Legalisation of Prostitution

True. But why support something that can potentially harm the community? Isn't it sensible or moral to think of the consequences? Now governments cannot prevent husbands cheating on their wives. That is beyond them. But they can at least try to lessen the possibilty of that happening (eliminating prostitution is one way).

As I said in my previous post, which you chose to ignore...

Prostitution does not harm the community. It harms some people's sensibilities because they don't think casual sex is "moral", that's all.

Also, prostitution does not help men cheat. Men have to pay exhorbitant prices for prostitutes. How does this "help" them cheat? They are much more likely to do it when they can get free sex. Don't you think we women wonder where the extra $300 goes?

 

How do you know the cost? It can come quite cheap. Probably the street whores are less expensive. Anyways I know someone with an "average" life that happens to have had sex with many prostitutes. I don't think he's paid a large sum of money for each otherwise he'd be broke.

 

Once prostitution is legalized and regulated, the prices will probably go down because the "black market" aspect of sex will be gone.

Vader666:
No it is not always risky. Of course if you remain monogomous or engage in sex with your wife it is 100% safe (unless your partner is cheating on you but let's keep it simple for now).

How is it safe? What if she has STD's and the couple neglected to discuss STD testing before having sex?

I'm sorry, but in sex ed at school we're taught that the only ABSOLUTELY 100% safe way is abstinence. And no, I don't live in the Bible Belt, so it's not like we were kept in the blind about condoms and stuff.

If you mean risky as in "unwanted children" then you are also wrong. "Unwanted children" is a result of carelessness. The couple did not take the necessary precautions to prevent such an occurence.

And what are the necessary precautions? Don't say contraceptives, because in your later posts you yourself acknowledged that contraceptives aren't 100% trustworthy.

I agree, sex with strangers is risky but still prostitutes don't have the right to take this personally. Suppose the prostitute is the host and transmits a disease to her subject. Is that fair? She may be willing to take that risk but she might end up risking others to the same eventual fate.

I was under the assumption that the customer is as aware of the risks involved as is the prostitute.

Secondly it is stupid to take a risk that is life threatening for no reason. There are many other ways to make money.

The same could be said for any job - including that whole list of *dangerous* careers I posted.

What makes this career different from others is the *taboo* aspect - but why should your or my personal beliefs hinder someone ELSE's right to decide what to do with his/her life?

And not all prostitutes are willing to take that risk. Some are forced too.

Well, that's a different story then. No one should be forced to go into ANY career, be it prostitute or corporate executive, because it's depriving people of their liberty (which is unconstitutional).

That is for a good cause. They may be slightly life threatening (with exception to the military) but at the same time those professions do not "harm" the community. That is the profound difference between the ones you stated above and prostitution.

The problem with that argument is your definition of "good cause". What is a good cause? Who gets to define what's a good cause or not? Do you seriously think that ALL legal careers are for a "good cause"? What about McDonald's cooks, salesmen, and executives who sell millions of unhealthy burgers every day? Is that a good cause? Is it a requirement for all careers to have a good cause in mind? If so, then many don't pass the test.

And personally, I don't think the military always serves a good cause. Especially in recent years...

STDs. Personal problems etc....

Personal problems are beyond the jurisdiction of the government on any level (see my thoughts below). As for STD's, that's a risk you always take when you have sex, regardless of who it's with or whether or not there's money involved. That's why they're called SEXually transmitted diseases!

Unless you want to ban sex altogether?

Now governments cannot prevent husbands cheating on their wives. That is beyond them. But they can at least try to lessen the possibilty of that happening (eliminating prostitution is one way).

First of all, that's not the government's responsibility. The government is not here to try to steer people's personal lives in any one direction.

Second of all, you're implying that sexual promiscuity/adultery is a crime or bane. Morally, perhaps, but definitely not legally.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that the government must stay out of people's bedrooms. Why should the mere transaction of money make things any different?

 

And what are the necessary precautions? Don't say contraceptives, because in your later posts you yourself acknowledged that contraceptives aren't 100% trustworthy.

Actually I will. Condoms are porous plastic objects. Sperm might not penetrate the membrane but microscopic organisms (viruses) can. Contraceptive pills in addition to the use of condoms can safely ensure the prevention of unwanted babies. Also if a woman keeps a record of her menstrual cycle in addition to the use of condoms and pills will undoubtedly gaurantee no impregnation. That's what I meant by "necessary precautions."

How is it safe? What if she has STD's and the couple neglected to discuss STD testing before having sex?

OK. Consider this situation: A husband and wife. Obviously they've undergone a blood test to ensure that they are disease free and both were tested negative (before their marriage). They get married and have sex. In other words they remain monogomous. How can they possibly contract an STD? Unless of course they cheat on each other but lets suppose they love each other so much that they won't. How in heavens can they get infected? It's 100% safe sex. Are you saying that whenever someone has sex with his wife he should worry about STDs? That's called paranoia.

Abstinence obviously gaurantees no STDs at all. Your school taught you correctly. But when was the last time you heard that a married couple contracted a disease?

 

OK. Consider this situation: A husband and wife. Obviously they've undergone a blood test to ensure that they are disease free and both were tested negative (before their marriage).

Ummm...no. The last time they did that, at least here in North Carolina, was October 1994.

