Legalisation of Prostitution

So you are saying consent is not enough in itself to make something legal?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

The reasons to legalize prostitution are not hinged on consent, but rather of making the situation better and more sanitary for all involved, and improving the situation for all communities. Also, there is the fact that in legalized prostitution, no one is being harmed.

In your cannabalism case, someone is beign harmed. "No man shall be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process."

That's what seperates the two issues. In cannabalism, someone is being denied life (even if it is consentual) without due process. No such thing is happening under prostitution.

No, humanity is a state of being, not a state of mind. If someone thinks you are a bird, he can put you in a cage and feed you birdseed. That does not make you a bird, though you are being treated like one.

That's not humanity.

As close as I can tell, that's freedom and liberty, totally seperate from the issues at hand. Actually, it works in my favor.


EDIT: Zykalus

Euthanasia is legal in some country, although there are some condition to ask for it. Nevertheless,that is a debate for another thread. This has nothing to do with prostitution, what is the point your are trying to make ?

He's the one that brought up cannabalism, why, I'm not sure. I assume it's to catch me in a double standard.

I responded to why cannabalism should remain illegal while prostitution should be made legal without creating said double standard.

 

Tell me, should public nudity be legal? After all, it doesn't harm anyone, does it?

 

Tell me, should public nudity be legal? After all, it doesn't harm anyone, does it?

Having lived in Europe and seen it up close, I have no problem with it.

Within limits of course. No lewd acts.



Now, are you done grilling me, or do you plan on asking about every controversial subject under the sun in order to catch me in a double standard? We've come a long way from legalized prostitution.

 

What do you consider a "lewd" act and why should it be illegal? After all, if everything done is consentual, and no one is harmed, why should the government be stepping in?

 

What do you consider a "lewd" act and why should it be illegal? After all, if everything done is consentual, and no one is harmed, why should the government be stepping in?

Lewd acts woiuld include public acts of sexual intercourse, masturbation, etc.

They would be illegal because they create a public health risk.

Now, are you going to tie this in with prostitution or not?

 

Public health risk? How? I mean, if a couple engages in intercourse in public, there's the risk they might transmit diseases to each other, but how is that any more of a health risk than intercourse in private?

The way this ties in with prostitution is, there are some activities that, while consentual and not immediately harmful to anyone else, our government still does and probably should prohibit.

Add to that the fact that the government has the power to regulate commerce and decide what is or is not legal to sell, and there is certainly enough basis for them to prohibit the sale of sex.

Now, I realize the argument here is not that the government cannot outlaw prostitution, but rather, that it should not. But if it should not say we cannot sell sex in public, why should it say we cannot have sex in public?

 

The difference between public and private sexual intercourse?

It's in public! What other difference does there need to be!

Of course there is a higher risk of transmiting something to other people in public.

It all comes down to public and private. Sex outside is not private and can thus be prohibited. Sex in one's home or with a prostitute in a brothel is on private property, and as the Supreme Court showed us a few weeks ago, cannot be prohibited like that.

 

In prostitution, the sale - or some portion of it, such as the advertising - takes place in public. (Otherwise, how would you know where to find a prostitute?)

EDIT:
And I doubt that the decision to outlaw public nudity and public intercourse has anything to do with public health concerns.

 

In prostitution, the sale - or some portion of it, such as the advertising - takes place in public. (Otherwise, how would you know where to find a prostitute?)

And how would you know where to find pornography?

There are limits to what they can and cannot advertise on the streets, same as Playboy.

And I doubt that the decision to outlaw public nudity and public intercourse has anything to do with public health concerns.

So? You asked for my opinion on it, I gave it to you why I think that public nudity was okay while public intercourse was not.

This is what they do in Europe, and that's the reasoning behind it, and that's the stance I take on it.

 

There are limits to what they can and cannot advertise on the streets, same as Playboy.

But why are those limits there, and why do you find them acceptable?

 

Ww are talking about prostitution, not sex advertisment. The way I see it, if legal, it would be advertise the same way porn, sexual toys and any other sex business is. The main reason most people are afraid of legalisation of prostituion is because it hurts your system of value, it hurts the way you see sex and somehow you seen to think the world will become crazy once legal.

