FromTheSouth
You don't want it with me.
This thread will be open for a week and GD will judge
Razor will affirm the topic.
Resolved: Prostitution should be legal.
Razor will affirm the topic.
Resolved: Prostitution should be legal.
Week 2 - Razor vs. Number$
- Thread starter FromTheSouth
- Start date
Razor's Assumed Definition of Prostitution: The act of a man or woman willingly trading sex for money or other goods.
Alright. Let's get right to this.
1) It is a basically victimless crime.
Who is getting harmed in the act of Prostitution?
The woman is definitely not getting harmed. She's going about her business having sex with men whom she chooses and getting paid for it. She is a willing participant in this enterprise.
The man? He's not being forced to pay for sex. He is willingly offering the prostitute money in return for sexual pleasure.
If both parties are willing participants, and the act in itself does not harm either person, then why make it illegal?
2) Many Prostitutes Choose to be Prostitutes
In an article I had to read for Anthropology, Tricking and Tripping, many women the anthropologist interviewed were educated women. They actually chose to take part in Prostitution.
Why?
Put simply, the pay is better. That, and they get to chose their costumers. Prostitutes often keep track of pervy or otherwise undesirable clients and warn their fellow prostitutes to avoid the men.
To go forward with this argument assuming that prostitutes are simply uneducated women who have no other choice is not only insulting to the women, but completely baseless.
3) The Morality Of It All
..and?
The laws of this nation or any other do not exist to dispense morals. The law of the land should be used to keep the Social Contract intact. I promise that Prostitution does not threaten the Social Contract.
4) Violence and Prostitution
Prostitutes are often chosen as victims of crimes simply because the perpetrators know they can not report the man. Their very career is illegal, and cops in the cities often look at prostitutes as somehow having "asked for" the crimes committed against them.
Criminals often report in their confessions in court that they chose prostitutes because they knew that they wouldn't be reported. One serial killer reported just that fact. He used the knowledge to kill over 40 women in a span of 20 years.
Prostitutes are viewed by some as the very lowest of women. They view the prostitutes as objects to be used for whatever they want.
That is patently untrue. They are humans. They are women. However, these women are handicapped by a law that makes their very legitimate form of career illegal.
The sooner the laws against Prostitution are repealed, the better this land will be.
Closing
My position is simple. It rests on four main principles, and I can introduce more if need be. I'm just smart like that.
1) Prostitution is a victimless crime.
2) Prostitutes choose to be prostitutes.
3) Prostitution isn't immoral, and even if it was, it should hold no baring on laws.
4) Violence against Prostitutes will be drastically cut by the lifting of laws, and the almost instant humanization of Prostitutes.
The worlds’ oldest occupation? It is one thing that has permeated every culture and breaches technology as soon as it is viable. Television, video and the internet all featured sex as soon as the technology allowed it and the Greeks and Babylonians all realised it as a part of their society.
The arguments posed attempt to be concise but are actually confusing and generally lead into each other.
I’ll base the main point of my comeback off this proposition: Crime is never victimless. Prostitution is a prime example. Sex can be an intimate and passionate act. Some people may be helped through confidence issues, but it is much more likely that the act will end up hurting somebody who is not involved in the act.
Victimless crime: Ignoring the fact that that prostitution is a crime, the fact is that clients who are married are creating victims out of their partners and families who are ignorant to their actions. When this is discovered, countless people are hurt and feel betrayed.
Choice: I’ll acknowledge it’s a well paid occupation (Belle De Jour and Secret Diary of a Call Girl proves this and in the US, porn is a billion dollar industry). When the workers choose their work they can benefit from this.
However while some choose to be in this position there are many who are forced into it. It is directly leads into many other crimes such as rape, people and drug trafficking. It is described as the largest and fastest growing slave trade in history (think about the scale of that comment for a second) and is set to outgrow drug trafficking as the fastest growing criminal industry.
Immorality: Prostitution may or may not be immoral but the argument should be considered that ****ing oneself out for financial gain is what is considered the crime here. UK law currently states that the act of prostitution is not a crime but soliciting and running a brothel is. So while the act of having sex is not immoral, the consequences of crime and criminal activity that emerge from the sex trade should still be considered immoral.
Violence and sex crimes: While most cases are (somewhat) harmless just to satisfy an urge or fetish, it is inevitable that someone is going to go too far. Razor mentions that prostitutes are looked down upon and clearly their situation is far from ideal. But when they are under the control of a “pimp”, their actions are not necessarily in the own hands. They are also subject to the actions of their clients. In the UK there was recently a murderer of seven sex workers.
The derogatory view towards sex workers is undeserved however if Razors’ arguments are to be followed then it is their choice to endure the risk of their working conditions.
Prostitution funds a massive amount of crime and while this is an issue, the debate to legalise it will not go away.
