Prostitution

[cantata]

I can't get the thought out of my head that people are going to sue each other for not delivering on [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. I assume this is not what you intended.

*makes a "to sue" list*

 

[Rebekka]

I'm sure that they don't. But the illegality of prostitution does not prevent it from occurring. If a woman needs money, and other careers aren't available to her, she may offer sexual services, whether buying or selling them is illegal or not. I simply cannot see how making it illegal will change this one iota. And it seems to me that it would be easier to ply her trade in a safe environment if there are legal ways in which she can do so. She can choose a licensed brothel over an illegal one.

Legalizing it hasn't changed things for the better over here, from a prostitute's perspective. So to me, legalizing is useless, and immoral, so I would vote against it if I lived somewhere else.

I take it you are morally opposed to adultery. Would you vote to criminalise it? Or is personal freedom more important to you?

I'm undecided on this one.

Just as it isn't easy to say no to fixing someone's sink if you're being paid to do so.

I wonder if you could further elucidate why you feel that their relationship ought to be equal, or why sex doesn't belong in business contracts.

For me, only sex relationships in an equal, loving, committed relationship are moral. I think other sorts of relationships only lead to pain, abuse, disrespect, heartbreak. If you want to engage in such a relationship that is your choice, but to me it goes too far for a government to make such a relationship a worthy profession, with taxes etc.
To me, sex is something that can't be bought or sold. Prostitution is the opposite of what sex ought to be. You may not respect my reasons because they are founded on christian values, and to you that may be a meaningless reason to make something illegal, but for me it isn't meaningless at all. You can't change my opinion on this.

It's clear that you regard sex in one way and that some people regard it in another. Forcing them to behave in a particular manner based on your personal understanding of the meaning, purpose, value, and emotional status of sex would be well-meant, I'm sure, but hopelessly unfair. I think it is a sensible idea to allow people to decide for themselves what they regard as an abuse of their person or their sexuality. And if someone does not regard prostitution as an abuse, I see no reason to prevent them from selling sexual services.

I see prostitution as damaging as using harddrugs, and we're not free to use them, either. People cannot decide for themselves on everything. You think prostitution belongs in the group of things that everyone should decide for themselves; I think it doesn't. Doesn't mean that I want to take every freedom away.

Out of interest, would you also vote to make the creation of pornography illegal?

I would vote to make the availability of pornography more restricted. Right now, at Dutch tv after 10 PM, there is a lot of sex ads - and I mean that from all 11 Dutch tv channels, 8 of them show sex ads incessantly from a certain time, so if you want to change channels quickly you cannot escape them. I would vote to have them banned.

Legalisation would not decrease the incidence of prostitution, I'm sure. It is intended to improve the conditions of prostitutes. I'm sure that abuse does still happen, but the ease of reporting it must surely have improved, and I'm sure that the conditions of prostitutes, particularly with regard to their sexual health, has also improved.

From the news I keep hearing, it hasn't improved.

Right, but that's precisely the point. The number of people breaking the law has been narrowed down to those who are actually abusing others.

It has created a field of half-criminal activities, which makes it harder for the police to actually help the victims of abuse etc.

No indeed; but the law isn't there to legislate morality, but to protect people. Unless you can give practical reasons for making prostitution illegal, moral concerns are inadequate.

I don't think they are useless, and I don't see practical reasons for making it legal - as I said, it hasn't improved things over here, for prostitutes.

Of course. But lying to your spouse about your adulterous affair is not illegal. Should it be? Would you say that the government condones lying to your spouse about your affair?

I was not talking about an affair but about bigamy; the government would be on the side of the non-lying spouse here. So here, the government doesn't condone lying.
Just because I don't want to make lying to your spouse about an affair illegal, doesn't mean that I can't at the same time think that prostitution should be illegal. They're not the same thing.

 

[Rebekka]

I don't understand your use of the word "rights". Rights are legal principles that form the basis (or at least part of the basis) for a legal system. They set boundaries for law-makers in passing laws, and they set boundaries for how people may act with respect to each other. If someone violates your rights, you may ask the government to take legal action.

When you say that people have an equal right to sexual satisfaction, I can't get the thought out of my head that people are going to sue each other for not delivering on [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. I assume this is not what you intended.

Anyway, I was just wondering what you mean by rights. Should you be able to take legal action if someone does not provide you with sexual satisfaction? If not, then what are these "rights"?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Sounds like a good idea to me!

