well as a separate view regarding what is socially pertinent in terms of affording rights. Opposing an act on virtue of morality does not have to lead to denying the right of others to act in a way that does no harm to others. |
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 06.29.04 (1:36 pm)
"In other words, this is all the influence of Red."
LoL! It's all my fault! ;P Ok, now back to reading this... hehe
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 06.29.04 (1:52 pm)
Hrmmm, very interesting.
While I do tend to look at the morality on just about everything, when it comes to prostitution (oddly enough) I find that the morality thing is kind of weak when we look at the practicalities. . .
By this I mean, the practical and non-morality based consequences of Prostitution.
For example, you mention that it is a victimless crime, when it comes to two consenting adults. Well, what if it's not two consenting adults? What if it's a concenting adult and non-consenting or even concenting child?? What of women (and sometimes men) who are forced into prostitution for whatever reason? Sure, they may consent to have sex for money, but is that really what they want to do?
Also, practically speaking, there enters the subject of disease and drugs. In times of the past where societies had legal prositution, diseases were spread easily among the people in that society. Prostitutes would carry the disease, a married man would go have an affair with a paid "sexual expert", bring it home to his wife and then we have the makings of an epedemic. In these time, with more serious STD's like AIDS and HIV, I'd think it to be more practically and health-wise irresponsible to legalize prostitution.
On the drugs front, studies have shown that opiates and also stimulants are very "chic" in the prostitution business. These are harmful drugs. It's not like pot which is generally considered more benign. This may spread the usage and so on if prostitution is legalized.
Then there's the issue of exploitation. Women are still considered sex objects by many of our chauvanistic penile-clad counterparts. What kind of message would it send to some men out there to allow them to further objectify women in a most disgusting fashion? We have Brittney Spears and Madonna who flaunt their bodies as they do a glorifyed strip show for audiences and that is the standard that little girls hold themselves to as they grow up. With a legalized prostitution, the social consequences of this chauvanistic objectivity and exploitation of women would be more acceptable and allow it to be easier to exploit the female gender. And sure, it might be male prostitutes also, but let's face it, it's easier to exploit women to the point of creating worthless sex slaves than it is for women to do to men or men to do to men.
One final and sort of unrelated note; you mentioned it is against the law to pay for sex for money as it is to accept money for sex. This may be so, but unfortunatly the ones who pay for sex are hardly ever as harshly punished (if at all) as opposed to their counterparts that accept the money for sex.
Prostitution, in my opinion is never a victimless crime and the aprehenstion of the prostitute often further persecutes the women who took the money and was possible the victim, while the man who was the victimizer gets off scott free.
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 06.29.04 (1:56 pm)
Reply to: RedTigress
Also, the pimps mistreat their working girls and often mutelate them.
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 06.29.04 (1:57 pm)
Reply to: RedTigress
You're confusing the incidental parts of prostitution, (drug use, unsafe sex, oppression of women, etc) with the actual prostitution itself. I agree, they should not be allowed to pass on diseases to their clients, only consenting adults should be allowed, and prostitution is a dirty and stupid practice. But America is built upon allowing people to do their own stupid thing.
Maybe its not victimless. But just because something hurts someone doesn't mean it should or can be banned. Otherwise Carrot Top would be in prison.
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 06.29.04 (2:01 pm)
Reply to: therealspartacus007
Woa, did you just hear yourself though?
Those are serious risks, even if they are "incidental" they are a valid and important risk to consider.
And as far as
"just because something hurts someone doesn't mean it should or can be banned."
What? So then I can kill someone? As a society we make sure that our citizens are not made victims, physically or mentally.
And I'd hardly liken carrot top to an angry pimp on crack with a machete coming at a woman because she didn't "give all da' payoff".
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 06.29.04 (2:09 pm)
Reply to: RedTigress
Killing someone with a machete should be banned- because it violates that person's ability to control their own life. If a person is willing to have sex with someone and take money in return, that's their choice. Yes, its a bad choice, and in many current situations that have resulted from the illegalization of prostitution, it might be in an atmosphere of illegal behavior, but its still they're choice.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 06.29.04 (2:10 pm)
Reply to: RedTigress
Alright, let's start with the drugs/diseases issue. That's kind of a useless argument because it is based on presumptive consequences. While it may very well be a possilbe, perhaps even likely, effect of legalizing prostitution, it does not necessarily follow that drug abuse will increase or that more diseases will be spread. There is an obvious risk associated with having sex with a prostitute- making it legal would not change this, and I would at least hope that no one would be naive enough to think otherwise. Also, though disease and drug abuse are negative things, it still does not follow that a free society should impose views of morality or dictate what a person may or may not do in his private affairs that only affect him. The same dangers are faced having prostition illegal as would be having it legal.
As for the possibility of prostitution not being consentual, that would still be illegal. Just because prostition is legal (hypothetically), it does not make the problems already associated with the illegal aspect of it amplified.
