Should Prostitution Be a Crime?(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Should Prostitution Be a Crime?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/should-prostitution-be-a-crime.html?_r=0
314 comments
Here in New Zealand we made it legal a number of years ago, and now it mostly seems like a non issue these days, and from reports it's made the industry safer. None of the horror scenarios that people predicted would happen if we legalized it came about. I think there is the odd problem with asian women brought in illegally to the country and exploited, but I think because the industry itself is legal it actually makes it easier for the police to find out about it and for whistle blowers from the industry to come forward.
In places where drug use or prostitution are illegal there are usually interest groups earning quite bit via the penal system or just plain stealing people's stuff because they were involved in drugs or prostitution.
So logically speaking it should be officially accepted as a profession and managed by the health department in order for the sex workers to not suffer as much. Then you can also apply the same controls to sex trafficking as you do to the non-sex shadow work force.
Portugal's health system allowed them to legalize drug use and create a healthier society and decrease related crime. Let's face it, if someone wants to smoke crack or pay a sex worker, they will do it regardless. Might as well control and earn money the usual way like liquor taxes.
So logically speaking it should be officially accepted as a profession and managed by the health department in order for the sex workers to not suffer as much. Then you can also apply the same controls to sex trafficking as you do to the non-sex shadow work force.
Portugal's health system allowed them to legalize drug use and create a healthier society and decrease related crime. Let's face it, if someone wants to smoke crack or pay a sex worker, they will do it regardless. Might as well control and earn money the usual way like liquor taxes.
I'm 22 and paying for sex is a routine of mine. Most countries in Europe have it decriminalized and in some it's even regulated, thankfully.
Let's see, why I pay for sex?
Let's see, why I pay for sex?
1) I'm in the bottom 20% in attractiveness.
1.1) Tinder and real life take work.
1.2) Low market value -> Low value offers.
1.3) Return on investment is negative.
2) It's not that expensive
2.1) 60 euros -> top 10% for 30 minutes
2.2) Time and effort. Better write python a couple hours.
3) Selection
3.1) Age, physical characteristics, services, "personality"..
3.2) There are forums/webpages with reviews by other customers.
4) Not interested in relationships.
4.1) I don't even know in which country I'm going to live next year.
4.2) I expect to do that when older.
One of the things that has really changed my thinking about an entire cluster of related questions, and informs this one, is a Bloomberg article from a law professor about a year and a half ago.[1]
If you followed the link, skimmed through the article, and are now back at this comment going "what the hell are you talking about," go back to it and reread the first two paragraphs. It's really short, and it packs a punch, even if you're not a libertarian (I'm certainly not).
If you don't want to click through: Don't support a law unless you accept that it will kill some of the perpetrators. A law needs to survive its collateral damage. It is always a strong, non-theoretical possibility that due to some law, and whatever dynamics are available at the time, that someone will die as a result of it. It just requires a pimp or prostitute (in this case) who is being apprehended to accidentally move in just the wrong way, show just the wrong disrespect, that some police officer thinks they're in imminent danger of being attacked or shot. And, are you going to be comfortable with it?
The linked article points out that this is true in the case of Eric Garner's crime of selling loose cigarettes: nobody really thinks that this is something anyone should potentially die over. Similarly, I would say, for the act of selling one's body -- perhaps it might come with fines, to discourage it, but jail time seems insane. And one of the reasons is that it puts a threat on the lives of the women who are presumably already being trafficked.
(The article contains a bunch of other gems from a book it recommends: for example if you're having the "I don't need privacy; I've done nothing wrong" thing, you can be like, "statistically according to this book there's a 70% chance you have -- you probably just don't know it yet. Have you read the 3,000+ federal laws and do you know the 300,000+ federal regulations to be sure of that?")
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-12-04/law-puts-u...
If you followed the link, skimmed through the article, and are now back at this comment going "what the hell are you talking about," go back to it and reread the first two paragraphs. It's really short, and it packs a punch, even if you're not a libertarian (I'm certainly not).
If you don't want to click through: Don't support a law unless you accept that it will kill some of the perpetrators. A law needs to survive its collateral damage. It is always a strong, non-theoretical possibility that due to some law, and whatever dynamics are available at the time, that someone will die as a result of it. It just requires a pimp or prostitute (in this case) who is being apprehended to accidentally move in just the wrong way, show just the wrong disrespect, that some police officer thinks they're in imminent danger of being attacked or shot. And, are you going to be comfortable with it?
The linked article points out that this is true in the case of Eric Garner's crime of selling loose cigarettes: nobody really thinks that this is something anyone should potentially die over. Similarly, I would say, for the act of selling one's body -- perhaps it might come with fines, to discourage it, but jail time seems insane. And one of the reasons is that it puts a threat on the lives of the women who are presumably already being trafficked.
(The article contains a bunch of other gems from a book it recommends: for example if you're having the "I don't need privacy; I've done nothing wrong" thing, you can be like, "statistically according to this book there's a 70% chance you have -- you probably just don't know it yet. Have you read the 3,000+ federal laws and do you know the 300,000+ federal regulations to be sure of that?")
