CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Legalizing Prostitution
Do you want prostitution to be legal? How would you feel if you had a spouse, buying prostitutes but not loving you? OR How would you feel if you got an std from these prostitutes if the were legal and couldn't sue them? How would you feel?
i agree that making prostitution legal is one way to stop this vice but what you ignored is the kind of future we are providing for our daughters. women who fell in such a trap, who started prostituting due to any reason find it easier but those who were forced to do by rape or drugging can fight for their rights in court, but legalising you know then civil suits will become joke and we would be hearing in court like "your honor, it was no rape but a fair transaction where after dissatisfaction from the money which she had been promised to pay she filed a rape case on my client" and you know there comes the real embarrassment on women rights.
Every culture documented by historians had prostitutes. Obviously, making prostitution illegal does not make it go away. What the illegality of prostitution DOES do is force prostitutes to
1) subject themselves to pimps to protect them from the government
2) prevent them from taking legal action against any offenders who do attack them
3) prevent them from building social or economic status.
The first two I feel are self explanatory. The third one may be objected to, so allow me to explain.
Sex workers, always present in human society, have not always had the same social status. For instance, in Mesopotamia, prostitutes were considered holy. Priestesses of the love god, they were entirely in control of their lives. In ancient Greece, many prostitutes were influential, independent women despite living in a time was almost entirely patriarchal.During the Renaissance, courtiers (prostitutes) were some of the most influential members of of the royal court.
In fact, prostitution really only became frowned upon after the outbreak of syphilis in Europe
And this view still holds: in modern times, prostitutes are considered to be part of the lower society, despite the extraordinary sums that some politicians pay for their services.
The difference between these two eras (besides STDs) is not only legality, but opinion. Being a prostitute was considered a profession by the Sumerians; yet in this discussion the only prostitutes being discussed are those with 'no other option' who were 'forced into it'.
Who is to say that being a prostitute is any less of a profession than that of a masseuse? When prostitution leaves the shadows of societies' sewage and becomes legitimate business, prostitutes will NOT be as abused, nor as fearful for their life and dignity.
Even the police recognize a difference between business prostitution and street prostitution, often ignoring "escort services" that are generally known to be prostitution businesses while actively stopping street prostitution
A woman who chooses to turn tricks for a living regardless of circumstance is causing their own embarrassment. If prostitution was legal, than I would suggest that any patron of these services would insist on a contract to prevent any false allegations against them. That being said, what do you suppose its like for a woman nowadays who may be in that "profession" who happens to undergo a fair amount of abuse or rape for that matter. In order to prosecute the offender she would have to admit to breaking the law herself, which I'm sure leads to many cases not being filed. In essence the so-called crime of prostitution is a victimless crime. It is conducted by the mutual understanding and agreement of two consenting adults. Keeping prostitution illegal just creates more criminal in a system of overpopulated prisons where the REAL offenders need to be kept.
In the circumstance regarding forced prostitution, I would say that is not prostitution at all but rape. If a woman has a drug habit and she whores herself to get her fix than she is still a consenting adult, just for horrible reasons.
Also, just because it may be legal to do something, you are by no means compelled to do it. I find the business just as ugly as you do, but I don't believe the government should be able to dictate it.
I really don't see how it is insane, and by the way men can be prostitutes as well. I don't know your gender but I'm assuming male from the way you state "We".
What right has a man to decide a womens fate, women are not little fragile eggs that need protecting on every turn. They and their male counterparts in the sex trade should be allowed to decide for themselves, and should have the right to work in a safe environment as do other workers in more "morally" accepted jobs.
Where do you stand on those that work within the legal sex trade, ie Porn actors, Lap-dancers, Dominatrices etc. Is it just the penetration that you have a problem with, would a hand or blow job be acceptable. I mean it is happening anyway it wont stop, it's not called the oldest profession in the world for no reason. Why not make it legal and let these people get on with their lives.
I think it should remain illegal. Firstly, we should made other alternatives avaliable to these women who are engaged in prostitution to earn a daily meal. Secondly, what kind of parental or moral exmaple would they be setting for their children? Thirdly, many women who engage in prostitution gets in contact with the worng set of people who are drug dealers or dangerous criminals which can be dangerous for them. I strongly believe we should consider other alternatives.
we should made other alternatives avaliable to these women who are engaged in prostitution to earn a daily meal.
Do you think that prostitutes are only thus to earn their food? Many prostitutes earn a lot of money, and live lavish lifestyles. It is the ones on the street that are just getting by, owing to the control exerted on them by Pimps. For a good looking girl with a nice body prostitution can be a way to earn fast and easy cash as escorts.
Secondly, what kind of parental or moral example would they be setting for their children?
I'd say a much better one than is currently being provided. It would be far better for a child if their mother was legally employed and not the cheap meat product that society at large deems them to be.
Thirdly, many women who engage in prostitution gets in contact with the worng set of people who are drug dealers or dangerous criminals which can be dangerous for them.
This to me sounds like an argument for the other side.
It is quite evident from the posts on this debate that most people only consider women in a prostitution argument, men are just as capable of getting in to this trade, but nobody seems to think of that as wrong, at least not to the same degree. I believe this is because A: the nature of men and womens individual sexualities, men are considered to be sexual hunters and women their prey. A man is praised by his peers for having a wide and varied sex-life with many partners, a women is seen as a slut or some other derogatory term. and B: The fact that most people still see women as second class citizens, incapable of looking after themselves and making their own decisions.
And do you think that it is acceptable for a nice good looking young girl to sell her body to earn a living? Why are you making it seem as if there are no alternatives?
Scientific studies regarding children and practicing what they see have proved that children practice what they see. Do you think that this is a good example? Legally employed as what? a prostitute? selling sex? What about people forced into prostitution? Don't you think that legalizing prostitution will also increase the rate of human trafficking? The results of a national survey conducted found that atleast
•89% wanted to escape, but did not have other options for survival
•65% to 95% had been sexually assaulted as children
•70% to 95% were physically assaulted
•60% to 75% were raped
•88% experienced verbal abuse and social contempt
•68% met criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder. The severity of symptoms was in the same range as combat veterans seeking treatment, battered women seeking shelter, rape survivors, and refugees from state-organised torture
Ok, lets consider that the last point of my argument applies to both women and men, then answer my question. Many people who are prostitutes are beaten, assualted and raped. Legalizing it will increase the rate of crimes, and many other social issues. It is easier to say legalize something but it is difficult to deal with the issues from the other end.
And do you think that it is acceptable for a nice good looking young girl to sell her body to earn a living? Why are you making it seem as if there are no alternatives?
I think that if this is what a woman wants to do, no one should stop her. The government should not be an authority on when it is acceptable for two adults to have sex.
Scientific studies regarding children and practicing what they see have proved that children practice what they see. Do you think that this is a good example? Legally employed as what? a prostitute? selling sex?
What does this have to do with it? Prostitutes would not be having sex in front of children. How many children grow up to have the same job their parents had, just because the children knew their parents had that job?
Exactly what is wrong with selling sex? I understand you might hold an old-fashioned or religious viewpoint, possibly that sex is somehow sacred or special. But not everyone feels that way and you should not try to force them to adhere to your standards of what motives are acceptable for consensual sex.
