Prostitution Argument (continued from “Iceland to ban porn on the web because of children”)

[crossfire]

Yes! Integrate them with other commerce, & let the light of legitimacy prevent abuses.
(We need the tax revenue.) Regulation can be useful to prevent STD transmission, underage workers, workplace violence, etc.

LOL! One step away from taxing all forms of sex. Picture this: "Sorry dear, I ran out of coupons!" :flirt:

 

[Revoltingest]

LOL! One step away from taxing all forms of sex. Picture this: "Sorry dear, I ran out of coupons!" :flirt:

Only where it is commercial.
After all, if you give your hubby a free back massage, there is no tax.
But if you set up a massage chair in the local mall, & charge for it, now ya gotta pay the tax man.

 

[Me Myself]

We cannot treat it as a job; because it is different. We currently don't have anything in the laws to model it after. Legally to define it you've got to start over using it as a basic definition rather than a type of something else. It cannot be described as a job. As a job it would be unethical, and so the courts would overturn it. Its more like a right, and taxing it would infringe the right.

I dont see how it would be unethical as a job. You are providing a harmless service to customers in exchange for money.

Sounds like a job to me.

 

[McBell]

We cannot treat it as a job; because it is different. We currently don't have anything in the laws to model it after. Legally to define it you've got to start over using it as a basic definition rather than a type of something else. It cannot be described as a job. As a job it would be unethical, and so the courts would overturn it. Its more like a right, and taxing it would infringe the right.

I wonder how they deal with massage parlors...
Interesting how you contend it could not possibly be considered subcontracting...

As a job it would be unethical?
Based on what?

It is a right to get paid for sex?
Now that is a new one for me.

 

[Me Myself]

I wonder how they deal with massage parlors...
Interesting how you contend it could not possibly be considered subcontracting...

As a job it would be unethical?
Based on what?

It is a right to get paid for sex?
Now that is a new one for me.

Its a right to sell a service without harming anyone, yes.

 

[4consideration]

We cannot treat it as a job; because it is different. We currently don't have anything in the laws to model it after. Legally to define it you've got to start over using it as a basic definition rather than a type of something else. It cannot be described as a job. As a job it would be unethical, and so the courts would overturn it. Its more like a right, and taxing it would infringe the right.

I disagree that prostitution is essentially different and cannot be compared with other jobs that already exist. Why do you think it is different than everything else?

I would agree that whether or not a person has the RIGHT to decide to engage in it or not is a matter of rights and whether or not society has the right to make that decision for another person is also something that I would include in the subject of "rights." But I would not agree in defining prostitution as a right. I would define prostitution as an activity or service.

 

[McBell]

Its a right to sell a service without harming anyone, yes.

except he seems to be saying that the money involved during the transaction cannot be taxed because ... it is a 'right' ...?

I confess I am confused as to what he is talking about.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I dont see how it would be unethical as a job. You are providing a harmless service to customers in exchange for money.

Sounds like a job to me.

I am searching for terminology.... Its not a personal service job like cutting hair, first because love is part of the exchange. Love is a legally recognized item which in case law has been sited as useable for payment. "For love of his wife...gives such & such" is an acceptable legal phrase wherein the goods given are considered paid and cannot be demanded back, yet 'Wiving' isn't a job. In a personal service job or any other job no love has to be exchanged, but in a sex worker's service it does and it is usually one directional. Also sex work is not harmless, because it is medical in character and carries medical risks. The differences are: 1. Love 2. medical

I wonder how they deal with massage parlors...
Interesting how you contend it could not possibly be considered subcontracting...

As a job it would be unethical?
Based on what?

It is a right to get paid for sex?
Now that is a new one for me.

Massage is personal service but it is not considered medically risky. I didn't say it was a right to always get paid for sex. I said that prostitution should not be legalized as a job, but if legalized it should only be as the right of the sex worker to make sexual contract. I'm suggesting it is the best legal framework for an improved way to regulate sex work in order to counteract child sex trafficking and to uphold the rights and dignity of sex workers (men and women).

I disagree that prostitution is essentially different and cannot be compared with other jobs that already exist. Why do you think it is different than everything else?

Good question, and above I explain that I think the main two reasons are that love is exchanged and that it is a medical procedure with medical risks. Jobs don't require both exchange of love and medical risks. Even teaching doesn't require 'Love' in the legal sense of the word.