You could see a relationship as a small, informal sort of government. I referred to rights to describe that both parties are equal, one shouldn't boss over the other, both should attempt to satisfy the other. Since you are the government yourself, you needn't ask a third government to interfere - but this assumes that both parties give the other their fair share.

I would not sue someone who refused to satisfy me, but I would leave him, as I would take that as a sign of him not seeing me as his equal (assuming that I would try to satisfy him).

 

[Eudaimonist]

Sounds like a good idea to me!

What have I done?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[cantata]

Legalizing it hasn't changed things for the better over here, from a prostitute's perspective. So to me, legalizing is useless, and immoral, so I would vote against it if I lived somewhere else.

Would you be able to provide me with some references?

I'm undecided on this one.

This worries me a lot!

For me, only sex relationships in an equal, loving, committed relationship are moral. I think other sorts of relationships only lead to pain, abuse, disrespect, heartbreak. If you want to engage in such a relationship that is your choice, but to me it goes too far for a government to make such a relationship a worthy profession, with taxes etc.
To me, sex is something that can't be bought or sold. Prostitution is the opposite of what sex ought to be. You may not respect my reasons because they are founded on christian values, and to you that may be a meaningless reason to make something illegal, but for me it isn't meaningless at all. You can't change my opinion on this.

My point was that while I may regard certain things as unwise or unkind or unnecessary, that alone does not give me adequate reason to advocate their criminalisation. It is clear that you regard your personal moral preferences as sufficient reason to prohibit something. I strongly disagree.

I see prostitution as damaging as using harddrugs, and we're not free to use them, either. People cannot decide for themselves on everything. You think prostitution belongs in the group of things that everyone should decide for themselves; I think it doesn't. Doesn't mean that I want to take every freedom away.

I also think that people should be free to choose to use hard drugs, just as I think they should be free to commit suicide, cut off their own limbs, &c.

I would vote to make the availability of pornography more restricted. Right now, at Dutch tv after 10 PM, there is a lot of sex ads - and I mean that from all 11 Dutch tv channels, 8 of them show sex ads incessantly from a certain time, so if you want to change channels quickly you cannot escape them. I would vote to have them banned.

That must be annoying, but the reason I asked is that I see little difference between pornography and prostitution.

From the news I keep hearing, it hasn't improved.

It has created a field of half-criminal activities, which makes it harder for the police to actually help the victims of abuse etc.

Again, would you have any sources to support this contention?

I don't think they are useless, and I don't see practical reasons for making it legal - as I said, it hasn't improved things over here, for prostitutes.

I regard "legal" as the default position. If it makes no difference whether or not something is legal, I think it best that it remains legal.

I was not talking about an affair but about bigamy; the government would be on the side of the non-lying spouse here. So here, the government doesn't condone lying.
Just because I don't want to make lying to your spouse about an affair illegal, doesn't mean that I can't at the same time think that prostitution should be illegal. They're not the same thing.

I'm not talking about whether or not lying to your spouse should be made illegal. I am asking you whether you think that the fact that it is not illegal to do so means that the government condones lying to your spouse, as you seemed to be arguing that the fact that prostitution is legal in your country means that the government condones prostitution.

 

[stan1980]

Legalizing it hasn't changed things for the better over here, from a prostitute's perspective. So to me, legalizing is useless, and immoral, so I would vote against it if I lived somewhere else.

I'm not sure if the Netherlands is a good example. I think you mentioned earlier the red light district in Amsterdam was already there before legalisation? So does it follow that it was pretty much legal in all but name anyway, so of course nothing much will change apart from the prostitutes being taxed. If you were to drive prostitution away from the middle of busy cities like Amsterdam, you just drive it underground where it will be far more dangerous.

Over here, our red light districts are very different (girls having to get into strangers cars and drive to an isolated area being just one of the hazards), so I think legalisation would help. I'm convinced that it is far more dangerous for a prostitute working in our country, then it would be for a prostitute working in the Netherlands, before or after your legalisation.

I think you need to put your personal feelings aside on this one. There is no point in having laws that have little or no benefits. It only serves to make criminals out of people and cost the tax payer money in court fees..

 

[Rebekka]

Would you be able to provide me with some references?

