Vote: is prostitution acceptable or unacceptable?

Right, the Bill of Rights totally supports the sexual exploitation and enslavement of human beings. More propoganda devoid of reasoning.

The givernment does regulate alcohol, and in many countries, they ban the advertisement, etc. of alcohol. There are things we can do to reduce the incidences of sexual exploitation, rather than just saying its pointless and against the constitution to try. THat is just silly. Its akin to saying we cannot prevent ALL heroin abuse, so we just start handing it out for free. Makes perfect sense - totally constitutional.

 

Apparently, you didn;t read anything that has been provided and will continue to willfully turn a blind eye to the consequences of your actions.

THe places where human sexual slavery are the worst, are in the places where prostitution is legal. How further legalizing prostitution is supposed to reduce that trend? Makes no sense.

 

It depends on the laws and regulation of prostitution in that country but no country is without the practice, those that have it legal and with good regulation offer its prostitutes better situations. We know for sure that having it illegal does not solve the problem.

 

You are right, the pattern is very clear:

#1 - When there are strong, ENFORCED prostitution laws, the problems of human sexual slavery are greatly reduced. When you have a advocative social service that seeks out the girls and offers them education, retraining, and job placement, as well as counseling for the abuse that they endure ... why the problem of sexual slavery is reduced to a trickle.

Of course, that makes it harder for a John to find a girl, and ... he might have to resort to beating off in the bathroom for free rather than paying and degrading a woman to do it for him. The horror - I know.

#2 - Where prostitution is legal, the problem of supply chains of women being enslaved are enormous. Where laws are poorly enforced, like Pakistan, the problem flourishes because its essentially legal.

Of course the up side for Johns is that, rather than having to resort to masturbation to control their uncontrollable sexual desire, they can find a woman of almost any taste to pay to do it for them. Wow, what a benefit that is ... all it takes for that demand to be slated is .... enslavement and abuse of women. Congrats.

So yes, the laws and regulations do indeed matter - that is EXACTLY what I have been saying. Glad you finally agree.

 

You treat all prostitution as exploitation, but that is, as you've phrased it, propaganda devoid of reasoning. There are men and women who choose to do this basically as a career, and there is no reason to say they can't. There is no reason to say that sex for money is wrong, whereas it's fine for consenting adults to have sex without an exchange of money. Why does it suddenly become criminal if one person wants to charge another for it in the form of a business transaction?

Again, as has been stated, government regulation of prostitution would actually do a lot for protecting prostitutes, as it gives them health guidelines to follow and legal protection against exploitation. We're not talking about legalising sexual exploitation, but rather recognising that consenting adults ought to have the right to make a business of sex if they so choose.

 

Prostitution can be never acceptable, all pimps and johns should be sentenced to jail.The existence of prostitution is violence of God's Law.

 

God's law? Enforcing laws based upon your religious beliefs would be a violation of the First Amendment. Your faith has no place here, please recognize that.

 

I can't speak for Mr. Bender, but for me anyway, I prefer to act upon my free will as guided by GOD's intervention rather than to submit myself to man's highly flawed secular rules and or laws. Remember, all men are sinners, while GOD is all knowing and all pure.

 

I'm all for freedom of religious practice, but like I said, there is no place for religion when it comes to deeming what is acceptable and unacceptable (as I return to the topic of this thread). It's when these practitioners act upon the compulsion to spread their dogmas and impede upon other's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do I fight back against Faith. (Or when I'm in the mood for a good debate, in all honesty.)

 

Can you give me an example or two where these practitioners impede upon other's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Keep in mind if you're talking about their stance on abortion that it is they who fight to preserve the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the unborn.

 

We agree that you are either trying to be cute or we have a reading comprehension problem. Prostitution in a place like Brazil where it is legal but not regulated you have trafficking flourish. But take France, Germany, the UK where it is legal and regulated, they have less.

http://prostitution.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000772

"Among the worst countries for human trafficking were Iran, Algeria, Burma, North Korea, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. But there were many others on Tier 2, which means that although they may be “trying” to comply with TVPA’s standards, the numbers of victims are rising."

