Razor consider this my second and final argument.
I think Razor and I may disagree on what is defined as prostitution. His definition as stated is clear and concise yet doesn’t really suit the argument at hand.
He has continued to insist a simple exchange of money for sexual acts is enough to be legal and I agree (to a point). Many countries in the world agree on that or at least a variation on a theme. (Many where it is legalised already punish the client and the “pimp”
. But do not be convinced that there is no crime being committed, because I in fact believe that true prostitution is deeper, darker and seedier than that.
In my eyes, a prostitute is put to work by a pimp or madam. Whether they want to or not. They do not get to choose their clients or working hours or even agree the basic terms of a contract of employment. If a girl has a choice then surely she should be able to decide how much she takes per job (excuse the awful pun). In my eyes, the girls that are being put / forced to work do not have as much choice as they could/should.
Razor states legal brothels protect the girls from any crime. An interesting yet totally flawed point which I will return to shortly.
Firstly, let me address the fluffy rebuttal based on the points made in his original post.
He still asserts that
prostitution is a victimless act. I have disagreed because whether he likes it or not there is proven link between prostitution and many other crimes, from drugs to armed robbery to people trafficking. Simply paying for sex is OK but the problem I have is where that money goes and what happens with it. In most cases, where girls do not work for themselves or for sympathetic, well organised practices such as brothels, the money will go to third parties and in many cases, organised crime will be funded.
And simply put, adultery is not a crime but who is to say how deep the effects of that act truly run?
With regards to girls who make the
choice to be a sex worker, I say that for every Belle de Jour (the English girl who while a student, became a prostitute under a pseudonym to put herself through university and then sold her story through books and then a popular TV series based on the book), there are hundreds of girls forced to do the same job without the freedom that she had. Girls who are ripped out of their home country and thrust into the dingy world of a foreign town will never have the benefits of the lifestyle that Belle de Jour had chosen for herself. These girls are
victims in the truest sense of the word.
The
immorality argument is difficult. Simply paying for it is nothing to me however I find it hard to believe that anyone believes people trafficking and crimes that are directly related to drugs are moral.
Offering to pay for sex or getting paid for having sex is not a crime to me but doing it for the financial benefit of someone else and not wholly yourself doesn’t sit right with me. Especially as I have already discussed, that any “profits” bypass the girls almost entirely.
This point was practically dismissed out of hand and yet there is a proven link with prostitution and crime as I have mentioned already. Razor stated that these are not sex crimes, but crimes of kidnapping and enslavement, I say what is the difference? If prostitution in its worst form is proven to lead to other crimes, then it should certainly be considered immoral.
Now the
violence and sex crimes point is something that I can’t back at all. First of all, let me just state for the record that I completely sympathise for any victim of sex crime. It’s as reprehensible as it gets.
However rape is an extremely difficult case to prove, let alone get a conviction for. This is both due to a lack of forensic evidence and a reliance on circumstance and opinion
Razor bases his argument on sex workers being looked down upon and discriminated against. I say supply the proof to this, because it is simply wrong to do so.
And yet his assertion that sex crimes to sex workers in the event of legalised prostitution will fall is interesting yet flawed. I would say the sex workers who have been raped, beaten and murdered in the legal brothels of Holland and Germany would truly disagree that it has worked to the extent that Razor believes.
Sex crimes will go unreported so long as pimps are unrepentant, have the financial advantage and are able to intimidate their “employees”. It’s not the fault of the workers, they are more often than not placed in these conditions.
And if prostitution is legalised and brothels are formed, will that mean the end of women hanging on the dark street corners of red light districts? It’s unlikely. Full legalisation is not the answer and there is no instant solution. It’s not as simple as treating it like a business that needs to fulfil supply and demand.
Sex is an innocent act and on its’ own, simple and pleasurable. However, when it funds illegal activities, directly or indirectly, then it has to be considered an act that is at least immoral and at worst illegal.
If well intended and thoroughly regulated – which is easier said than done – then long may it be successful. But it’s unlikely that girls brought over illegally from Asia or Eastern Europe or raped in the legalised establishment in Central Europe will benefit in the same way that the Nevada girls do. Those establishments are the exception rather than the rule and do not prove the argument in hand.