What about people forced into prostitution? Don't you think that legalizing prostitution will also increase the rate of human trafficking?
Quite the opposite, in fact. When someone is forced into prostitution (in the United States), they are often prevented from going to the police by the fear that they, too, have technically broken the law and thus the law would have grounds to persecute them as well. Whether or not they would actually be punished, their pimps can currently use that as a threat to keep them under control.
If prostitution were legal, sex trafficking would change. For one, legal brothels and willing prostitutes would suddenly become an accessible option for customers, lessening the demand that was previously met with forced prostitutes. That, and forced prostitutes would be more likely to go to the police.
There would, I am sure, still be people who would fill the demand for incredibly cheap sex but continuing to force others to prostitute themselves and then taking the profits from them. This would still be illegal.
The results of a national survey conducted found that atleast
•89% wanted to escape, but did not have other options for survival
•65% to 95% had been sexually assaulted as children
•70% to 95% were physically assaulted
•60% to 75% were raped
•88% experienced verbal abuse and social contempt
•68% met criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder. The severity of symptoms was in the same range as combat veterans seeking treatment, battered women seeking shelter, rape survivors, and refugees from state-organised torture
As prostitution is currently illegal, is it really surprising that most of the people who currently engage in it are not from the most well-adjusted, stable backgrounds? At the moment, a huge stigma is placed on being a worker in any part of the sex industry, and this is probably more than a sufficient deterrent for 'normal' girls who might otherwise be good at the work or enjoy it.
Legalizing prostitution would cut down on these statistics. For one, prostitutes would have less reason to distrust police, because they would be operating within the law. Secondly, they could operate out of a safe location, like the brothels in Nevada, where security is present. Thirdly a prostitute would have no reason to rely on a pimp for protection. Pimps would either disappear or have to start offering a service that was actually valuable; they would not longer have power over prostitutes based on fear and intimidation.
You cannot really blame the practice of prostitution for the social contempt it receives based on current public sentiment. If people were less judgmental about the sex industry, this wouldn't be a problem.
In the same way are you saying that no one should stop us to do what we want to do? Because in that way, there is no need for laws then. The constitution does not prohibit the government from controlling sex so why shouldnt the government?
It has to do with this debate because how many prositutes will have sex in their homes? What about those that dont care about their children and are involved in child negligence? I am not old fashioned. I beleive in what i believe in. I created a debate on religion but i am nowhere near religion. My standards are what majority of the population agreed with before prostitution became illegal.
Check up on the stastics to see the rate of human trafficking. So what about the recent case in new York, where the prostitutes were rescued (all immigrants) and the pimp prosecuted? And what you are pointing to is still illegal so it does not changes anything.
Again, like i said, ,how many women out there are willing to become prostitutes and yet pimps are engaged in human trafficking. In some cases, its all about the ethnicities and cheap labor.
You said legalizing prostitution will cut down on these statsitics, so in the same way, should we legalize rape because it will happen or decrease anyway? Even if prostitutes do not operate under the control of a pim, this worst yet increases the chances of human trafficking because then pimps will still turn to cheap labor and the vulnerable to earn a profit. And there is still a chance of the prostitues getting in contact with the wrong type of persons and many crimes takes place on the street.
The people make the laws. If majority of the people voted for it, then it became the law so the people had power to change it.
In the same way are you saying that no one should stop us to do what we want to do? Because in that way, there is no need for laws then.
I am saying people should be able to do what they want as long as they do not hurt anyone. The act of two people voluntarily exchanging money for sex does not hurt anyone.
The constitution does not prohibit the government from controlling sex so why shouldnt the government?
Because it's too intrusive. Who people have sex with and why they choose to do it is a personal decision. There are a lot of specific things the constitution does not forbid the government from regulating, but that does not mean all of them should be regulated.
It has to do with this debate because how many prositutes will have sex in their homes? What about those that dont care about their children and are involved in child negligence?
Child negligence will not be legalized if prostitution is legalized; women who hurt their children will still be punished, whether or not they are prostitutes. If prostitution were to be legalized, it would be regulated, and there would likely be a stipulation requiring that children not be present. This is probably a good idea and I have no problem with it.
I am not old fashioned. I beleive in what i believe in. I created a debate on religion but i am nowhere near religion. My standards are what majority of the population agreed with before prostitution became illegal.
Prostitution was outlawed a pretty long time ago, and if you hold pre-illegalization views, then they are, by definition, old-fashioned.
Check up on the stastics to see the rate of human trafficking. So what about the recent case in new York, where the prostitutes were rescued (all immigrants) and the pimp prosecuted? And what you are pointing to is still illegal so it does not changes anything.
This would still be illegal. Human trafficking and prostitution are not synonymous. Please stop confusing prostitution with things that it is not, like child abuse and human trafficking.
Again, like i said, ,how many women out there are willing to become prostitutes and yet pimps are engaged in human trafficking. In some cases, its all about the ethnicities and cheap labor.
Look on craigslist or backpage. There are tons of young, attractive women who are offering their time by their own volition. Additionally, the amount of people who would engage in an activity has very little bearing on whether or not it should be legal.
You said legalizing prostitution will cut down on these statsitics, so in the same way, should we legalize rape because it will happen or decrease anyway?
Please. I am not saying that, if someone is going to get hurt anyway, why not just make it legal. I am saying that in a world where prostitution is legal, when they get raped or exploited, the victims will go to the police more often and report it.
Even if prostitutes do not operate under the control of a pim, this worst yet increases the chances of human trafficking because then pimps will still turn to cheap labor and the vulnerable to earn a profit. And there is still a chance of the prostitues getting in contact with the wrong type of persons and many crimes takes place on the street.
Are you trying to say that its worse for prostitutes not to be controlled by a pimp? This is ridiculous and ignorant.
Again, human trafficking would still be illegal. It is not the same thing as prostitution. Also, the demand for it would be decreased if prostitution was legalized. Stop using the human trafficking argument because it is illegal now and it would be just as illegal if prostitution were legalized. Human trafficking is not prostitution, it is slavery and rape. Try to understand the difference.
I do not support prostitution occurring on street corners uncontrolled. Like any business, it needs to be regulated to protect the interests of both the customers and the providers. This would cut down on 'the wrong kind of people' operating undetected by the law.
The people make the laws. If majority of the people voted for it, then it became the law so the people had power to change it.
While this is true, I do not think the majority should be permitted to discriminate against the minority. I think you would agree, based on responses I have seen you make elsewhere, that even if most people do not wants gays to marry, they should be permitted too because they are not harming anyone.
Because people do things that does not involves hurting anyone does not mean that they should not be sanctioned. The government has the power to intervene as long as majority of the population agrees with it.
It is not about whom you have sex with; it is about how you choose to have sex, prostitution, an act which is illegal.
I will cite my experience as a personal assistant to the Police Superintendent of Juvenile Affairs, An Assistant Sworn Clerk of The Supreme Court, A Legal Assistant in the Attorney General's Office and a national leader for youth affairs in which i personally dealt with and heard various testimonies of children who were abused and neglected, and experienced their parents having sex infront of them, engaging in explicit sexual conversations of prostitution, and engaging in acts of prostitution infront of them. This i can testify to because i have dealt with these cases.