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-12-04/law-puts-u...
I strongly believe that making prostitution illegal only creates problem by driving prostitution underground and favoring human traffic and abuse.
An open society should make prostitution legal but also regulate it, institute regular health checks for the workers, find a way to ensure that there are legal ways for both prostitutes and clients to do the transaction in a safe environment and be tough on any abuse that happens outside of the law.
Some countries like Sweden have started penalizing customers but that, while the government claim that it's been efficient and shows that there are less streetwalkers nowadays in Sweden, the opposition claims otherwise by saying that prostitution just moved to online venues and that there's been an increase in sexual tourism by Swedish Nationals.
An open society should make prostitution legal but also regulate it, institute regular health checks for the workers, find a way to ensure that there are legal ways for both prostitutes and clients to do the transaction in a safe environment and be tough on any abuse that happens outside of the law.
Some countries like Sweden have started penalizing customers but that, while the government claim that it's been efficient and shows that there are less streetwalkers nowadays in Sweden, the opposition claims otherwise by saying that prostitution just moved to online venues and that there's been an increase in sexual tourism by Swedish Nationals.
I've argued in the past that making prostitution illegal fuels human trafficking because it finances criminal enterprises by incentivizing the exploitation and enslavement women who have little protection from the law.
Personally speaking, I think it's a misogynistic policy that creates untold tragedy for exploited women everywhere.
Personally speaking, I think it's a misogynistic policy that creates untold tragedy for exploited women everywhere.
I guess my biggest concern with this is tied up in this potential dystopian future where prostitution is basically the only unskilled job humans can do better than machines. How do we prevent people from being forced into this out of economic desperation?
"Members of the human rights group in Norway and Sweden resigned en masse, saying the organization’s goal should be to end demand for prostitution, not condone it."
How would you ever set about trying to remove the demand for prostitution?
How would you ever set about trying to remove the demand for prostitution?
I don't understand why people consider sex a moral issue. This is a deeply personal issue and when done between consenting adults affects no one else. Why should it matter with whom one has sex with if all parties consent? It seems to me that people that want to put limits on this are simply overstepping their bounds because they can and they want to force their ideas onto others in an effort to control and dominate others. I mean the stated purpose of Amnesty International, according to some members, "should be to end demand for prostitution, not condone it." These people must be delusional, even more delusional than the anti-drug warriors who love to kill, imprison, and enslave. Interestingly enough, the outcome of both is the same.
These delusional people are the ones who need to be regulated as making sex a moral issue has indeed led to horrors that would have otherwise been avoided. I wouldn't even say they have good intentions in this case as it's obvious what happens when sex is made into a moral issue. We have the evidence and we know. We also know what happens when it's not and people are allowed to have sex with whomever they want for whatever they want. To still want to control who people have sex with and under what terms after knowing all this is to intentionally support all the negatives of having sex be a moral issue and outlawed in most places: human trafficking, slavery, etc.
These people making moral judgements about an amoral topic are the ones providing the foundation for the global sex trade. Shame on them indeed.
These delusional people are the ones who need to be regulated as making sex a moral issue has indeed led to horrors that would have otherwise been avoided. I wouldn't even say they have good intentions in this case as it's obvious what happens when sex is made into a moral issue. We have the evidence and we know. We also know what happens when it's not and people are allowed to have sex with whomever they want for whatever they want. To still want to control who people have sex with and under what terms after knowing all this is to intentionally support all the negatives of having sex be a moral issue and outlawed in most places: human trafficking, slavery, etc.
These people making moral judgements about an amoral topic are the ones providing the foundation for the global sex trade. Shame on them indeed.
Coming from Australia, it amazes me how big a deal this is in the United States.
Why can't two consenting adults enter into a contract with one another? I suspect the governments issue with prostitution has something to do with taxes.
If you film it... changes everything.
If you film it... changes everything.
The majority of the abolitionists seem to be approaching the issue in an entirely one-sided manner: prostitution is male customers and female prostitutes. It completely ignores that women can desire purely sexual encounters (which Tinder and Chippendales are big examples of evidence against) or that sex can be a moral and healthy experience for both parties even if money is involved.
> "They’re sexual objects. What does that mean for how professional women are seen? And if women are sex toys you can buy, think about the impact on relationships between men and women, in marriage or otherwise."
They're really showing their hand here. First, they want you to believe that all women are accountable for all other women. They see every sexual depiction of a woman to be representative of all women, which to me is the real objectification of the gender.
Second, as it relates to "relationships between men and women", they want to exert control over personal relationships, which is just ludicrous. Do they honestly think men only have monogamous relationships for the sex?
> "They’re sexual objects. What does that mean for how professional women are seen? And if women are sex toys you can buy, think about the impact on relationships between men and women, in marriage or otherwise."
They're really showing their hand here. First, they want you to believe that all women are accountable for all other women. They see every sexual depiction of a woman to be representative of all women, which to me is the real objectification of the gender.