I would agree that whether or not a person has the RIGHT to decide to engage in it or not is a matter of rights and whether or not society has the right to make that decision for another person is also something that I would include in the subject of "rights." But I would not agree in defining prostitution as a right. I would define prostitution as an activity or service.

Ethically I think you have the correct terminology, but in the slightly different world of law it should be an untaxable and non-employment related activity called a right -- to uphold the ethics you've stated. There are fundamental human rights and then there are rights that are recognized in law.

 

[Horrorble]

I dont see how it would be unethical as a job. You are providing a harmless service to customers in exchange for money.

Sounds like a job to me.

Except that there aren't any transferable skills so putting it on a CV for example would be pointless. Which is why prositutes often feel trapped and when most want to leave they have no means to.

 

[dust1n]

If they can’t escape legal prostitution then the removal (or non-existence) of legal prostitution means they’ll be forced into illegal prostitution because they have no other option. It’s a worse situation no matter how you look at it, although you might at least be hiding that fact from public eyes due to a complete lack of accountability in illegal prostitution.

I'm, I guess I should state right now, that I'm all for an increase in public efforts and spending to help prostitutes, victims of child abuse generally, of accessing new means of survival, such as housing, free education, food assistance, healthcare, etc. My idea of ending legal prostitution has nothing to do with moving said women or men back into the streets. Nor do I advocate criminalizing prostitutes.

SO, I go back once again, that my study provided local American prostitutes interviewed, 81% felt the couldn't leave the legal occupation. I can go back once again and get the statistics firm interviews with European prostitutes if need be.

And my question remains the same... as of now, where legal or illegal, the majority of prostitutes feel that can not leave the profession, the supposedly freedom we are referring to, so, how is this a very blurry line between labor and sex slavery?

It’s evidentially low enough on their priorities list that they are failing to tackle the issue. As stated though, I see legislation as being justified simply because it’s the right thing to do. I don’t see the justice in doing this kind of good/harm risk assessment and using the conclusions to deny people their rights.

I see, then so you way it is a matter of ideal as opposed to examination of the consequences upon society. The last thing we need is more politicians with that approach.

A lot of these problems could be effectively taken care of by undercover investigations. For example, have underage girls apply every now and then to try and get a job. This would be an easy test of whether or not they’re doing proper age checks. Use undercover johns to check that security is on the ball, that the prostitutes refuse illegal requests etc (basically the equivalent of a mystery shopper in retail).

I don't think underage girls generally come up to pimps and brothels with the simple aspirations of being a sex slave. Who would even fall for that? What a useless test. Even then, I think government regulation might need to be a tad more in detail than mystery shoppers.

And where is this money going to come from? Obviously there isn't enough money in finding sex slavery and human trafficking now? If we are going to be on the ball with it, how it is it going to be funded? Where will the increase in law enforcement come? Especially considering the rates are more so on the rise than anything.

So is alcohol consumption,

Not even close to comparable rates as alcohol.

sex before marriage

That's associated with crimes? Like %95 of Americans have sex before marriage. (Premarital Sex Is Nearly Universal Among Americans, And Has Been For Decades)

Even then, a restriction on that is restriction on how one lives their life, not a restriction on how one operates a business. The government should primarily be in the business of regulating financial endeavors and helping and addressing social issues, not dictating what individuals do in their own will.

and likely a whole range of things that we’d consider perfectly acceptable as long as it’s done with a reasonable amount of common sense...

I’d argue that no matter how high the risk is its still got to be better than illegal prostitution. You cannot eliminate the risk of STI’s, but you can attempt to mitigate it.

Sure, one way is to provide public services and fight sex trafficking, not take steps to ensure it will continue.

Well privately owned brothels aren’t in it to bring in tax money; they’re in it to make money for them. Only a fraction of their actual profits would go to the government.

So they differ from a pimp how? "A pimp is a male agent for prostitutes who collects part of their earnings. This act is called procuring or Pandering. The pimp may receive this money in return for advertising services, physical protection, or for providing, and possibly monopolizing, a location where he or she (i.e. the prostitute) may engage clients. A woman who runs a brothel is known as a madam rather than a pimp." Pimp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the government owns it they’re obviously going to end up getting a much bigger slice.

Is it obvious? Is a government owns a business, it can now take on public debt. Taxes can only be derived from profitable businesses. You can't lose money collecting taxes. You can if you are operating a business. There has never been one, so I can't really judge it without some kind of info.