My standards, even if being old fashion makes up a part of the laws which uphold various structures of society and again, to which majority of the population has voted for.
I think you misunderstood what i meant. The main point surrounding this argument is the fact that prostitution and human trafficking are both illegal and how many people still engage in both? I mentioned why i related to child abuse with prostitution by citing my position in the criminal justice and judicial system and as a national youth leader of juvenile affairs. Children facing child abuse has been forced into prostitution and in some cases, their parents have sex and engage in acts of prostitution infront of them.
They engage in their time on craiglists but they do not solicit sex for money, because they are very aware that it is illegal.
In such a case of a prostitute, a case of rape or exploitation, their case becomes harder to prove which can result in the defence getting more priviledges over a trial. As you are aware, consent and use of force is the greatest burden in any rape trial in which many rape victims have lost their case.
Again, you misinterpret my statement. Point out what part of my argument i said its worse for prostitutes not to be controlled by a pimp. I am pointing to a situation that is far worst in which if prostitutes gain the right to work legal and decides to go separate ways from the pimps, then the pimps will turn to human trafficking as part of cheap labor and or cheap sex. In this way, they use violence and physical force to control the victims of human trafficking. This will result in many young women and or men being forced and threatened into prostitution via sex trade.
Gay Marriage is in no way, the selling of sex. Gay marriage involves the marriage of same sex genders. Prostitution involves the selling of sex. There is a unique difference between both. Furthermore, many states are in the process of consultations on legalizing gay marriage, in which some of these states have legalized gay marriage.
Because people do things that does not involves hurting anyone does not mean that they should not be sanctioned.
Then we differ fundamentally in what we feel should be sanctioned. If something does not harm anyone, I see no reason why it should be illegal, no matter what the majority thinks. Operating otherwise opens the door for the majority to oppress the minority however they wish.
It is not about whom you have sex with; it is about how you choose to have sex, prostitution, an act which is illegal.
Yes. I know. I am arguing that it should be legal.
I will cite my experience as a personal assistant to the Police Superintendent of Juvenile Affairs, An Assistant Sworn Clerk of The Supreme Court, A Legal Assistant in the Attorney General's Office and a national leader for youth affairs in which i personally dealt with and heard various testimonies of children who were abused and neglected, and experienced their parents having sex infront of them, engaging in explicit sexual conversations of prostitution, and engaging in acts of prostitution infront of them. This i can testify to because i have dealt with these cases.
For fuck's sake, this stuff would still be illegal. Nobody wants prostitutes to be having sex in front of children. Seriously, give it up. Prostitution is capable of being carried out without harming children, and that's the prostitution that should be legal.
They engage in their time on craiglists but they do not solicit sex for money, because they are very aware that it is illegal.
You are naive if you think this is true. Women who are advertising the sale of 'companionship' by the hour are selling sex, nearly every single time.
In such a case of a prostitute, a case of rape or exploitation, their case becomes harder to prove which can result in the defence getting more priviledges over a trial. As you are aware, consent and use of force is the greatest burden in any rape trial in which many rape victims have lost their case.
Rape of a prostitute in a world where prostitution is illegal and unregulated: A client rapes a prostitute in a private place, her home or his. There are no witnesses, she may be afraid to report the rape because she, too, was engaged in an illegal activity, and much of society holds a 'she deserved it because she's a whore' attitude.
Rape of a prostitute in a place where prostitution is legal and regulated: A client attempts to rape a prostitute in a legal brothel where there is security present. He is probably prevented from completing the act, and detained by security until law enforcement arrives. There are witnesses to attest to what happened, the victim is not afraid to work with the police because she has done nothing wrong, and (hopefully) some of the stigma of sex work has dissipated.
If you need real-world examples of how this actually plays out, find out how many prostitutes have been successfully raped in Nevada brothels, and how many of them were unable to successfully prosecute their attackers.
Again, you misinterpret my statement. Point out what part of my argument i said its worse for prostitutes not to be controlled by a pimp.
"Even if prostitutes do not operate under the control of a pim[p], this worst yet..."
I am pointing to a situation that is far worst in which if prostitutes gain the right to work legal and decides to go separate ways from the pimps, then the pimps will turn to human trafficking as part of cheap labor and or cheap sex. In this way, they use violence and physical force to control the victims of human trafficking. This will result in many young women and or men being forced and threatened into prostitution via sex trade.
Pimps supply prostitutes because there is a demand for them. If the demand were to be filled by accessible, safe, and most of all, legal prostitution, then the market for human traffic would be drastically reduced.
Gay Marriage is in no way, the selling of sex. Gay marriage involves the marriage of same sex genders. Prostitution involves the selling of sex. There is a unique difference between both. Furthermore, many states are in the process of consultations on legalizing gay marriage, in which some of these states have legalized gay marriage.
Something tells me you need to spend some more time reading my posts. I did not say in any part of my post that gay marriage is selling sex. The analogy arises from my opinion (and yours too, I believe) that gay marriage should be legal, even if the majority of United States citizens think otherwise.
There are many things that does not harm people but yet are illegal. How come society does not object to them?
It is illegal as you said, but if you read earlier there will be an increases in these cases even if it becomes legal. Nobody wants them to, but how many of them have done it, have escaped being punished from the law or continues to do so? Prostitution is capable of being carried out without harming children but at the same time, prostitution is also capable of being carried out and harming children?
"For Fuck's sake"- people who use indecent words are usually the ones that runs out of intelligent things to say, as a Judge told me a few nights ago.
How many of these women have been caught and prosecuted by federal authorities? What if there is nobody except the client and the prostitute in a room in a legal brothel? Because i am sure there will be a level of privacy.
This worst yet refers to a deeper situation that can be created from the one you mentioned. Did you check why i used the word EVEN? BECAUSE EVEN IF THAT HAPPENS THERE WILL ALSO BE ANOTHER SITUATION THAT CAN BE CREATED FROM IT FROM THE SOLUTION YOU SUGGESTED. So legalizing prostitution is really not the solution to the problem. And if prostitutes choose to work by themselves and not the pimps, then the pimps will turn to human trafficking as part of a strategy to gain money and profit.
Again, you are jumping to hasty conclusions, where in my argument did i say you said gay marriage is selling sex? You pointed out to one of my earlier argument in which i supported gay marriage but in my last argument i was making a point of initial difference between gay marriage and prostitution; gay marriage is in no way the same as prostitution, which is why i support it.
There are many things that does not harm people but yet are illegal. How come society does not object to them?
They should object to the illegalization of things that are not harmful to others, because this is unnecessary and it cuts down on personal choice. It doesn't matter if this isn't currently the case for every issue.
It is illegal as you said, but if you read earlier there will be an increases in these cases even if it becomes legal. Nobody wants them to, but how many of them have done it, have escaped being punished from the law or continues to do so? Prostitution is capable of being carried out without harming children but at the same time, prostitution is also capable of being carried out and harming children?
Prostitution should only be legal on regulated properties. I doubt these properties will allow children on the premises.
Explain to me how legalizing prostitution in brothels would make more women operate prostitution illegally out of their houses. They would be breaking the law just as much as they are now; if a woman is currently deterred by that idea, nothing would change if prostitution was legal in brothels.