As for exploitation, sure, that's a potential problem. But it's not a legal issue. A woman should have the right to charge for sex if she chooses, and a man should be free to pay for sex if that is what he wants, and vice versa. That's all I'm saying. I'm not condoning the practice itself, but I do think adults should be given the ability to make their own decisions regarding their lives.
posted by: DrForbush (reply)
post date: 06.29.04 (2:18 pm)
Reply to: RedTigress
You wrote:
" What of women (and sometimes men) who are forced into prostitution for whatever reason? Sure, they may consent to have sex for money, but is that really what they want to do?"
What about farm workers that are forced to harvest crops moving around the country? Do they want to do this or are they forced into it? What about educated people that have been laid off and need to work at McDonalds to make ends meet? Do they want to do this? Should we have a law against it? What about waitresses at Hooters that are just trying to make money for school? People choose how they want to earn a living. Just because they feel like they are forced into this industry doesn't mean that there isn't any other option. They could apply at McDonalds.
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 06.29.04 (2:20 pm)
Reply to: DrForbush
I'd like to think there's a difference between sexual abuse and turnip harvestation.
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 06.29.04 (2:27 pm)
Reply to: DragonBait22
Ah, but they are given the choice to rule their lives. They can choose to indulge in illegal and disgusting acts if they wish. Legal trouble is merely another consequence that is "incidental" as of now.
I guess my main opposition to prostitution is in the exploitive nature. It allows men to further objectify and victimize women, be it physically or mentaly victimize (as in mental abuse). It gives them an excuse and a vehicle. By saying it's legal to have sex with a woman for money and use her in that manner it give men the validation needed to abuse women further.
The purpose of a prostitute is to have a body without a person. Perhaps having sex with a corpse would be more productive?
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 06.29.04 (2:29 pm)
Reply to: therealspartacus007
What about threatening someone with a machete in less they cough up the money?
Honestly, if prostitution were legalized, where would pimps come in to play?
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 06.29.04 (3:03 pm)
Reply to: RedTigress
Legal trouble though has the power of force, which is the only thing that can stop choice.
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 06.29.04 (3:14 pm)
Reply to: therealspartacus007
So does a pimp. So does an unruly client.
You can't force someone to follow the law. You can put them on trial and punish them for deviating from the law, but in the end, they have the choice to go right back out there on the street.
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 06.29.04 (3:19 pm)
Reply to: RedTigress
Pimps and clients do not necessarily use force. If they do, they should be put in jail.
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 06.29.04 (3:24 pm)
Reply to: therealspartacus007
Then all pimps would be in jail.
Here's a website I found that is very interesting:
http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 06.29.04 (3:27 pm)
Reply to: RedTigress
This part of that web site in particular is very good:
http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/ten-reasons.html
posted by: LarryConley (reply)
post date: 06.29.04 (4:51 pm)
This is what I posted on Red's thread and is fairly relivant here.
Well not specificly to come down on one side or another. This case:
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/May/05272004/utah/170128.asp
There was considerable abuse involved with the children as well as indications that some of the plural marrages were not willingly made.
Personally I see this as much being the result of bigamy being illegal more so then with bigamy itself. That and the fact that the guy isn't all there.
This (perhaps in this case)I think is a similiar issue to Prostitution. May people are morally against it, some don't care but don't want anything to do with it, and some few are in favor of it.
In certain parts of Nevada Prostituion is legal. I read once that there has never been a single case of a STD being transmitted either to a customer or an employee... Obviously this is not the case where it is not legal.
I am sure that in other cultures in the USA that have a tradition of plural marrages it is going on there as well, much like prositiution is pretty much everywhere.
If for example Bigamy was legal in Utah a 16 year old girl would have had the chance (if she would have dared take it is another question) to tell a justice of the peace (or whomever is the legal person in Utah) "No your honor I do not want to marry my uncle I am being force to do it against my will".
I believe you cannot legislate morality. If you do those that disagree with your morals will consider the law immoral and feel no reason to follow it. This leads them to believe that if one law is immoral more may be. This will have the effect of weaking the power and reasons for having laws in the first place.
Sorry for the ramble.. the fingers were chatty today :)
posted by: WhyNot (reply)
post date: 06.29.04 (5:00 pm)
Reply to: DragonBait22
"Alright, let's start with the drugs/diseases issue. That's kind of a useless argument because it is based on presumptive consequences..."
I agree with everything you say here, as well as in your post. RedTigress's valid concern about women's mistreatment and exploitation is not answering your main point (of legalizing prostitution or not). Prostitution has always existed and always will, since it depends on the one of the 2 most powerful human instincts - survival and sex. Unlike what could be argued about cocaine or heroin availability, (i.e. if it's made legal, there might be more ppl on the drugs), prohibition of prostitution does not lower the rate of *illegal* sexual encounters: people will have sex when they want, be it by having it free (relationship/marriage), paying for it (prostitution), or forcibly (rape/abductions/etc), just the same as hungry people will try fill their belly at any cost, whether by buying their food, stealing it, or eating someone else in desperate situations.