My references are Dutch newspapers, not online sources in English. It may take a while to find a good source - most English texts online on this are too broad, not specialized enough for what I'm thinking of. But here's one that mentions some of the effects of legalization. Sorry it's a bit old.
http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/world_2001/nytimes-010812.html


This one's better, but it's in Dutch (from one of our main national newspapers, Trouw). I hope you can decipher some of it. The title is telling: "prostitutie toestaan was een fout" means "allowing (legalizing) prostitution was a mistake".

http://www.trouw.nl/deverdieping/ov...e873831.ece/Prostitutie_toestaan_was_een_fout
A few quotes:
"De opheffing van het bordeelverbod is mislukt, stelt het Amsterdamse stadsbestuur. De seksbranche is er noch verantwoorder, noch veiliger van geworden. Nu wil de stad ervan af. Het aantal ramen’ wordt drastisch verminderd."
(translation: the abolition of the ban on brothels is a failure, says the Amsterdam municipality. The sex industry has neither become more accountable, nor safer. Now the city wants to get rid of it. The numbers of windows (~prostitute's rooms) will be drastically reduced.")
"Amsterdam is de controle op de wereldberoemde Wallen kwijt. ’Foute’ ondernemers die seks en drugs verkopen en geld witwassen hebben er de regie."
("Amsterdam has lost its control over the famous Red Light District. "Bad" businessmen who sell sex and drugs and launder money are in charge.")
"Het Amsterdamse stadsbestuur geeft met pijn in het hart toe dat de opheffing van het bordeelverbod de stad niets goeds heeft gebracht."
(The Amsterdam municipality admits with pain in their hearts that the abolition of the ban on brothels has done the city no good whatsoever.")
"Maar de registratie van de vrouwen bij de Kamer van Koophandel en de Belastingdienst hebben de schaduwkanten van de prostitutie niet doen verdwijnen. Er zijn nog steeds te veel zwartwerkers, illegalen en minderjarigen, zegt de stadsdeelvoorzitter."
("The registration at the Chamber of Commerce and the tax authorities have not made the dark sides of prostitution disappear. There are still too many illegal employees, illegal immigrants and minors, says the head of the city district.")

That must be annoying, but the reason I asked is that I see little difference between pornography and prostitution.

Neither do I, which is why I have objections against pornography. But my knowledge of pornography (also when it comes to abuse etc.) is not sufficient to have a good judgment. One thing I do know - I would like to not see it everywhere anymore - on tv etc.

I regard "legal" as the default position. If it makes no difference whether or not something is legal, I think it best that it remains legal.

Yes, that's not a bad point of view, and right now I'm not voting for it to become illegal again. But in the future I might.

I'm not talking about whether or not lying to your spouse should be made illegal. I am asking you whether you think that the fact that it is not illegal to do so means that the government condones lying to your spouse, as you seemed to be arguing that the fact that prostitution is legal in your country means that the government condones prostitution.

Yes.

 

[Rebekka]

I'm not sure if the Netherlands is a good example. I think you mentioned earlier the red light district in Amsterdam was already there before legalisation? So does it follow that it was pretty much legal in all but name anyway, so of course nothing much will change apart from the prostitutes being taxed. If you were to drive prostitution away from the middle of busy cities like Amsterdam, you just drive it underground where it will be far more dangerous.

Over here, our red light districts are very different (girls having to get into strangers cars and drive to an isolated area being just one of the hazards), so I think legalisation would help. I'm convinced that it is far more dangerous for a prostitute working in our country, then it would be for a prostitute working in the Netherlands, before or after your legalisation.

I think you need to put your personal feelings aside on this one. There is no point in having laws that have little or no benefits. It only serves to make criminals out of people and cost the tax payer money in court fees..

I don't know how the situation is in other countries. Perhaps in other countries it would be an improvement, I can't judge that. So maybe you're right, maybe not.

 

[Rebekka]

OK, finally found a usable English reference.

http://fleshtrade.blogspot.com/2006/02/abuses-in-prostitution.html

A Dutch politician, Karina Schaapman, is a spokesperson for prostitutes and used to be a prostitute herself. She has spoken about the dark sides of prostitution and the reality of legal prostitution quite often in the Dutch media, and I know of her largely through newspapers, but this will do.


Edited to add: this article mentions one reason why the legalization hasn't worked in the Netherlands: a large part of the prostitution shifted to the escort service, and the authorities don't know what's going on there exactly. It's hard to fix injustices in that service. So that's one of the reasons why prostitutes aren't better off now than they were before brothels were legalized.