"For Fuck's sake"- people who use indecent words are usually the ones that runs out of intelligent things to say, as a Judge told me a few nights ago.
I am getting incredibly frustrated with your penchant for repeating points that have already been exhaustively addressed. However, I am bringing more than curse words to my arguments.
This worst yet refers to a deeper situation that can be created from the one you mentioned. Did you check why i used the word EVEN? BECAUSE EVEN IF THAT HAPPENS THERE WILL ALSO BE ANOTHER SITUATION THAT CAN BE CREATED FROM IT FROM THE SOLUTION YOU SUGGESTED. So legalizing prostitution is really not the solution to the problem. And if prostitutes choose to work by themselves and not the pimps, then the pimps will turn to human trafficking as part of a strategy to gain money and profit.
This is a point I have already addressed by explaining how human trafficking is not prostitution, it is slavery and rape, and how legal prostitution will make it more difficult for human traffickers to find business. You have failed to address my response to your points in favor of simply repeating yourself.
Again, you are jumping to hasty conclusions, where in my argument did i say you said gay marriage is selling sex? You pointed out to one of my earlier argument in which i supported gay marriage but in my last argument i was making a point of initial difference between gay marriage and prostitution; gay marriage is in no way the same as prostitution, which is why i support it.
"Gay Marriage is in no way, the selling of sex."
Why would you make this statement unless you felt someone was claiming gay marriage was the selling of sex?
Do you feel that if the majority of United States citizens disapprove of gay marriage, it should be banned? If no, why not? Because it involves two consensual adults and nobody else needs to concern themselves with it? The same could be said of prostitution.
But yet they have chosen not to object because again, majority of the population views it as being a benefit and voted for what they wanted.
Legalizing prostitution will give prostitutes the opportunity of working in a brothel, i agree but also i am assuming (correct me if i am wrong) that a given amount of the profit earned by the prostitute will go towards the brothel. If a prostitute does it in the convenience of her home (though it is illegal, but with the intention that no one will know or no one has to know), then that gives her the opportunity to still engage in prostitution in her home because she will be earning more profit doing it in her home. You yourself has seen how many actions are criminal but yet people do them anyway.
You misinterpetted some of the points i was trying to make and usually that is one of the reasons why i love repeating myself.
I did not expect an answer from you for this. I was clarifying a misinterpretation by you of that very argument which is why i restated my point with a deeper context. If you read carefully with that argument you would understand that it is more of a clarification point i was making.
Like i said, legal prostitution will not make it more difficult for human traffickers to find business and furthermore, like i said earlier, if they cant have legal prostitutes, then they will turn to cheap labor. The point i am trying to make is based on the following research funded by a foreign government;
In the year 2000, the Dutch government sought and received a judgment from the European Court recognizing prostitution as an economic activity, thus enabling women from the EU and former Soviet bloc countries to obtain working permits as sex workers in the Dutch sex industry if they can prove that they are self employed. NGOs in the Netherlands have stated that traffickers are taking advantage of this ruling to bring foreign women into the Dutch prostitution industry by masking the fact that women have been trafficked, and by coaching the women how to prove that they are self-employed migrant sex workers.
In the one year since lifting the ban on brothels in the Netherlands, NGOs report that there has been an increase of victims of trafficking or, at best, that the number of victims from other countries has remained the same (Bureau NRM, 2002: 75).
If i feel that gay marriage is different from prostitution because prostitution involves the selling of sex and gay marriage involves the consensual marriage of two same sex individuals. Why are you jumping to hasty conclusions? If there is a difference between both and i point it out, i have every right to because i am defending my position on both. This is way past misinterpretation, now you are saying that unless i felt someone was saying so? What is this, a hear say? Because never in my argument did i point out any of what you are claiming. I was pointing out the difference which is why i said GAY MARRIAGE IS IN NO WAY THE SELLING OF SEX, I NEVER SAID ANYBODY SAID BECAUSE I AM POINTING TO THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF PROSTITUTION IN A SIMPLER TERM.
But yet they have chosen not to object because again, majority of the population views it as being a benefit and voted for what they wanted.
If the majority opinion removes the rights of a minority (sexual autonomy, in this case), then don't you think there is something wrong? This is another case of you repeating yourself instead of actually addressing the argument I made. This is not the first time I have said that legislating majority opinion opens the door for all kind of discrimination and oppression, and you have failed to actually address that claim.
Legalizing prostitution will give prostitutes the opportunity of working in a brothel, i agree but also i am assuming (correct me if i am wrong) that a given amount of the profit earned by the prostitute will go towards the brothel. If a prostitute does it in the convenience of her home (though it is illegal, but with the intention that no one will know or no one has to know), then that gives her the opportunity to still engage in prostitution in her home because she will be earning more profit doing it in her home. You yourself has seen how many actions are criminal but yet people do them anyway.
This is not something we should turn a blind eye too, but it's something that will not be affected by the legalization of prostitution. You keep saying that legalization would somehow encourage women to engage in illegal prostitution but frankly, this is nonsensical. Creating brothels and regulating prostitution encourages legal prostitution while attempting to cut down on illegal prostitution by offering safer options. It does not encourage illegal prostitution.
Like i said, legal prostitution will not make it more difficult for human traffickers to find business and furthermore, like i said earlier, if they cant have legal prostitutes, then they will turn to cheap labor.
The point i am trying to make is based on the following research funded by a foreign government;
In the year 2000, the Dutch government sought and received a judgment from the European Court recognizing prostitution as an economic activity, thus enabling women from the EU and former Soviet bloc countries to obtain working permits as sex workers in the Dutch sex industry if they can prove that they are self employed. NGOs in the Netherlands have stated that traffickers are taking advantage of this ruling to bring foreign women into the Dutch prostitution industry by masking the fact that women have been trafficked, and by coaching the women how to prove that they are self-employed migrant sex workers.
The study you cited sounds like they were bringing in illegal immigrants who were willing to prostitute themselves. While this would be a problem, it is not an issue with prostitution. It is an issue of illegal labor. You can't ban citrus farming because they employ a lot of illegal immigrants; you can just do your best to stop them from hiring illegal immigrants. Similarly, you shouldn't ban prostitution because it will attract illegal immigrants; you just try to regulate it and make sure a) prostitutes are legal and b) they are not being held against their will.
Also, while we should not ignore concerns from other countries, America and the Netherlands are not identical. We have a model of legal prostitution operating right in our country. I doubt there are victims of human trafficking hiding out at the Bunny Ranch. This is a more realistic example to cite when predicting how prostitution would play out in the United States.
If i feel that gay marriage is different from prostitution because prostitution involves the selling of sex and gay marriage involves the consensual marriage of two same sex individuals. Why are you jumping to hasty conclusions? If there is a difference between both and i point it out, i have every right to because i am defending my position on both. This is way past misinterpretation, now you are saying that unless i felt someone was saying so? What is this, a hear say? Because never in my argument did i point out any of what you are claiming. I was pointing out the difference which is why i said GAY MARRIAGE IS IN NO WAY THE SELLING OF SEX, I NEVER SAID ANYBODY SAID BECAUSE I AM POINTING TO THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF PROSTITUTION IN A SIMPLER TERM.