I don't see the point of bringing cannibalism, public masturbation, walking naked and other subject that has nothing to do with prostituation. As J_F_T said, I think you try to validate your point by showing a double standard that does not exist or is not related directly

 

Prostitution is sex advertisement.


I think you try to validate your point by showing a double standard that does not exist or is not related directly

Not so much a double standard as a logical flaw. You say prostitution should be legal because it's private sex. However, it's not entirely private. The government's not outlawing private sex with strangers; it's saying that sex is not a commodity that can be sold in public.

 

Prostitution is sex advertisement.

Come again? ?

 

Not so much a double standard as a logical flaw
Logical flaw ? There are a lot of laws that don't make sense in a logical sense when you compare them together. That logic should not be a reason to prevent it. You said that because private sex is sold publicly, there is a logical flaw ?

 

Not so much a double standard as a logical flaw. You say prostitution should be legal because it's private sex. However, it's not entirely private. The government's not outlawing private sex with strangers; it's saying that sex is not a commodity that can be sold in public.

So basically you are saying it is ok to sell sex, as long as its done in private? Thats what weve been arguing for, make it a legitmate business, it will then be sold in a private location, a brothel, and the government has no say. And by allowing brothels it will seriously cut back on street walking. Hmmmmm

 

prostitute
tr.v. pros·ti·tut·ed, pros·ti·tut·ing, pros·ti·tutes
1. To offer (oneself or another) for sexual hire.
2. To sell (oneself or one's talent, for example) for an unworthy purpose.

Therefore, prostitution is the offering to have sex for money, not the sex itself. Prostitution is the advertisement of availability.


You said that because private sex is sold publicly, there is a logical flaw ?

The logical flaw is this: since it is sold publicly, it is not entirely private. Therefore, you cannot necessarily say that it has the same protection as other forms of consentual sex.


EDIT:
make it a legitmate business, it will then be sold in a private location, a brothel, and the government has no say.

A place of business is not considered a private location, as far as I'm aware.

 

Singles bars are advertising sex just as much.

If you don't think so, you're deluding yourself.

 

A place of business is not considered a private location, as far as I'm aware.

My house is a private location, if I wanted to sell my body off to the girls who came to my house, do the police have a right to say anything to me? Im not doing it pubically, the girls might be pubically aware of it, but it is a private location. The only thing the government might have on me is tax default.

Same with a brothel, except the girls who work there will be registered to pay taxes.

 

Singles bars are advertising sex just as much.

But beer is not the offical U.S. currency.


My house is a private location, if I wanted to sell my body off to the girls who came to my house, do the police have a right to say anything to me?

If you had a guest at your house, and you offered them sex for money, I don't know whether the police could arrest you for prostitution. They normally go after the ones who are publicly advertising, e.g. streetwalkers.


Same with a brothel, except the girls who work there will be registered to pay taxes.

No, it is not the same, because how did you know it was a brothel? And if records are being kept of the money paid for sex, and taxes are paid on the profits, then it is a place of business and no longer the same as a private residence.

 

So the issue is public advertising. What about the sex shop with a beautiful big neon sign that says SEX where you can buy dildo, movies and other wonderful toys ? It is the same, besides, legalising prostitution would of course take into account how it is advertised.

 

But beer is not the offical U.S. currency.

This has nothign to do with beer or money, this has to do with advertising sex.

 

No, it is not the same, because how did you know it was a brothel?

What if those girls who came to my house knowing what I sold, the word is all over town? They know, it is the same thing.

And like someone else said, what about Dr Feelgoods, or someplace like that, they have ads out on late night television, in bars, and big huge signs on the side of the street, and flashing neon lights advertising their business, its not illegal. Why create double standards?

 

I think you misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying you can't advertise sex-related goods and services. I was saying that by advertising, you have made it something public, and therefore it is not protected as private consentual sex.

 

I was saying that by advertising, you have made it something public, and therefore it is not protected as private consentual sex.

So what about pornography?

Singles bars?

Strip clubs?

All of these are protected because they're private, but under your definition, nothing is private.

 

I think that none of those qualify as prostitution because none of them offer intercourse with the customer for money.

EDIT:
And no, I don't think any of them are protected because they are "private." (Though I suppose I could be wrong.) Certainly a strip club isn't considered "public" because otherwise, laws against public nudity would be violated, but I have a hard time seeing how they're considered "private" when they are places of business, and not private residences.