Second, as it relates to "relationships between men and women", they want to exert control over personal relationships, which is just ludicrous. Do they honestly think men only have monogamous relationships for the sex?
If it is going to be a crime, let the John or Jane be the penalized, i.e. the service user rather than the service provider, because, in the majority of cases, this industry is enabled by exploitation of the people in a weak economic state.
See France.
See France.
This is one of the oldest "profession" on this planet. IMO, it is still active today is a sufficient proof that it serve some folks well (on both sides), and shouldn't be labelled as crime or illegal.
Sure, there are irregularities in this trade, but don't they exist in other professions as well? Underpaid waiters, underpaid workers, etc. Similarly it has its own poisonous weeds - pimps, trafficking, etc. That needs to be eradicated, not the industry per se.
Along with how automation and robots will affect other aspects of our lives, one can wonder how it will be involved in our moral and physical perspectives on sex. To the point, for moral and health reasons, will people be drawn increasingly to robot sex?[1][2] (links maybe NSFW)
[1] http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/robot-sex-may-be-co...
[2] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/lovesick-cyborg/2016/03/10...
[1] http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/robot-sex-may-be-co...
[2] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/lovesick-cyborg/2016/03/10...
Like many other things, this should be decided at the neighborhood level.
There are problems allowing it and problems outlawing it. Letting each neighborhood decide will enable those benefitting from this trade to also pay the costs of it. If it does attract crime, they'll need to consider that when they make their decision, tax brothels enough to pay those costs.
There will always be some neighborhoods that allow it. Everybody that wants to engage in this will have a place to do it.
And neighborhoods that don't want it can just levy fines rather than prison sentences. That alone will make people do this in more permissive neighborhoods.
There are problems allowing it and problems outlawing it. Letting each neighborhood decide will enable those benefitting from this trade to also pay the costs of it. If it does attract crime, they'll need to consider that when they make their decision, tax brothels enough to pay those costs.
There will always be some neighborhoods that allow it. Everybody that wants to engage in this will have a place to do it.
And neighborhoods that don't want it can just levy fines rather than prison sentences. That alone will make people do this in more permissive neighborhoods.
I am against Prostitution, but I do not think it should be a crime. As a society we should legalize all behaviors that do not harm others. I know that's a slippery slope, but rehab is better all around then jail.
As with all headlines that end in a question mark, the answer here is pretty obviously 'no'.
This is one of those issues where intelligent people cannot disagree. If you think prostitution should be illegal, you are stupid. Categorically and unequivocally. There are precisely zero valid arguments in favor of its criminalization.
This is one of those issues where intelligent people cannot disagree. If you think prostitution should be illegal, you are stupid. Categorically and unequivocally. There are precisely zero valid arguments in favor of its criminalization.
I think its the state violating individual human rights if what consenting adults do with themselves without violating anyone else's rights is considered illegal. I am curious to understand how it is not or counter arguments if any.
It should definitely be decriminalized (i.e. people engaged in it should not be persecuted by law). However, legalizing it does not necessarily eliminate issues like human trafficking/people being forced into prostitution.
i think the more important question, at least where i am, is if seeking the services is a crime... because it is here, even if prostitution is not.
seems a tad unfair to penalise someone who can be viewed as being exploited and a victim on either side of it to me. some women/men are desperate for money and others are desperate for sex... and the only harm these people do to the world is to each other.
(... and the ones who do it for other reasons are probably in need of help imo)
(EDIT: actually after some reflection, all of them are. its a sad state of affairs on both sides. :( )
seems a tad unfair to penalise someone who can be viewed as being exploited and a victim on either side of it to me. some women/men are desperate for money and others are desperate for sex... and the only harm these people do to the world is to each other.
(... and the ones who do it for other reasons are probably in need of help imo)
(EDIT: actually after some reflection, all of them are. its a sad state of affairs on both sides. :( )
France decided to make clients criminals, not prostitutes, thus it is legal to sell sexual services yet illegal to consume them ?!?
It is legal in some European countries, for example, Germany and Netherlands.
In Germany, they pay income tax and charge VAT for their services.
In Germany, they pay income tax and charge VAT for their services.
[deleted]
Why is paying for sex any different from bribery ('dates') for potential sex?
As long as you need to be a citizen , I'm concerned about human trafficking.
No
No
No
Our bodies wear down and tire doing non-sexual labor. What makes sexual labor so horrid? As long as we do safe procedures (condoms, dental dams, etc.), there shouldn't be any problems with labor of a sexual nature.
It's always better if you like your job. A lot of us do programming, or designing systems, or administration. We enjoy it. There's also people who like sex. I know a few, and they have made more in the sex industry.
The only real problems are disease and abuse. Disease is obvious, but "owners" like pimps and such are big problems. We don't accept this in standard employment.
And yes, sex for money for both genders is pretty awesome. It bypasses the whole mating ritual, and makes very clear expectations up front. And once done, the transaction is completed. Regular relationships can, and will get messy. I can certainly understand why some would not want to venture down that avenue in their point of life.