I don't see the point in repeatedly saying something as though it is being disputed. No one said gay marriage is the selling of sex, therefor there is no need to defend your viewpoint, especially not so repeatedly and voraciously.
Whether or not sex is being sold is not part of the comparison I was making; I am taking an example of two things that are decisions made by two consenting adults, decisions that do not need to involve anyone else, but that the public has mixed feelings about. I am asking you if they should be outlawed just because the public disapproves. If you think majority opinion is what gets to decide whether or not prostitution is okay, then you should also think that majority opinion is what gets to decide whether or not gay marriage is okay. After all, this is a quote from you:
"But yet they have chosen not to object because again, majority of the population views it as being a benefit and voted for what they wanted."
This applies both to gay marriage (currently, in most places) and prostitution - the majority thinks its icky, so they don't allow it, even though it doesn't concern anyone but the involved parties. If you do not think it is okay for majority opinion to remove rights from a minority, then you have to drop this point. If you do think that's okay, then that's fucked up.
Ok, Lets say that the people agree with it and the decision is indeed biased (lets assume), then why did the U.S Supreme Court did not object to this claim just like they overthrowed the people's decision in Roe v. Wade and legalized abortion when majority of the population voted for it as being illegal? Why didn't the Supreme Court do the same like they did in the previous case? Because there are many factors of disadvantages relating to the legalization of prostitution and remember that the Supreme Court is not ruled by the people's opinion but by the rulings of a panel of judges. The whole point i am trying to make is that if the decision was biased or had no value that was made by the majority of the population, then the Supreme Court would have made prostitution legal after they reviewed various appeals filed.
Ok, i understand what you are saying but i have posted on in my arguments evidence of research findings to prove my point. My argument here on what you are placing emphasis on has already been proved with findings i published. It is a factor that acts as a driving force behind illegal prostitution, a factor which is an alternative for women who do not wish to work for pimps any longer (which i do not dispute), what annoys me however is the vulnerable which will be placed in human trafficking. You are failing to realize that even if it is illegal and will be illegal, it is all about the money and profits. Thats what it is about.
Sorry, i forgot to post the entire details of the study so i am posting it again:
in the year 2000, the Dutch government sought and received a judgment from the European Court recognizing prostitution as an economic activity, thus enabling women from the EU and former Soviet bloc countries to obtain working permits as sex workers in the Dutch sex industry if they can prove that they are self employed. NGOs in the Netherlands have stated that traffickers are taking advantage of this ruling to bring foreign women into the Dutch prostitution industry by masking the fact that women have been trafficked, and by coaching the women how to prove that they are self-employed migrant sex workers. In the one year since lifting the ban on brothels in the Netherlands, NGOs report that there has been an increase of victims of trafficking or, at best, that the number of victims from other countries has remained the same (Bureau NRM, 2002: 75).
In case you are forgetting you were the one that jupmed to conclusions about what i said which caused me to calrify what i said again. I am not restating myself here but clarifying what i said. There is a difference between restating and clarification. The two things you are comparing has two differences between them.
Why did you leave out the point where i said many states are in the process of consultations? Many people have a bigger problem with prostitution than with gay marriage. Gay Marriage is not an issue for me nor is it an issue of many other people. I agree that the opinions of many people are not always perfect but that is why we have a higher level which is the courts and if the courts has made it illegal too and yet gay marriage is not illegal because in the state of new york gay marriage involves the marriage of gays through a ceremony to which the population or the courts has not objected to. But in the case of prostitution, both population and the courts have agreed to it being illegal so there is something wrong.
Ok, Lets say that the people agree with it and the decision is indeed biased (lets assume), then why did the U.S Supreme Court did not object to this claim just like they overthrowed the people's decision in Roe v. Wade and legalized abortion when majority of the population voted for it as being illegal? Why didn't the Supreme Court do the same like they did in the previous case? Because there are many factors of disadvantages relating to the legalization of prostitution and remember that the Supreme Court is not ruled by the people's opinion but by the rulings of a panel of judges. The whole point i am trying to make is that if the decision was biased or had no value that was made by the majority of the population, then the Supreme Court would have made prostitution legal after they reviewed various appeals filed.
As a nation composed primarily of Christians, America often drags its heels when it comes to shedding laws and taboos based on religious sentiments. Most people at the very least find prostitution unsavory, and most of them probably feel more strongly than that; that it is sinful, or disgusting, or that it will somehow cause civilization to collapse around their ears. At this point, it would be political suicide to come out in favor of prostitution.
Sorry, i forgot to post the entire details of the study so i am posting it again:
in the year 2000, the Dutch government sought and received a judgment from the European Court recognizing prostitution as an economic activity, thus enabling women from the EU and former Soviet bloc countries to obtain working permits as sex workers in the Dutch sex industry if they can prove that they are self employed. NGOs in the Netherlands have stated that traffickers are taking advantage of this ruling to bring foreign women into the Dutch prostitution industry by masking the fact that women have been trafficked, and by coaching the women how to prove that they are self-employed migrant sex workers. In the one year since lifting the ban on brothels in the Netherlands, NGOs report that there has been an increase of victims of trafficking or, at best, that the number of victims from other countries has remained the same (Bureau NRM, 2002: 75).
Again, correct me if I am wrong, but your study is concerning women who were brought illegally into the country, and then prostituted through legal channels, correct? This is not an issue with illegal prostitution; this is an issue with illegal immigration. People traffic Mexicans across the border of Arizona all the time, so they can work as day laborers. This does not mean we outlaw the industries in which they are usually employed. If prostitution were to be legalized in the United States, and people began trafficking Mexican women into the country, it would still be the same issue; one of illegal immigration and employing illegal immigrants.
I am going to have to rethink this point if your study shows that women were being brought into the Netherlands against their will, via kidnapping or coercion, and being forced into prostitution. As it is, it seems the study is showing that willing women were being imported from surrounding areas where prostitution was not legal. But, even if this is the case, remember that America is different. If you are claiming that legal brothels will result in increased trafficking of unwilling people into America, you will have to explain why there are almost certainly no prostitutes in the Nevada brothels that were kidnapped and forced to be there.
Why did you leave out the point where i said many states are in the process of consultations? Many people have a bigger problem with prostitution than with gay marriage. Gay Marriage is not an issue for me nor is it an issue of many other people. I agree that the opinions of many people are not always perfect but that is why we have a higher level which is the courts and if the courts has made it illegal too and yet gay marriage is not illegal because in the state of new york gay marriage involves the marriage of gays through a ceremony to which the population or the courts has not objected to. But in the case of prostitution, both population and the courts have agreed to it being illegal so there is something wrong.
I do not see where you previously said states were in consultations.
New York is not the entire country, and if I am not mistaken, some states refuse to honor gay marriages even if they were legalized in other states. The population and courts of many states still disallow gay marriage. As long as this is true, you can't claim that it's okay for something to be illegal as long as the population and the courts both agree that it should be, unless you disapprove of both gay marriage and legal prostitution.
Furthermore, I could use your reasoning to state that prostitution is not illegal because there is a county in Nevada where the courts and (probably) the population have not objected to it. However, obviously, this only counts for that one county. Prostitutes in the rest of the US are still restricted from having sex for whatever reason they want.
