Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Legal Prostitution?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 03:59 AM
link   
I believe that a crime requires two major elements: a perpetrator and a victim. Without a victim, there is no crime.

Prostitution falls into the "victimless crime" category. Everything that happened between both the prostitute and his/her client -- the exchange of money, the sexual intercourse -- was consensual. Neither took away any rights or freedoms of the other.

So, as a classical conservative, I must say, legalize it. Actually, other than the typical small business regulations, the government should not be concerned about this at all except in the rare cases where one person files criminal charges or fraud charges against the other. Instead of states devoting police officers to Vice Squads (which are really no different in principle than the Religious Police which operate in Muslim theocracies, for example), it should be focusing its efforts on crimes that actually have victims (murder, rape, burglary, battery, theft, etc.)...

"Victimless crimes" (not just this one, but all of them) should be considered unconstitutional, IMO...




posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by James the Lesser
To be a prostitute, you are to be tested for STDs and drugs every month. If you have STDs, your liscense is taken away and can no longer be a professional legal prostitute.


Really? Are you sure that prostitutes with STDs don't find work in the fetish market, like you said grandmother-aged prostitutes can?


Hey, I was the one you discussing the granny f*cker market with, remember?
But I highly doubt there is an STD fetish market, if there were, they could easily just patron a prostitute that is walking the streets today.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I agree that prostitution should be legalized but there should be strict regulations that go along with it. Prostitutes should entertain in a licenced brothel, not out on the streets, they should be tested monthly (at the very least) for std's , and drugs, in fact one of my biggest concerns about the legalization of prostitution is the company that comes alon with the enviroment such as druggies and drug dealers, as you will see if you walk along Langstrasse in Zurich, its the only street in town where prostitutes are allowed to strut their stuff but you run into far more druggies/dealers there than prostitutes. Also in the brothels the "entertainers" should be provided with food, shelter, and condoms,couniling programs, and they should have at least one security gaurd in case there are customers who get out of hand. Their will always be a market for prostitution, the least that can be done is to make it safe for the customers and the people who choose to live that lifestyle.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Would any of you want your daughters to consider prostitution to be a "Career Choice" for your kids? What about career day at high school or something. What if your daughter pointed to the prostitution stand? What would you do?If all you think its ok, then you should let her go and make that choice. I dont think so. Hell no, I would not want it legal at all.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON
Would any of you want your daughters to consider prostitution to be a "Career Choice"?


Of course not! No one is saying that it should be considered a "normal" career choice, any more than the rest of the adult magazine/video/strippers industry. There are no "porn" stands at career fairs in high schools or colleges, after all. But, just because the choice isn't a good one doesn't mean that it should be made illegal.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Of course no one want their daughter, sister, freind to become a prostitute, unfortunatly their are women who do choose to do that, what I am saying is that for the women who do choose to do so should at least have it become safer, and not have to hide it in the backseat of a car, or a dark alley. Let them have a safe place to perform their "services". Also for prostitutes these days who want to change profession how easy do you think it is for them? Half of them even if they want to leave can't because their afraid that the guy who is pimping them out will find them and beat them to death. What we're saying is make it leagal so it can be regulated, and make these unfortunate girls safer.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Exactly! It makes it safer for the women, AND MEN!(People keep forgetting them) who want to be prostitutes. No pimps, and with drug testing no use of drugs, and with STD testing every month, will help stop the spread of STDs.

Someone laid out the definitions of a crime, ie a victim. Where is the victim? I get an orgasm, she gets 50-100 dollars. Who the victim?(My wallet?)



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 12:14 AM
link   
What about the emotional or social costs?
How safe are you if jealousy is bred from this behaivior?
How safe is your family when mom leaves daddy because he did something LEGAL?

While physically this would increase safety...so far not alot has been given to the social impacts that legal whoring could have.

Why marry at all if you can just buy companionship?

Howsatisfied or how much self esteem is generated if you can only score with money? wouldnt that feel hollow if you couldnt get laid unless you had cash?

How would you feel if you were the whore and noone ever gave you emotional support you need, and just used you and tossed you aside?

what about the poor, the ones that cant afford to buy this intimacy? wouldnt they feel likeless than an equal being if they couldnt satisfy their sexual urges like people that could pay?

Isnt this activity moving backwards twords treating people like property?

Again i say go ahead and de-criminalize this activity, but be prepared for the concequences. you know, the ones we either havnt forseen or the ones we want to conveniantly overlook so we can get our jollies.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
What about the emotional or social costs?
How safe is your family when mom leaves daddy because he did something LEGAL?


Emotional and social costs are the responsibility of the individual, not the government. And Mom can leave Dad because he did something LEGAL all the time -- for example, going broke due to job loss/gambling/etc...



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThunderCloud

Originally posted by CazMedia
What about the emotional or social costs?
How safe is your family when mom leaves daddy because he did something LEGAL?


Emotional and social costs are the responsibility of the individual, not the government. And Mom can leave Dad because he did something LEGAL all the time -- for example, going broke due to job loss/gambling/etc...