 

[Rebekka]

And for some extra insight read this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/world/europe/24amsterdam.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

"Mr. Cohen, the mayor, recalled that in 2000, the Dutch legalized prostitution, intending to make the sex trade more transparent and protect women by giving them work permits. “We realize that this hasn’t worked, that trafficking in women continues,” he said. “Women are now moved around more, making police work more difficult.”
A task force set up by the mayor’s office, in a report last year, said that the marijuana cafes and the licensed brothels had helped generate more crime by providing legal outlets. “The marijuana and the women have to come from somewhere, and organized crime fills much of this demand,” the study said. The money earned in this lucrative trade is pumped back into the area, widening the criminal circle, it said."





Edit: And this one's interesting too, about trafficking.
http://www.expatica.com/nl/articles/news/ladies_of_pleasure_or_sex_slaves.html



This pdf-file is large (30 pages) and i haven't read it all, but it is interesting.
http://philosophy.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/F...etic/Sympathetic_Distrust_toronto_april07.pdf
(page 18 "Radical feminists also adduce empirical evidence to argue that very few women freely choose to prostitute themselves. Many prostitutes have a personal history of physical and sexual (child) abuse, and the majority of women are forced to do their work, either physically or as a result of economic need (Hopkins 2005, Schaapman 2007). Even when initially entering the business on their own account, their freedom is relative: once 'in' it is difficult to get out again (...)"

 

[stan1980]

Pretty grim reading. I think it all boils down to whether legalisation drastically increases the amount of "sex slaves". If it could be proven that it does, then I'd think I'd be against legalisation. I'm not convinced that making it illegal makes the problem go away though.

 

[cantata]

Well, I read these articles with interest, and they certainly offer some food for thought (although I'm sure that they don't tell the whole story).

I find it hard to believe that you consider the legality of lying equivalent to condoning of lying by the government!

 

[Rebekka]

Well, I read these articles with interest, and they certainly offer some food for thought (although I'm sure that they don't tell the whole story).

I find it hard to believe that you consider the legality of lying equivalent to condoning of lying by the government!

Only in a literal sense. The government doesn't care whether you lie to your spouse or not. It doesn't punish those who lie (there are exceptions, e.g. the one that I mentioned, about bigamy - because marriage is also a legal contract, so you could see that as perjury), which can be interpreted as condoning.

 

[cantata]

Only in a literal sense. The government doesn't care whether you lie to your spouse or not. It doesn't punish those who lie (there are exceptions, e.g. the one that I mentioned, about bigamy - because marriage is also a legal contract, so you could see that as perjury), which can be interpreted as condoning.

But that's the thing, I don't think not punishing something equates to condoning.

 

[poohgirl]

Prostitution should remain illegal.
Sex is to be saved and enjoyed within marriage.

Blessings

 

[cantata]

Prostitution should remain illegal.
Sex is to be saved and enjoyed within marriage.

Blessings

The idealism of a few should not be the basis for law.

 

[Rebekka]

The idealism of a few should not be the basis for law.

If a majority wants to make prostitution legal, it can happen. All you have to do is vote. Majority rules in a democracy. That's how it came to be legal here. So if it's not legal where you live (or in the US, where most people are believers), then I assume it's not what the majority wants. Or if it is, it will change soon.

 

[poohgirl]

The idealism of a few should not be the basis for law.

I would say it's far, far more than a few who believe it should remain illegal.

Blessings

 

[cantata]

If a majority wants to make prostitution legal, it can happen. All you have to do is vote. Majority rules in a democracy. That's how it came to be legal here. So if it's not legal where you live (or in the US, where most people are believers), then I assume it's not what the majority wants. Or if it is, it will change soon.

To the best of my knowledge, we have never had a referendum with regard to prostitution, and I do not know of a political party which has put its legalisation at the forefront of its campaign policies. In any case, I am not particularly interested in the majority opinion. I am interested in what is best for everyone.

I would say it's far, far more than a few who believe it should remain illegal.

I didn't say that only a few think it should remain illegal. I said that only a few base that judgement on idealistic ideas about sex.

There may be good reasons for prostitution remaining illegal, but the notion that sex should be saved for marriage is not one of them.

 

[mpok1519]

Prostitution should remain illegal.
Sex is to be saved and enjoyed within marriage.

Blessings

what about the people who no one will marry?

Does God think they shouldn't have sex ever?