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/how-bad-is-human-trafficking-around-the-world.html#ixzz21Dk33UKS

So...
Iran, Illegal
Algeria, illegal
Burma, illegal
North Korea, illegal
Cuba, illegal
Libya, illegal
Saudi Arabia, illegal
Sudan, illegal
Turkmenistan, illegal
Venezuela, legal

http://chartsbin.com/view/snb

 

Essentially everything that evangelism entails, especially when it enters the extreme, such as the Westboro families and individuals, who actively spew hatred in the name of God, effectively unsettling those whom they target. Granted, it also empowers them, but their hatred impedes upon the life the LGBT live thanks to the liberties they are "endowed by their Creator" to have in the pursuit for happiness.
Speaking of, on what grounds does the government, whether it be state or national, resist giving LGBT members the rights that we heterosexuals have? The nation's Judeo-Christian background is what, for science is no enemy of the LGBT.
I suppose you're focused on Christianity, so I won't bring Islam into this. Enough is said there, I'm sure we both can agree; at least concerning the radical group.
Concerning abortion though, that is a tricky matter, but ultimately it is up to the woman. Nobody else. Yes, a life will be lost, but what is life? A heart beat? Or is it when it can comprehend that it is indeed alive? I prefer to think the latter, but then there are those who believe in this little thing called a soul that give grief to the mothers who have aborted their child or in the process of making the decision.
We can also look to the past when certain races were deemed impure as well; there were those who protested in the name of God that African Americans were unholy because of the color of their skin. We got over that, though, at least for the most part, and now Christians accept them.
The same goes with prostitution. Sure, it's not the most agreeable way of making an income, but who are we to deem it wrong? (The Bible does not count; circular reasoning I think is the term I'm looking for.)

 

Whose God ? The God of Abraham certainly had no problem with prostitutes.

 

Agreed. This is another one of those BS morality laws that has no place in a logical world. Prostitution would be safest for everyone involved if it were legal and regulated.

 

No, that would be the places the girls originate from. They wind up in Europe ... of course, such facts are just ... an attempt to be cute. A discussion of human sexual slavery that effects millions is ... just something you clearly want to avoid to continue your punting with a clear conscience?

Well, the reality is what it is, and as soon as you pay, well, that Korean girl you just screwed already endured hardship beyond belief in North Korea, where she fled across the border into China and was unlucky enough to be caught by human slavers before being carted, and probably raped several times in route, off to London.

I am sure it's just a professional choice though.

Enjoy your hobby - but don't expect anyone to respect you for it. Far from it.

 

Yes, thats what I meant by ban on prostitution. Your "solution" would only harm the poor.

Prostitution is a job that often provides a lot of money for relatively little work. A lot of protitutes choose it even if there are other ways.

 

Relatively little work? The risk of being bashed, raped and murdered high on the list for prostitutes. Then there's being marginalised and discounted by the greater society. I hear fella's on this forum being derogatory and calling any woman they feel like calling a 'prostitute'. So 'prostitute' is a derogatory word that some fella's apply to any woman they don't like.

Relatively little work, says the fella...

Prostitution carries stigma, carries possibility of serious harm to a woman. The type of men that go to prostitutes lean to being sleazy, slimy creeps. We know by the incidence of violence / murder of prostitutes, that these women are murdered by the men that go to them.

Prostitutes service men. Good when they're getting a personal fix, but they're just the kind of fella's who go round this forum calling any woman they don't like / and feel like calling a 'prostitute'.

Hypocrites. Self-serving pricks.

 

I like prostitutes. The only derogatory female creatures on earth are liberal femanazis.

 

Not so much kidnapped as coerced.

Most of the girls working the girlie bars and brothels (which are illegal in Thailand, therefore girlie bars are a front for prostitution) are Thai nationals. There is a steady stream of girls heading to Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Pattaya and the larger cities from the poorer regions of Thailand to work the bars. There is also a percentage of girls jumping the border from neighbouring Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar and Vietnam. These girls are deemed as illegal immigrants and therefore are even further exploited.

Check out these videos out of Thailand. Best to watch them in order,,quite interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STCpKDAmKSs&list=UUwY3T84Sr7imT-i81yeQcGw&index=10&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSNZU_zGJNY&list=UUwY3T84Sr7imT-i81yeQcGw&index=9&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR26NtWSvwk&list=UUwY3T84Sr7imT-i81yeQcGw&index=8&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH7-41TAvnU&list=UUwY3T84Sr7imT-i81yeQcGw&index=7&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Fwni4nIEpQ&list=UUwY3T84Sr7imT-i81yeQcGw&index=6&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERJfspBeTt8&list=UUwY3T84Sr7imT-i81yeQcGw&index=5&feature=plcp

 

If it is regulated the girls are documented, which would mean less of a chance of them being trafficked, they have opportunity or are required to interact with social care. The association I found from the articles I posted and the countries that have the worst trafficking are poor economies, or places were sex and prostitution are highly taboo. I am sure the reasoning behind each is much more complex then that but it doesn't seem that in a place like Iran were the death penalty is enforced for prostitution you have less human trafficking taking place, as I said before it is a different animal or separate social issue to be dealt with, people are sold into slavery for more reasons than sex, you have forced labor, children being bought and sold in illegal adoptions.