Once, a long time ago, the population and the courts agreed it was alright to own black people. That doesn't, I am sure, mean that you agree slavery was ever okay. It just means the the courts were allowing a majority to oppress a minority.
Ok. I understand the point you made that the population does not favor prostitution so they voted for it being illegal but you still have not answered me, why then did the Supreme Court not ruled prostitution constitutional and legal? The Court, as you are aware, is not governed by the influence of politics, religion or social status in society. It is governed by the laws of the country.
While this is an issue of illegal immigration, this is also an issue of illegal prostitution and human trafficking because these women were brought into the country illegally, forced into prostitution, and in many cases were brought here by means of kidnapping then threatened (my opinion). Those people who choose to cross the borders from Mexico to Arizona illegally, i agree would be considered illegal immigration, but these people know that they are coming here for day laborers but in some cases victims of human trafficking are promised other jobs as well and when they get here it is something totally different from what they were promised (my opinion). You may correct me if i am wrong but part of my findings also stated that when the ban on prostitution was lifted, there was an increase in the victims of trafficking. According to the Las Vegas News Report, Nevada, astate where prostitution is legal still has big problems with illegal child prostitution. Also, the Justice Dpet. named Nevada as the 17th top site for human trafficking.
New York is not the entire country, i agree but this is where i live and the laws of each states vary. However i do not see gay marriage as an issue or detriment, i see it as recognizing gay people as being a normal set of everyday people because society has often looked at them as being abnormal. This i do not agree with. In terms of prostitution, i am not looking at morals or traditions because i rarely go by those. I am more concerned with the detrimental factors associated with the legalization of prostitution. Owning black people in the past history was a great disgrace to the U.S Justice, Constitutional and Social aspects of society because society and even the Courts themselves were influenced by politics and issues of discrimination.
And do you think that it is acceptable for a nice good looking young girl to sell her body to earn a living?
I do, but that is irrelevant. How a person wishes to conduct themselves is a matter for themselves.
Why are you making it seem as if there are no alternatives?
Am I? What alternatives do you speak of? There are myriad alternatives but that is also irrelevant in this debate.
Scientific studies regarding children and practicing what they see have proved that children practice what they see. Do you think that this is a good example?
How many legal brothels do you think would allow the prostitutes to bring their children to work? I think it might scare off the punters to say the least.
Legally employed as what? a prostitute? selling sex?
Yes, a prostitute and yes selling sex. Is this not the point of the debate?
What about people forced into prostitution?
Do you not think that if it were legal that this would not happen? Employment laws would apply to them as well, you know, like workers rights. How many cashiers do you think are forced into their jobs?
Don't you think that legalizing prostitution will also increase the rate of human trafficking?
Hardly, imagine the scene "sign here please, fresh batch of prostitutes straight from eastern Europe" Honestly, if you take a moment to ponder the situation it should become clear that prostitution being a legal profession is more morally sound, women that know what they are doing, that are making their own decisions, working under no threat. Human trafficking serves the illegal sex trade, it could not serve a legal one.
89% wanted to escape, but did not have other options for survival
•65% to 95% had been sexually assaulted as children
•70% to 95% were physically assaulted
•60% to 75% were raped
•88% experienced verbal abuse and social contempt
•68% met criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder. The severity of symptoms was in the same range as combat veterans seeking treatment, battered women seeking shelter, rape survivors, and refugees from state-organised torture
This is a great argument for the legalization of prostitution, it is because the trade is illegal that the vulnerable are the one being exploited.
Ok, lets consider that the last point of my argument applies to both women and men, then answer my question. Many people who are prostitutes are beaten, assualted and raped. Legalizing it will increase the rate of crimes, and many other social issues. It is easier to say legalize something but it is difficult to deal with the issues from the other end.
How will putting the prostitutes into safe, clean, licensed, guarded premises and applying standard employment law practices and the chance to do their work legally with the full protection of law enforcement lead to an increase in crime? also what social issues do you think it will increase?
It is only easier to say legalize it as it is important for the health safety and well-being of both worker and customer. Do you not think that all of the things you listed above count as the social issues that are occurring mainly because prostitution is an illegal enterprise?
What do you mean it is irrelevant when it applies to the topic we are discussing? How is a person conducts themselves can come within a violation of the laws which can cause them to be sanctioned or controlled.
Alternatives such as job and other enterprenial opportunities? It is relevant in this debate because it inloves a divertion to prostitution.
Do you know if prostitutes themselves will work at brothels alone or at home also?
Do you not think that if murder was legal, it would still happen anyway or rape? Cashier is a legal job, prostitution is not.
Read up on the statistics, i tell you this because last night i did a case study on human trafficking including a recent case in New York and many other cases that took place this year. How many people will abide by the laws even if it becomes legal? That opens the gate for them to make more illegal money and they will find ways to make sure they get it done.
So in the same way again, the rape statistics are high, should we legalize it so the vulnerable would not be raped?
DO you think law enforcement officals or state officals will be there all the time? You yourself looked at the rate of assualt so why are you asking how would it increase crime? Did you even consider how many of these women are satisfied with being a postitute yet was raped and beaten.
I am not sure but i will research it and let you know but thank you for bringing it up. It is certainly an interesting point. Do you mean people who have committed crimes and are running from the law or people involved in politics.
To have an accurate figure on crime in the United States, you may want to check out the Department of Justice or Federal Government websites for statistics on crimes. A very good source is the Uniform Crime Report which is prepared after various police departments prepare and submit their monthy and annual crime reports. This is what i use for all my researches and presentations.
Also, i do not recommed using wikipedia if you are looking for accurate or up to date information for research or presentation purposes because it is not an authoritative source. The most you can do is trace the source or citation of the reference and locate the reference in a public library or so.
I think that if you pay people to engage in a research to find out how much of them has committed crimes and escaped from the law and keep their names confidential, they might agree to but you will, as the researcher have a tough time convincing them so this might not be very successful.
Yes, you can engage people in research to determine who has committed crimes. The fact is, prostitutes who are driven to contact policemen would do so under extreme circumstances of rape or assault, or if they were jailed.
Why, then, would an unjailed prostitute go to a survey that could get them imprisoned? The rate of extreme circumstances are inflated because the probability of a prostitute who had undergone extreme circumstance taking part in a survey are, in theory, higher than the probability of a prostitute who had not undergone extreme circumstances.
And people researches, criminologists, and law enforcers are all aware of the "limitations" of crime statistics. For the most part, they can be used to compare rises and drops in crime rates, not actual percentages.
Hey those information you got, i have to admit was highly authoritative and so was the journal article. The only thing however is that the journal article was for sale and another thing with these articles, they did not give you a specific statisitical data for crime in the united states. Check up these websites and tell me what you think
Type in the search bar, Uniform Crime Reports in the webpage to find the UCR. I have to admit that you are right but also if you would recall, there are researches for people who uses drugs (for example, marijuana) in which people who use drugs go to the center to participate in the research, get paid and they sign an agreement that they cannot be prosecuted. I think such an agreement will prevent the state from prosecuting an individual.
Yeap, thats true. And thats one of the main purpose they use it for. To compare crime statistics relating to the rise and drop of crime rates.