It's a matter of ethics and how to protect a society from negative behavior.

There are some things that have been proven to provide stable, healthy lifestyle for a community. Cleanliness, education, manners, and income devoted to things like housing and food.

Other things have proven negative to communities, like rampant substance abuse, squandering money on gambling, filth, lack of education and courtesy.

There are reasons that opium dens, bordellos, and gambling houses were cleaned up by the Progressives: because they destroyed social fabric of urban areas.

While it's very egalitarian to say that all men are perfectly capable of self-awareness and deciding how to live a life that's beneficial to family and community, this is not the case. Social regulations are instilled in the form of laws, personal ethics, and accepted decency. The acceptance of gambling, substance abuse, and prostitution drops, and the propensity for humans developing monogomous relations, appreciating sobriety, and realizing a fool and his money are soon parted rise.

Eventually, social concepts that make a nice country to live in become so taken for granted, and people decide 'gee, what's it going to hurt if we start allowing vices proven detrimental to our society to be legal again?'

Then, the cycle is repeated.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Excellent points, taibunsuu.
But, then we have to ask the question, at what point does social regulation become oppressive? At what point are people allowed to make choices for themselves, whether good or bad, as long as they don't hurt other people?



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
Excellent points, taibunsuu.
But, then we have to ask the question, at what point does social regulation become oppressive? At what point are people allowed to make choices for themselves, whether good or bad, as long as they don't hurt other people?


I think that in this country that question is answered by state's rights, though states lost a lot of that after the Union won the Civil war. And now California has armed Federales violating local laws.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 01:39 AM
link   
ThunderCloud says,


At what point are people allowed to make choices for themselves, whether good or bad, as long as they don't hurt other people?


This begs the question of ...what constitutes HARM to a society, and at what point is HARM caused?
Who determines this if not the democratic majority of the citizens in a given culture?

Does the democratic culture have the right to self determination?
can it say yes or no to an issue presented to its citizens?
would it be wrong if they determined that prostitution was NOT for their culture?



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
This begs the question of ...what constitutes HARM to a society, and at what point is HARM caused?
Who determines this if not the democratic majority of the citizens in a given culture?


Not this again. Caz, do you have any other arguement than this one? It's wearing thin.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia



Does the democratic culture have the right to self determination?
can it say yes or no to an issue presented to its citizens?
would it be wrong if they determined that prostitution was NOT for their culture?


Of course democratic society has right to self-determination. What happens is that the smarter, more intellectual folks who can grasp the concept of how ethics affect a society for better or worse are also the ones that generally control that society. The fact that most people are socially inclined to follow is well determined and the few control the many in all cases.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Intrepid,
you truely seem to not understand the basic fundamental issues of sociology and the practice of democracy.

Why is this not a valid question to ask about ANY (notice ive said ANY in other threads your making inferance to) ANY cultural value that is presented to a democratic society to either accept or reject?

What other method of social order are you advocating?
Try studying some sociology, anthropology, and forms of government.
Get off my jock! Open your mind!

Notice the very next post answered this CORRECTLY.
A given culture DOES have the right thru its democratic means to establish a unique cultural identity by either accepting or rejecting ANY behaiviors that it wants to. This IS democracy in action, this IS a given set of people establishing a cultural identity to base a society upon...how do you think mankind got this far?

These questions I ask are conveniantly overlooked (or just unknown to the uneducated) usually in support of VIOLATING these conventions.
These questions are valid for MANY issues that are close to the "core values" that an examined culture exihibits.
Why in the hell do you think that prostitution or even ...gasp...the gay issuse have been being kicked around for hundreds if not THOUSANDS of years of cultural evolutions?

If these issues were "cut and dried" we wouldnt be here talking/debating them now would we?

Also note ive generally AGREED with the decriminalization of this issue but would like to know its RAMIFICATIONS BEFORE we just go running off and institute this idea.
What is your problem with wanting a full examination first?

The issue of what constitutes harm to a culture is important, as well as WHO is getting to make this evaluation.

So is the process by which these cultural definitions are determined.

So get over yourself and OPEN your mind to other possibillities than BASHING ME AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.
talk about a one trick pony, try talking the ISSUE instead of the MESSENGER!

[edit on 14-9-2004 by CazMedia]



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Glad you asked, I'll answer that.

The problem I have with it is that a "majority" can have dominence over a minority. That leaves people without a voice. Let's take the US. Assume that everyone is a voter. Now you've got 51% of the popular vote, that leaves 149,000,000 without a voice. Scary as that may be it is too simplistic.

You don't know what the majority is unless you come right out and ask evryone. That isn't going to happen, puts to much power in the hands of the people. So were going to assume what the "majority" wants. That doesn't work. In this election I've seen Republicans that hate Bush, I've seen ones that advocate mercy killings. Neither of those things are Rep. policy.