In fact, my husband and I married in July 1994, and the doc skipped the tests for us because he said they were getting ready to do away with them anyway.

And marital sex is not "100 percent safe". "100 percent safe" implies no risk of pregnancy.

 

Anakin Girl

Well any couple if they want to ensure their safety would "want" to undergo a blood test. Just in case.

 

But it's not required.

And maybe some couples trust each other to tell the truth?

Besides, you haven't addressed the issue of marital sex not being 100 percent safe--it can still cause pregnancy.

 

Vader666:
Actually I will. Condoms are porous plastic objects. Sperm might not penetrate the membrane but microscopic organisms (viruses) can. Contraceptive pills in addition to the use of condoms can safely ensure the prevention of unwanted babies. Also if a woman keeps a record of her menstrual cycle in addition to the use of condoms and pills will undoubtedly gaurantee no impregnation. That's what I meant by "necessary precautions."

Okay, maybe the chances of getting pregnant while using a condom aren't as high as getting an STD while using a condom. But the risk for either scenario is still there. The condom could break!

OK. Consider this situation: A husband and wife. Obviously they've undergone a blood test to ensure that they are disease free and both were tested negative (before their marriage).

I wasn't aware that blood testing and the sharing of information were prerequisites to marriage. Are they?

And I might remind you that at least some STD's (i.e. AIDS) may be transmitted through other means besides sex. I know that that isn't a very strong argument, but it's there.

But when was the last time you heard that a married couple contracted a disease?

Okay, fine. You got a point there. But let me switch to another argument, if you don't mind.

Originally, this whole banter on STD's started with you saying that prostitution is a problem in society that needs to be addressed legally. Stop me if I'm wrong. Now, when you were asked how so, you replied with "STD's, personal problems, etc..." Now, it is beyond me why people's personal problems are within the jurisdiction of the government on ANY level, and how people's personal lives "harm" society as a whole. The responsibility of the government is to protect the welfare of society as well as the rights of individuals, and so long as those rights aren't being harmed during a personal conflict, then the government has no business interfering.

Now, as for STD's. Sure, prostitution MAY promote transmission of such disease. But first of all, consider that if prostitution was legalized, it would be made much easier to require STD testing on prostitutes and the customers. Yes, yes, I know, you've already said that AIDS has a 6-month incubation stage or whatever, but please bear with me. Second of all, even if said testing was not required, is it really the province of government to look out for people's health? Wait, let me rephrase that. Government has the obligation to help people once they become ill. That's why we have this whole health care debate and so on. But government is not required and is largely prohibited from forcing people to stay healthy in the first place. Otherwise, you'd be seeing government troops cracking down on the McDonald's and Burger King's of this nation, instead of the current situation where there's a McDonald's on every other block. Yeah, I know, there are laws prohibiting certain drugs, but by and large the government cannot force people to eat healthy, exercise, etc., because that would be infringing on their rights to live life as they want to.

What my point is, is that government cannot look out for people's health in a preventive way. They can talk, and advise, and what not, but they can't do. Practically, because it's near impossible to safeguard the health of every American, to chase every person on the street and keep them from eating hot dogs. Legally, because it's infringing on their rights. People have the right to live life as they want to, no matter how unhealthy it is, as long as they don't hurt other people's right to live life as they want to. Do you get what I'm saying?

If the prostitute and the customer are made aware of the risk, and are aware of each other's status as far as STD's go, and they accept that risk, then that is their prerogative. It's no different from having sex with a stranger, without the transaction of money.

 

Kuna_Tiori and I finally agree on something?! Ok where is the Battle of Armageddon being fought and by what armies?

Ok so AIDs has a 6 month dormant period, or something of the such. It will be this much easier to have the prositutes get a monthly blood test, if they get something it will be that much easier to notify them, it will also be that much easier to notify who has been with that particular girl and have them tested for the disease as well.

Also, lets not pretend that by legalizing this every man in the world is going to run out to his nearest brothel. Those who are going to be loyal are going to be loyal, those who are going to cheat are going to cheat, they will find a way, regardless of brothel girl or co-worker.

Like Kuna_Tiori said its not the governments responsibility to assure its people stay healthy. It does take precautions, look at how its come down on the Tobacco industry. Maybe what the government can do is let the brothel girls wear government issued undergarments with the surgeon generals warning stitched in them, by removing them the man takes full responsibility of what happens to him.

 

its not the governments responsibility to assure its people stay healthy.

No, but it is the government's responsibility to ensure that products sold on the open market meet certain safety standards.

 

No, but it is the government's responsibility to ensure that products sold on the open market meet certain safety standards.

Thats Why I Said This: Maybe what the government can do is let the brothel girls wear government issued undergarments with the surgeon generals warning stitched in them, by removing them the man takes full responsibility of what happens to him.


And thats why a monthly blood test would be required.

 

Jedi_Xen:
Maybe what the government can do is let the brothel girls wear government issued undergarments with the surgeon generals warning stitched in them, by removing them the man takes full responsibility of what happens to him.

Lol! That's definitely one of the more innovative suggestions I've heard on this forum.

Where would the stitching be, on the butt or on the crotch? Probably the crotch, but then again the sex could happen at either location.

And yes, I think it's nice that we're in agreement. Though I have a feeling that it's not the first time.