Consenting adults exchanging money for sex - should it be illegal?

I think you've hit on an important point here: In a free society, I believe it is a mistake to legislate what you think is "good for society. To do so exposes free men to the whim of the majority - and it detrimental to liberty. In a nation that values liberty, infringing upon it for what "feels good" is the true detriment to society, IMHO. YMMV.

 

My, what a magnificent contribution you've made to the discussion.

 

I think you're missing the point - you said we made law for the "good of society." If that is the standard, then you have to be able to define what that means. Many people think that means, for example, banning consenting adults from exchanging money for sex; others think it means legislating what kind of light bulbs you can buy, what kind of car you can drive, or how many bullets you can put in your gun - if at all in the latter case. In a free society, the standard must be freedom. Period. When you try to do what's "good for society," you eventually end up with North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

Even more important in my view is to consider the consequences of trying to legislate what's "good for society." Free men are free to do whatever they want - that's the whole point of freedom. The standard is harm. We have no business prohibiting consenting adults from acting, speaking, and thinking in a manner of their choosing providing that the consenting adult in question accepts full responsibility for all outcomes of the action, and that the action does not constitute harm to another.

Why can't we let the meth addict die?

Only if we as a society choose to take responsibility for the bad actions of our neighbors. We are under no obligation. We do so by choice.

Yes.

We should.

You get a bill from the ambulance. Unless you are indigent in which case it is unlikely you'll be driving. Seatbelt laws are unnecessary - while it is an excellent idea to wear a seatbelt, the free man does not need a government nanny to tell him to do it.

No, society chooses to save you. We should do far less of that and far more defending of liberty - if we really want to do "what's good for society." Or we should just forget this claptrap about freedom and liberty and let people we'll never meet run our lives.

 

Instead of a logical argument against prostitution, this seems more like an ethical judgement because it assumes that everyone should have the same tastes, fetishes and values as you, and those that do not are somehow perverted. One could also infer from your post that you believe fetish port cultivates fetishes in people, but it is more likely that it capitalizes on what is already there.

I think most, if not all people, have something they secretly like that is not considered mainstream, and we should not pass judgement on them as long as it involves consenting adults. Sexual repression is stupid and harmful. If no one is being hurt (unless they're into that kind of thing), then we have no business getting involved.

I also think that men will always view women as sex objects, whether prostitution is legal or not. It's just what we do. I'm not saying men can't respect women, we should, but whenever we see a woman, we will always ask ourselves if we would or not. (If you're a straight man, don't tell me you don't.) There is nothing wrong with that because that is our nature. We shouldn't feel bad about what we are, and it is harmful to try and make people feel guilty about their sexuality. There seems to be a huge problem with the left and the demonization heterosexuality.

 

I agree with this. I still think that local or state laws like this should be considered in front of voters. It's the contradiction with the constitution that counts, rather than contradiction between laws. Conceivably all loitering and solicitation should be permissible, but we've guarded against it.

Lot's of people claim the dehumanization of women and in fact many hoes are slaves. On the other hand, this is a regulation on women's rights to commerce. Women commonly make the practice of demanding or coercing money for sex of their own accord. It's more plausible to me that this is the reasoning behind these laws and the stiffer penalties for hoing than for consuming prostitutes' services.

 

I again propose that the US values law, rather than liberty. Look at our prisons, our tax code, our driver's tests.

 

Well then we ought to take that word off our money, eh?

Please explain.

 

Exactly. And, one other reason that someone might pay for sex is if they are a single male in the military and are overseas where there are legal brothels. Why would someone who has a good job and is single go to a brothel? Because they are only in port for anywhere from 2 days to 2 weeks, not nearly long enough to start dating, form a relationship, and then have sex. It's much easier (and less hassle) to simply go to one of the brothels.

Interestingly enough, the brothels in Turkey are state run. The women working in brothels over there are usually trying to pay off fines.

 

No, according to a Harvard study, legalized prostitution increases sex slavery and human sex trafficking. California essentially is urging young kids to become prostitutes and promoting sex slavery and human trafficking of children. As evil of politicians who voted for this - Democrats of course.

Not one person can give ANY incident of a prostitute being arrested after going to the police because she is forced to be a prostitute or is a sex slave. It is a 100% false narrative and justification for one of the most despicable pieces of legislation in US history.

Did you hire girls under age 18 for sex that you referred to in your message as that might be legal in those countries since you brought up the topic yourself?

 

Actually, all the women who work in the brothels overseas have to be legal adults (i.e. 18 or older), with the median age being between 25 and 40.

As far as your study goes, care to post the link so I can read it?

 

https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-trafficking/

As I commented before, legalizing brothels is a very different question than legalizing prostitution across-the-board.

Under the California law, a 13 year old could go door-to-door, put her/himself online advertising, or standing on a street corner with a sign reading "Sex for $10" - and there is nothing the police can do about it.

 

Well in the year I spent in Japan and the Philippines while in the Marines I never even sawe a brothel. But I did go home with many a good looking hostesses. By me drinky ?

[video=youtube;4r5HiPGEajU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r5HiPGEajU[/video]

Some will tell you if you buy them enough drinks(tea) they will take you home. This is risky as usually they will take your money then leave with someone who still has money. Your better off buying them a few and then asking them if you can meet them after work and pay them cash.

 

Then there is something wrong with their child working and pornography laws more than the prostitution laws. When it comes to abortion women have the right to their body yet when it comes to having sex they do not. There is something wrong here. They can give it away but if they charge its a crime

 

Oh ok, I misunderstood your post. You should check out this book called "Perv: The sexual deviant in all of us." It's not a sex book like Penthouse Forum, it's a study of people and sex. It was fascinating. "The Joy of Sexus" was a another good one about sexual taboos throughout history. Both of them were great reads.

 

Actually, if you saw the actual intent of the law, it's not to make it "legal" in the sense that you are saying, it's to make it so that the kids can go to the police without fearing prosecution for prostitution. Lots of the pimps who are running under age kids scare them into staying by telling them that if they go to the police, they will be jailed.

And..................exactly how is legalizing brothels different from legalizing it across the board?

 

Nah. People demand liberty and money. They're kissing cousins.

Relative to some other parts of the world that are not as litigious, our paperwork and prison population is immense. I thought the imagery of them lumped together could underscore the point.

Of course I understand your point. Liberty is one of the principles that our country is based on, although it is administrated in legislatures and courts... and the laws keep stacking up.

 

It's akin with the organ trade, where some sale their kidneys and for the OP it's all about rental, but nonetheless within a civilized group like a community this could be construed as undignified. Trade of those who are incapable of supporting oneself with skills for normal dignified jobs resorting towards selling flesh and body.

 

You should be able to sell your organs. It will save lives . If you work you are selling your body or at least your mind

 

The nobility will change if the goal is to earn money,
which could be gained through other means than selling parts of your body.

 

I dont care about nobility I care about lives. Its like this nonsense that its bad to have a Dr make lots of money he should be doing it out of nobility. I want the best Dr, I dont care how he got to be that way or even if he beats his wife or if he is a greedy capitalist

 

Your care about lives is in fact nobility.

 

Brothels can be regulated, audited and surprise inspected plus subject to undercover work to insure regulations are being enforced - such as regulations you stated yourself. It is the difference between legalizing selling liquor at bars, stores and restaurants plus alcohol manufacturing via licensing and for exact physical locations - versus anyone and everyone can make and sell liquor anywhere, anytime to anyone.

- - - Updated - - -

No, this not only is extremely predatory on the poor, disabled and those controlled by abuse, but also gives rise to incentives to take people's organs involuntarily as criminal activity.