In the other thread, I took it upon myself to go through the pages and pages and pages, documenting the position of the members there. It came out 15-2 against you. OK, by your methods the topic, your own thread, should have ended there. Your methods shot you down. But NO, that wasn't right. It's a selective "majority" that you're looking at. Seen that before in recent history.

The Taliban, basically a men's only club, subjugated and mutillated women. Now they are the "majority", sorry ladies, you're not part of the "select majority", your views don't matter. This mutilation would still be going on now if it wasn't for 911.

Of coarse that is an archaic belief system. That shouldn't matter though, we have the seperation of church and state. Yeah, right. As long as people still adhere to our own archaic system that uses morals defined in the dark ages, why should we allow them to subjugate people who only want to live their lives in peace?

Edit: all that and only missed 1 "s."

[edit on 14-9-2004 by intrepid]



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Like I said in an earlier post, we live in a country where you can have local laws that differ from state to state and county to county. So the good news is that the people who founded this country realized what you were talking about with majority, and thought of a way that people could live together peacefully. If you like prostitution you can make an argument made with your local government to bring its legalization to a vote. If enough people are interested it will come to one. Boom, it gets legalized. If you can't get it legalized you can move to the places where it is legal. And if its legalized and you really have something to say against it, you can. If you can't muster the energy to ban it and it's still bothering you, you can move to an area of the country where like-minded people live.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid


Of coarse that is an archaic belief system. That shouldn't matter though, we have the seperation of church and state. Yeah, right. As long as people still adhere to our own archaic system that uses morals defined in the dark ages, why should we allow them to subjugate people who only want to live their lives in peace?

[edit on 14-9-2004 by intrepid]


In the Dark Ages, prostitution was legal. Prostitution has been legal for almost all of civilized history. It's still legal in most countries. In the US it was only made illegal in the Progressive era. So, the argument that it should be illegal being a Dark Age-era concept is invalid.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Intrepid blindly gropes here,


The problem I have with it is that a "majority" can have dominence over a minority. That leaves people without a voice.
No it doenst negate anyones voice...if you take a vote and they are all counted, then the voices were heard. Just because a decision was made based off of this method does NOT remove anyone's voice or vote....IN FACT it means that a consensus was reached as FAIRLY as taking everyones voice into consideration allowed. Which other governmental system gives EACH citizen such a voice?

Intrepid,
well unfortunatly, in a democracy, if the vote tally was indeed 51% to 49%, it would allow the 51% to have its way...either at the state, local, or national level.
As Taibunsuu aptly put it, under this system have the rights to try to muster enough support for a revote, recall the official, or exercise your right to LEAVE if you dont wish to be part of the majority in that place (local, state, or nation). There are still options if you have the political will and actually be active pollitically instead of avdocating your RESPONSIBILLITY as a citizen to do so to someone else.

Just because the majority rule in a democracy happens, doesnt mean it cant be un-done thru the same practice of democracy when enough support for the change manifests itself...

So what form of governance are you advocating we use by throwing out the constitution and starting over with what, a dictatorship, socialism, communism...monarchy...which would you prefer to democracy???

Intrepid erroniously again,


It came out 15-2 against you. OK, by your methods the topic, your own thread, should have ended there.
First, i dont care what a bunch of close minded, anti-democratic, anti law reverse bigots have to say or how many of them line up...I know there a worlo full of people in denial of wisdom.
Secondly, WHY WOULD THIS END ANYTHING? If the democracy vetoed adopting my agenda, i would still have the right to try and lobby to gain a concensus...nothing ends just because the majority is currently leaning one way. The "other voices" you say arent heard, are in fact just not in the majority...they can still work thru the democracy to try and gain their majority.

Intrepid says,


You don't know what the majority is unless you come right out and ask evryone. That isn't going to happen, puts to much power in the hands of the people.
I'll agree with you that many issues dont get to be voted on by citizens and that our representatives often are doing this job on our behalf...we can hold them accountable and still try and repeal their decisions democratically
BUT,
PUTS TOO MUCH POWER INTO THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE!?!?!
Absolutly one of the most incredible things ive heard you utter....
What part of BY the people FOR the people dont you get?
THATS THE POINT OF THIS GOVERNMENTAL STYLE!!!!

The first sentance from the Declaration of Independence,


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Please note:deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That would be US, WE the PEOPLE!!! DUH!

I find your use of the Taliban (a thocracracy) banning behaiviors to compare to a democratic society banning behaiviors to be soo full of crap, im amazed that you claim to know the difference between the 2 forms of government. Its not the WHAT is banned or even the BANNING of a behaivior itself that is relavent...it is the HOW DID THE CULTURE DERIVE THIS DECISION that IS. Comparing democracy to a theocracy is a no brainer, and does not justify your position that EITHER of these 2 cultures/governmental systems can NOT make that determination themselves. One system is far more FAIR and EQUITABLE than the other.
WHY DOES DEMOCRACY MAKE YOU FEEL SO OPPRESSED?

NOW,
Somebody bring my legal whore as im frustrated and need to de-stress!!!






top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join