"they did not give you a specific statisitical data for crime in the united states"
no, they did not. This is because they are discussing a concept known as "the Dark Figure" that is universal throughout crime investigations not only in America but in general criminology.
They argue that the statistics on crime, even from highly reputable sources such as the ones you pulled (i would also take a look at the cia factbook, I use it often), are not accurate because of the nature of crime investigation.
The reason for this is because for a statistic to be accurate, the sample must be from a random sample of the population being examined.
However, in the cases you referred to, the sample was not systematically randomized, rather it used a process known in statistics as volunteered sampling- which is grossly inaccurate.
this not only gives statistical bias in prostitution records, but it is even documented in drug crime reports such as the one you mentioned
Let us say that you wanted to know a statistic of religious leaders and their opinions on abortion.
If you obtained a list of religious leaders, systematically randomized a sample to contact, and asked their opinion, let us say that you received 50% against abortion.
Now consider if you placed an advertisement for religious leaders to give their opinion on abortion. You would be flooded by religious leaders who were pro-life zealots, and would probably conclude that 110% or religious leaders were against abortion.
The reason for this is that people who offer their opinion often have characteristics similar to each other that those who do not offer their opinion lack, therefore having an inaccurate labeled population
in my example, it may be that religious leaders against abortion give their opinion because they feel very strongly that abortion is murder, and immoral, whereas the religious leaders for abortion feel less strongly that it is not their decision if somebody else should terminate a pregnancy.
Ok. I am not sure if you are referring to the Uniform Crime Report but if you are, then the UCR is not about volunteered sampling. It is a collection of the crimes that were filed and prosecuted by the local and statewide police agencies. Lets say, someone is assualted, they will report it to the cops, who will in turn, investigate the cirumstances surrounding the assualt. If there is evidence pointing to the assualt that took place, then charges will be instituted against the suspect and this crime becomes part of the federal statistics compiled for federal reporting. So this is based on the number of offenses reported and actions taken, not about who has volunteered to participate or by placing ads. The sole duty of any police department is to compile their date on a month to month basis, based on the crime statistics reported and solved and then forward to it to the federal government for re evaluation and publication.
A perfect example of the volunteered sampling you mentioned is drug abusers to participate in a research study. It all depends on what topics you are researching and whether or not you are seeking a conclusion that is merely not the truth but one which satisfies your needs. In such a research of drug abusers, it is merely in most instances for the purposes of producing medications that will help to combat addiction in drug abusers but yes in some cases, volunteered studies can be biased, depending on who funded it, what they are trying to prove and their social status in society.
This point i agree on you with. But just remember that all those priests who are prolifers still makes up part of the percentage of prolifers out there because they are priests who supports pro life. It all depends on whether the researcher intentionally chose those people who are pro lifers to support a point he is trying to make which would make his research and him a biased source.
Which is similar to voluntary response in that there is a distinction between the group that is easy to access and the group that is difficult to access.
After all, prostitutes who report an assault are easier to access than those who do not report an assault.
The relation to volunteer sampling is that the prostitutes are volunteering their opinion rather than systematically being asked their opinion.
Research bias is not the same as a biased source. Research bias is a deviation from real data due to variables unaccounted for-such as correlation between accessible crime reports and the circumstantial percentage reported. Just because a researcher did not intend to sway his study, such as through volunteer sampling or convenience sampling, a discrepancy between research data and the actual statistics is a bias.
Perhaps you should take a look at this site in order to have a better understanding of the statistical terms for bias rather than the colloquial definition for terms bias that you were referring to http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/ measerr.php
I am not sure if the UCR is biased because of their deviation from the real data because i have never researched into it but thanks for bringing this up. I will have to check it up in some of my textbooks later before i choose to respond to you. Thank you very much.
the bias is only because of the possibility for inaccurate data. You would have to conduct an entire new survey using proper sampling methods in order to determine if the confounding factors actually affected the data.
If you attempt to find a way to accurately sample random prostitutes for research, you would have to
1) compile a list of all of the prostitutes in the population- keep in mind that prostitutes actively resist being put into lists, so this may be difficult to say the least
2) alphabetize the prostitutes, and assign each a digit from one to 1,000,000(assuming 1,000,000 prostitutes). this is the easy part
3) randomly select 1,000 prostitutes to survey in order to have a confidence interval of +/- 3% at 95% confidence. This is end of the easy part. back to the hard part
4) track down the prostitutes you randomly selected and survey them. You must survey these prostitutes, and only these prostitutes. Giving up and asking a different prostitute you find will introduce convenience sampling bias. If your prostitute died and/or is no longer able to be surveyed, you must start again from step 1 to re-define your total list.
If i am correct, data compiled is based on crimes reported so the data is not biased. It only supports the statistics of crimes reported and not those that are not reported. Besides, you cannot blame the federal authorities because they do not present data for crimes not reported. In the same way, you cannot force people to participate in statistical findings or researches if they do not wish to and you cannot use those findings as part of your presentations.
"If i am correct, data compiled is based on crimes reported so the data is not biased"
Yes, it is, depending on who the population is. You defined your population as 'prostitutes', which is not accurate. The study (which you still have not linked) could not have used the entire population of prostitutes for their data.
Perhaps their population was convicted prostitutes- which do not represent prostitutes as a whole. This is because there are unidentified variables that could correlate a prostitute being convicted with a prostitute being abused.
For instance:
It is plausible to say that prostitutes are more likely convicted in a larger prostitution ring.
And that in large prostitution rings a pimp uses violence to keep them from leaving.
therefore, the percentage of prostitutes abused given they are in a large prostitution ring is higher than the unconditional percentage of prostitutes abused.
Secondly, I cannot nor do not blame the federal government for their inability to present data from non-reported crimes. I can, however, recognize that their data can be used for certain purposes (i.e. showing changes in crime rates), and not other purposes (i.e. showing prevalence of crime with certain groups of people)
Lastly, it is true that you cannot force people to participate in a survey. This is known as a non-response bias. It is one of many challenges that statisticians face. Here is an article that discusses various ways that statisticians try to negate non-responses within their populationhttp://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:v8_GHJQYtRsJ:scholar.google.com/+non-response+bias&hl;=en&as;_sdt=10000000000000&as;_vis=1
Now i think i understand what you mean. Are you referring to the point in my argument where i said that a case is tougher for a prostitute to prove? This i believe has nothing to do with statistics, this has to do with the prosecution of their cases before a proper court of law. You said i defined my population as prostitutes? Which specific argument are you referring to so i can have a look at it. I am so sorry, i am losing memory of the arguments i am making.
I am referring to the list of percentages you listed:
"The results of a national survey conducted found that atleast
•89% wanted to escape, but did not have other options for survival
•65% to 95% had been sexually assaulted as children
•70% to 95% were physically assaulted
•60% to 75% were raped
•88% experienced verbal abuse and social contempt
•68% met criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder. The severity of symptoms was in the same range as combat veterans seeking treatment, battered women seeking shelter, rape survivors, and refugees from state-organised torture"
I say "population" because that means the group of people being studied, in this case the population would be prostitutes in america.
You then said that this proves that most people who are prostitutes are are beaten and raped.