Just because you find prostitution morally wrong does not mean that no women would engage in without being forced to do so.

 

Yeah, sure, you like prostitutes.

That's why you started a thread that went like this:

http://www.politicalforum.com/womens-rights/248805-huge-femanazi-crowd-protesting-rush-limbaugh.html


Your fat slug friend Rush called Sandra Fluke a "prostitute". And you called her one, too. And you like "prostitutes" so clearly you see the term "prostitute" applied to Sandra Fluke as something POSITIVE, right?

Again: You called Sandra Fluke a prostitute in the opening of your thread. And you like prostitutes, right?

What a grand-scale hypocrite you are.

This is exactly what I was talking about, about how some men on this forum demean women by calling them 'prostitutes'. This is a prime example.

 

I agree it should be legal and regulated. Edinburgh has taken a half way stance for a long time, licensing saunas which it knows are used for prostitution.

http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-e...f-city-s-stance-on-licensing-saunas-1-2250581

It is time to go the whole way and legalise and regulate the business, providing safety for women who choose to do this.

The traffickers are obviously just the worst kind of criminals and the police should make a priority of dealing with them.

 

Didn't realize I had to point out the distinction between prostitutes, so I'll just say by repeating my earlier statements that I detest derogatory femanazis whether they be prostitutes or your basic lesbo, and somewhere in those infamous titles would include one ms sandra fluke.

 

Get your story right.

If you detest 'derogatory feminazis' while liking 'prostitutes', then why call Sandra Fluke a 'prostitute'? You LIKE prostitutes. You said so yourself. So really you're saying something nice to Sandra Fluke by calling her a prostitute - because you LIKE prostitutes. That's it, isn't it? Because any man who LIKES prostitutes would never use the word "prostitute' in a derogatory way towards a woman when he LIKES prostitutes. Would he?

Breathtaking hypocrisy. You're exactly the kind of poster I was referring to that uses the word "prostitute" as a way of being derogatory to any woman that they don't like. Disingenuous, lowly, sexist bullcrap.

 

I'm more directly familiar with this topic than probably anyone here. Accordingly, I feel I have a unique right to speak about it.

The reasoning skills of the industry's proponents are not well developed. The simple libertarian/libertine reasoning that "anything consensual is okay" ignores the existence of exploitation, which is distinguished from other oppressions specifically by its consensual nature. There are, you see, levels of consent. There is what one WANTS to do on the one hand and what they're WILLING to do on the other. As has been pointed out by some here, the sex industry thrives on taking advantage of the socially dead (mainly abused, often underage, young girls), exploiting their poor self-image. You see, the maximum possible amount of human liberation can only, in reality, be achieved through the proper balance of negative liberty (freedom from state-imposed oppressions, e.g. the rights to free speech and freedom of assembly) AND positive liberty (freedom from spontaneous oppressions, which often requires society's active intervention, e.g. the constitutional ban on slavery), not the one or the other exclusively. Libertarians/libertines seem persuaded that only negative liberty is really liberating because they don't seem to believe that spontaneous oppressions exist. But they do. Not all oppressions are state-imposed. In reality, societal intervention can often at least largely resolve otherwise unresolvable spontaneous oppressions, and that includes problems of exploitation.

Buying a prostitute's services is, in my mind, essentially a form of rape because the sex worker doesn't really have a choice. Basically she has to do what you tell her to, on your terms, or lose her job and her income (if not her life). Sex then becomes simply a form of "customer service", no more authentically voluntary than the smiles your Wal-Mart clerks provide you as you enter and leave the store. In my opinion though, that is what men tend to expect of women: sex on demand and without conditions. Perform (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)! *snap snap* That is the REAL reason why this overwhelmingly male message board's membership supports the business and you all know it.

It is also worth adding here that much of the sex industry, particularly in the area of prostitution, is, at that, not even consensual at all, even on that level. Much of it is just straight-up enslavement. Statistically speaking, legalizing the industry so far has only had the effect of expanding both avenues for the industry; the legal (consensual) and the illegal (often based on enslavement and trafficking) both, so the argument that a ban on the buying of sex simply drives the industry underground is not true. Legitimizing and de-stigmatizing the industry causes it to thrive in every respect.

None of this is to say that I think women should continue to be arrested and jailed in this country for being sucked into this industry. No one should be punished for being a 'loose woman' (which, as you may have guessed by now, is something I am not per se opposed to) or a victim of the sex industry. But I do believe that those who deliberately take advantage of the socially dead, whether for a profit (e.g. pimps) or not (e.g. customers) deserve some form of penalty. I tend to be supportive of the successful and popular Swedish approach to this issue. Sweden is no "prudish", puritanical country either, so if you can't imagine sex without the industry, take a look at their example.