That’s a good example of giving up liberty in exchange for security.

Yes, we sometimes do this. Any other lame rhetorical devices? Oh wait, I got one!

Giving up liberty in exchange for security? Isn't that what the overwhelming majority of prostitutes have to do because of the innate dangers of the profession?

 

[dust1n]

Yeah, Link wars!
Nevada's Legal Brothels Make Workers Feel Safer - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

No offense, but since my link is based upon a 15 year study of the Nevada county in question....

Pretty much.

Hey gents. Am I ever going to get a reply where I stated the only statistic regarded in those post (84% of women said they feel safe in legal brothels) was only 21 out of 25 prostitutes interviewed?

 

[dust1n]

Its a right to sell a service without harming anyone, yes.

In America, it is not a right to sell a service. It is a privilege. Many occupations involve licensing, regulating to how that service is provided, labor laws, etc.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

No one spoke about LOVE!? between two people being the only acceptable situation in which people have sex. No one here placed themselves on a pedastal acting like they are Virgin frigging Mary. There are plenty of anti sex industry activists who have been prostitutes and porn stars and are not virgin until married.
For all you know the people here who are criticising the sex industry have had lots of casual sex and in no way are they trying to say they are better people than prostitutes. We are talking about rape and abuse here which yes is different!

I was being facetious. Geez.

 

[Revoltingest]

In America, it is not a right to sell a service. It is a privilege. Many occupations involve licensing, regulating to how that service is provided, labor laws, etc.

But for other services which don't require a license, would you say that the right to sell any service is a privilege which exists at the pleasure of government?
I find this a rather chilling idea, since gov could exercise the power to prohibit someone from working. The USSR used to do this as a form of persecution.

 

[Horrorble]

I was being facetious. Geez.

But it's not allowed :run:

 

[crossfire]

SO, I go back once again, that my study provided local American prostitutes interviewed, 81% felt the couldn't leave the legal occupation. I can go back once again and get the statistics firm interviews with European prostitutes if need be.

And my question remains the same... as of now, where legal or illegal, the majority of prostitutes feel that can not leave the profession, the supposedly freedom we are referring to, so, how is this a very blurry line between labor and sex slavery?

Psychologically speaking, they are selling their souls to the Horny Ones. (Pardon the pagan pun.) If they do this on their own--outside of industry--I don't have too much of a problem with it. However, industry is about growth, and that growth needs to be fed--and as your studies have shown, it's often fed with children and trafficked humans.

I see, then so you way it is a matter of ideal as opposed to examination of the consequences upon society. The last thing we need is more politicians with that approach.

Indeed. The studies you have presented seem to show that legalization increases human trafficking.

And where is this money going to come from? Obviously there isn't enough money in finding sex slavery and human trafficking now? If we are going to be on the ball with it, how it is it going to be funded? Where will the increase in law enforcement come? Especially considering the rates are more so on the rise than anything.

[satire] From the bribes the human traffickers will give the politicians to legally grow their business? [/satire] :sarcastic

Giving up liberty in exchange for security? Isn't that what the overwhelming majority of prostitutes have to do because of the innate dangers of the profession?

Well said.

 

[Me Myself]

In America, it is not a right to sell a service. It is a privilege. Many occupations involve licensing, regulating to how that service is provided, labor laws, etc.

Then they dont have the right to use their own bodies in a way of thier choosing that is not harming anyone.

 

[Me Myself]

Giving up liberty in exchange for security? Isn't that what the overwhelming majority of prostitutes have to do because of the innate dangers of the profession?

HAVE to? Talking different issues here. They dont HAVE TO accept such a thing if they dont wan to. They have the fredom to accept it or not.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I was being facetious. Geez.

Ooh! That's some dirty talk.

 

[Brickjectivity]

And where is this money going to come from? Obviously there isn't enough money in finding sex slavery and human trafficking now? If we are going to be on the ball with it, how it is it going to be funded? Where will the increase in law enforcement come? Especially considering the rates are more so on the rise than anything.

Donations. Sex trafficking has evolved to work with governments that outlaw or tax sex work. If you fund the government by taxing sex workers, then you will provide cover for sex traffic. Change it up by getting sex workers to seek protection from the government. That will make traffickers stand out, so you won't have to spend a lot more money to find them.