However, these numbers are not accurate when describing all prostitutes, because of the Dark Figure concerning crime statistics.
It is unreasonable to believe that a reasonable sample took part in this "national survey", so your numbers do not actually describe prostitutes.
Ok, thanks for refreshing my memory. This research carried out was not taken from the UCR. The results of this research was taken from prostitutes themselves who were selected and then interviewed. When you say "resasonable sample" are you referring to the method taken? Why would you say it is unreasonable?
Are you referring to the argument where i mentioned population? Because when i said population i am referring to the people of the United States who are citizens and who vote for what they wish to or not not become legal.
I think it should remain illegal. Firstly, we should made other alternatives avaliable to these women who are engaged in prostitution to earn a daily meal. Secondly, what kind of parental or moral exmaple would they be setting for their children? Thirdly, many women who engage in prostitution gets in contact with the worng set of people who are drug dealers or dangerous criminals which can be dangerous for them. I strongly believe we should consider other alternatives.
Prostitution has existed since the beginning of time, never has making it illegal in any society stopped it, or even lessened the occurrence of it.
One would have to be under the delusion that it currently is not common, or is hard to find, for them to believe that illegality has done anything to stop it. It has not.
However, what making it illegal does do is ensure there is no oversite, and encourages a criminal element.
There are real life examples.
The bunny ranches outside of Las Vegas have 0 pimps unless you count the owners of the ranches (who don't beat their women or kidnap 15 year olds unlike places prostitution is illegal), no cases of human slavery, the public does not spend 1 penny enforcing an impossible law, and the prostitutes by percentage are less likely to contract diseases or become addicted to drugs - and they make more money.
Within the city of Las Vegas prostitution is illegal. Instead of the public benefiting from taxes derived from the business we spend millions every year combating it, there are instances of human slavery, women are far more likely to be the victims of abuse or addicted to drugs, and on top of it all they do not make any money because the pimps who basically own them get every penny they make.
There will always be instances of abuse and crime in every business whether it's prostitution or, I don't know selling chocolate or something,
However, if you legalize it you eliminate a high percentage of the criminal element which leads to so much of the abuse and the spread of so much disease and drug abuse.
The only reason it is illegal is for "looks".
We say "hey, it's illegal" and that makes it easy for people like yourself to pretend either it does not exist or that it is rare.
But it's like pretending you don't have a cold - instead of just going to a doctor and getting some penicillin you pretend it's not there and eventually you have pneumonia.
Something about its illegality has bothered me for a long time; both components of the transaction are legal by themselves, but when combined, they somehow cross into the realm of crime.
Person A is allowed to have sex with Person B.
Person B is allowed to give Person A $500.
But if these two events happen to occur in a way that implies causation, it is not allowed and both parties face a criminal record, fines, or even jail time.
Prostitution being illegal only serves the criminal world with another vice to sell, it leads to human trafficking and untold harm to women, they are getting hooked on drugs further pushing the criminal proceeds. If prostitution were legal there could be safe places for people that wished to sell sex to do so. There would be protection from harm, regular testing for stds and the workers would be able to keep what they earn as well as pay tax.
Besides these arguments there is a lack of a fundamental reason for prostitution being illegal, surely if someone wishes to sell their body for sex they should be allowed to do so. It is an almost laughable fact that if you draw up a contract and film it, it becomes porn and not prostitution, and is therefore legal.
i agree that making prostitution legal is one way to stop this vice but what you ignored is the kind of future we are providing for our daughters. women who fell in such a trap, who started prostituting due to any reason find it easier but those who were forced to do by rape or drugging can fight for their rights in court, but legalising you know then civil suits will become joke and we would be hearing in court like "your honor, it was no rape but a fair transaction where after dissatisfaction from the money which she had been promised to pay she filed a rape case on my client" and you know there comes the real embarrassment on women rights.
I am having a little trouble discerning exactly what you mean so if I have misunderstood you, I apologize.
women who fell in such a trap, who started prostituting due to any reason find it easie who were forced to do by rape or drugging can fight for their rights in court...
Do you mean that legalizing prostitution would harm women who could potentially be forced into it? If so, the exact opposite is true; by removing the criminal element, women who are forced into prostitution are much more likely to go to the police and report the matter without fear of enduring their own legal repercussions. Additionally, there would be a very healthy legal market consisting of women working voluntarily and without answering to anyone; pimps would become largely redundant (or they'd have to reinvent themselves) and it would become much less profitable to force anyone to prostitute themselves.
but legalising you know then civil suits will become joke and we would be hearing in court like "your honor, it was no rape but a fair transaction where after dissatisfaction from the money which she had been promised to pay she filed a rape case on my client" and you know there comes the real embarrassment on women rights.
If prostitution were legalized, rapists would use it as a defense? Do you really think saying, 'well, I was going to give her money' would hold up in court as a rationalization for raping someone?
what you ignored is the kind of future we are providing for our daughters.
Not so much much ignored as I don't see it as important in this debate, sure no one would like to see their daughter, mother, sister, etc in this line of work but it t least would be a choice. One that is theirs to make.
women who fell in such a trap, who started prostituting due to any reason find it easier but those who were forced to do by rape or drugging can fight for their rights in court,
I don't see the point here, can women not fight for their rights in court if it were legal?
but legalising you know then civil suits will become joke and we would be hearing in court like "your honor, it was no rape but a fair transaction where after dissatisfaction from the money which she had been promised to pay she filed a rape case on my client"
Civil suits are a joke anyway, every law has it's followers and exploiters, are you aware that doctors can tell the signs of forced penetration. I would think that most rapists don't take the time to put on condoms, use lubricants and go to the trouble of getting the lady in the mood. Any way if prostitution was made legal in licensed premises there would be witnesses and protection from rapists and would-be exploiters. The aforementioned rape is probably more likely to occur under present illegal conditions.
How many of these suits have been been filed in Nevada?
unfortunately, Nevada DOES have a higher occurence of reported rape, as is declared in my citation. However, this does not mean that rapists are more active, only that they are more reported. The higher incidence of reporting rape incidents proves demonstrates that the legalization of prostitution will not mitigate the seriousness of rape as a shoplifting charge, and suggests that more rapists will be put behind bars when prostitutes are not afraid of the law.
I dont see why not, our daughters dont have to become prostitutes. They can still get an education and become a lawyer. Just because prostitution becomes legal it doesnt make everyone want to sell themselves
Prostitution has been existing since the ancient times. Having no prostitution is better , BUT it is impossible. Let's just accept the fact and try to make it better.Imagine a safe place where you can hire a registered prostitute that has been checked for STDs. Prostitutes will be retured unharmed in the same place at the time they agreed on. This benefits both parties.
Let's look at the reality. Prostitution being illegal leads to more crimes. Those prostitutes are being dragged to worst situation by getting pimps to protect the, yet abuse them. Pimps get more than prostitutes who work hard to earn money. If they could only get protection from our legal authority, they could have done better and make a better living. They could be prostitutes for a few years and start a new life once they saved enough money. Moreover, human trafficking and untold abused to women will lessen.
Do you want prostitution to be legal? How would you feel if you had a spouse, buying prostitutes but not loving you? OR How would you feel if you got an std from these prostitutes if the were legal and couldn't sue them? How would you feel?