The arguments posed attempt to be concise but are actually confusing and generally lead into each other.
I’ll base the main point of my comeback off this proposition: Crime is never victimless. Prostitution is a prime example. Sex can be an intimate and passionate act. Some people may be helped through confidence issues, but it is much more likely that the act will end up hurting somebody who is not involved in the act.
Victimless crime: Ignoring the fact that that prostitution is a crime, the fact is that clients who are married are creating victims out of their partners and families who are ignorant to their actions. When this is discovered, countless people are hurt and feel betrayed.
Choice: I’ll acknowledge it’s a well paid occupation (Belle De Jour and Secret Diary of a Call Girl proves this and in the US, porn is a billion dollar industry). When the workers choose their work they can benefit from this.
However while some choose to be in this position there are many who are forced into it. It is directly leads into many other crimes such as rape, people and drug trafficking. It is described as the largest and fastest growing slave trade in history (think about the scale of that comment for a second) and is set to outgrow drug trafficking as the fastest growing criminal industry.
Immorality: Prostitution may or may not be immoral but the argument should be considered that ****ing oneself out for financial gain is what is considered the crime here. UK law currently states that the act of prostitution is not a crime but soliciting and running a brothel is. So while the act of having sex is not immoral, the consequences of crime and criminal activity that emerge from the sex trade should still be considered immoral.
Violence and sex crimes: While most cases are (somewhat) harmless just to satisfy an urge or fetish, it is inevitable that someone is going to go too far. Razor mentions that prostitutes are looked down upon and clearly their situation is far from ideal. But when they are under the control of a “pimp”, their actions are not necessarily in the own hands. They are also subject to the actions of their clients. In the UK there was recently a murderer of seven sex workers.
The derogatory view towards sex workers is undeserved however if Razors’ arguments are to be followed then it is their choice to endure the risk of their working conditions.
Prostitution funds a massive amount of crime and while this is an issue, the debate to legalise it will not go away.
Ah. But it is not a crime to commit adultery. The feelings of the client's family should not be considered in this argument. The immediate criminals in this "crime" are the prostitute and the costumer. Their crime reaches no further than that. It causes no one property damage, it causes no one loss of property, and it sure doesn't cause anyone direct physical harm.
Ah hah! Point for Razor. Disarray, you keeping track?
Those are forced sex slaves you are speaking of. They are mostly underaged immigrants that were brought her and forced into sex with customers who either know or don't know the age and situation of the prostitute. That is against the law in areas such as, say, kidnapping and enslavement. I'm not arguing for the legalization of kidnapping and forcing women into sexual enslavement.
What I'm arguing for is the women of this nation to be given the ability to freely exercise their right to earn money in a way that is in no way overtly criminal or harmful to the society at large. Sexual enslavement and kidnapping is in no way covered by the scope of my argument.
"****ing oneself out for financial gain is what is considered a crime here."
Right. That's what I am seeking to be legalized.
What is the inherent evil in saying "Hey, lonely dude. You look like you want to have sex and have money. I need money. Wanna trade?"
Sure, that is a horridly simplified and overly crass way of putting it. But that is the simplest way I can. The act of prostitution is in no way harmful. It's sex. The only difference is that the man leaves 50 bucks on the nightstand afterward.
Right. Prostitutes are the targets of attacks because they are seen as lower than life individuals who can not report the offenses against them. Why can they not report the offenses? Because their way of life is not only criminalized, it is discriminated against.
If Prostitution were legalized then the prostitutes would have much more of a want to go to the police and report the crimes committed against them. More reports means more arrests and convictions, therefore the crime rate against this segment of the community will fall exponentially. It matters not if the women choose to be prostitutes and still get beaten and raped. We shouldn't say "Oh, well, it's their fault." It's not. It is no victim's fault.
When Prostitution is legalized, the prostitutes can go to legal brothels and even go into business for themselves. This cuts away the "pimp" role and the connection to other underworld markets that the money (admittedly) goes towards.
Take Nevada for instance. They have legal prostitution in some counties. The prostitutes in those counties aren't working for drug dealers. They are working for men and women who are solely in the business of giving the prostitutes a roof under which to work. They do get a cut of the business, but that's what bosses do. The point is that the money does not go toward drugs or other criminal activities. It goes toward whatever the boss wants to spend money on, and therefore, back into the economy.
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.
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.
Whoa, really tough one to call. I thought Razor had it in the bag, but Numbers came back with a great last post. It seems it all comes down to whether or not prostitution is simply what it's defined as or if it goes hand in hand with other criminal activity. I don't really know, but Razor did a slightly better job from to get go of making a clear argument and backing it up. Hell of a debate though.
Razor - 45
Numbers - 44
Razor - 45
Numbers - 44