In terms of morals, I have no problems with any of your statements. They all make perfect sense. I personally find it hard to imagine living with several wives, LOL, and even harder to imagine several women enjoying being part of a multi-wife arrangement. But hey, so long as it is not forced on them, I don't see a moral dilemna.
But since the debate has fast turned into the *consequences*, here's my 2 cents about it:
If we accept the facts, i.e. that prohibiting prostitution does not make it go away, then, we can look at how we can handle prostitution like any other profession - i.e. in a way that doesn't turn workers into slaves for the profit of capitalist entrepreneurs. Clearly, making it illegal, is no solution: all it does is create an underground network of thugs and profiteers. The earnings, safety and working conditions of the prostitutes are left to the maffia-like corporations to decide, and there is no recourse for the workers; it's all the perfect conditions for law-of-the-jungle criterias - the more ruthless the thug, the more he succeed, and the more the prostitute slaves will suffer. How's a prostitute going to be able to complain to the police she's beaten up by her pimp if she is doing something illegal? How's she going to complain to the IRS that her pimp takes 80% of her work's earnings? How's she going to complain she's forced to work 16 hours a day, and under sub-standard health conditions?
When living in Sydney, I got some interesting insight into the issue: under Paul Keating, ferocious left-wing PM, Sydney's prostitution was legalized. Brothels were doing good business. But the most interesting thing for me was what "A", a prostitute friend of mine said of her life:
Pimps no longer existed. Brothels were weekly checked by the police to ensure things were safe - like they might in an all-night shopping mall. Every girl had to have a weekly free medical check up - for her own safety as well as the clients. There was no such thing as hooking girls on heroin in order to turn them into sex slaves for no financial return.
When slimey right-wing John Howard (the rat who licks Tony Blair's ass, who in turns licks Bush's asshole) came to power, he quickly dismissed all that crap. What? Prostitution??? Gotta be kidding - it's anti-Christ stuff!
Well, many years later, last I heard of "A" is she has AIDS as well as syphillis, gonoreah and all the other goodies, and will spend the rest of her life on a methadone treatment (to apparently attempt to get her off her heroin addiction).
posted by: shimmer (reply)
post date: 06.29.04 (7:23 pm)
An individual can get paid for just about anything they do. We decide what those things are. Maybe if it were the women that were paid for their services, it might work out better for everyone. A woman can clean a man's house and get paid. She can iron his clothes and get paid. She can get him some coffee and get paid. She can model underwear and get paid. But she can't have consenting sex and get paid. Shouldn't a woman decide for herself what she does with her own body? She could give it away for free and no laws are broken. She's just called a slut. But let the man give her some money for her services, and she's a whore. That one simple act changes everything and makes that same act a crime. I just find that hard to reason out. I'm not a fan of prostitution, but I find it difficult to think that the government should dictate what a woman can do with her own body.
If you ask some divorced men, they might say they were paying for sex when they got married....houses, money, cars, things.....in some ways everything is a payoff for getting what we want. I'm not saying it's the best way to do things, I'm just saying that people do pay for sex in other ways outside of prostitution.
posted by: WhyNot (reply)
post date: 06.30.04 (1:04 am)
Reply to: shimmer
Spot on, Shimmer.
posted by: WhyNot (reply)
post date: 06.30.04 (1:28 am)
PS:
"consider eating snails (or escargot, for those French-inclined)"
Haven't been renamed "freedom snails"?
posted by: juniperflux (reply)
post date: 06.30.04 (2:39 pm)
Welcome back! It looks as though RT has been moonlighting as muse for BOTH of us. :)
As for your post, I agree with you... drug use, poverty, abuse of prostitues, infidelity of married men/women, etc ... all of those are issues that the law handles separately. Prostitution itself, while unsavory and morally objectionable for many, if committed between two consenting adults should not be regulated by the government ~ which, I might add, has bigger fish to fry.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 06.30.04 (6:24 pm)
Reply to: WhyNot
Thank you for your excellent comments. :)
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 06.30.04 (6:26 pm)
Reply to: shimmer
You're absolutely right. An adult should be capable of making her own decisions and choosing her own career wihout the government interfering.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 06.30.04 (6:28 pm)
Reply to: WhyNot
"Haven't been renamed "freedom snails"?"
Lol, no, I think that only applies to foods with 'French' in the title- coincidentally, I had some Freedom Dressing on my salad today. ;)
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 06.30.04 (6:30 pm)
Reply to: juniperflux
Thanks for the welcome, and, yes, RT has been busy. :)
You guys make it hard for me when you actually agree with me... ;)
posted by: qroddgnhq (reply)
post date: 05.06.07 (7:55 am)
korokozabr555
posted by: masrawcz (reply)
post date: 05.06.07 (7:56 am)
korokozabr555
posted by: zfwxggxk (reply)
post date: 05.06.07 (7:56 am)
korokozabr555
