Saw your post, and it's irrelevant. Look at the pot industry in Colorado. It took an illegal enterprise and brought it into the light. Now it's booming, there's plenty of tax revenue for the states and profits for the businesses. Customers get a safe regulated product, and the sellers don't risk getting shot on street corners. It creates a better situation for everyone involved. That's a much more applicable example than prostitutes from Amsterdam in the year 2000.
Prostitution doesn't give any long term benefits to the prostitute, or society. In your mind there is the pretty prostitute who is so healthy and well mannered paying her taxes and getting checked by the health dept. In reality there is the crack mom selling her body for drugs or money while her baby screams from neglect. So yes a proper government would say that is wrong to do whatever you want.
I haven't been to Amsterdam in decades, but I hardly think the internet and un-taxed sex is less common today there. Weed is another story. This isn't about growing prostitutes and selling them to smoke.
You're being intentionally obtuse. The point is that an illegal practice that, by its nature, isn't harmful to anyone involved shouldn't be illegal. With proper regulation it becomes safe, and if there is a safe way to do something the market will naturally gravitate towards it. With proper taxation it becomes profitable for the state and in turn the country. That would provide some big steps in the direction of a balanced budget. And of course just like the state of the pot industry in Colorado there will always be people selling sketchy product in the shadows for cheap, but that market is a small fraction compared to the legal, and well regulated one. I hope you can see the clear parallels I've drawn for you here. Hopefully moral high ground hasn't got your head too far into the clouds.
And there you go assuming what I think. I'd appreciate you not doing that. You're mentioning both extremes. When people debate from the extreme viewpoints...people tend to ignore the fact that reality tends to fall somewhere in the middle. If you're calling the current government a "proper" one...we have vastly differing opinions about what a proper government is. And no I'm not talking about Trump, I'm talking about the gradual decline of the effectiveness of the Government that's been going on since I've been alive.
So all contracts must benefit society or they can't be entered into? I doubt that's true. By your definition, society doesn't benefit by me paying the kid down the street $10 to wash my car. I'd argue that it does benefit society. There are truly socially and physically awkward men who don't feel they have a chance in hell with a woman. He definitely benefits and she gets some cash. Not all prostitutes are low class, either. Are you going to pretend that none of the men in DC pay handsomely for "alone time," with a beautiful women? Think those alone time visits have happy endings or are they just playing Scrabble? Think those women are trashy, on the streets, taking drugs type of gals? Reality - Congress continues to make laws that they have no intention of following.
Sorry, again I don't buy into your views. Sexual acts are a big deal, and those who have cheated on spouses with prostitutes are going to face much more ruin than smoking a joint. HIV and other STD's are rampant among prostitutes. I believe the nuclear family is and should be the backbone of good society. Prostitution helps destroy it.
Prostitution between two adults is the topic here, not washing cars. And what do you think the average Washington political wife is going to do if she gets genital herpes or finds out her man is cheating on her? A broken family, herpes, HIV and other STD's are of no benefit except to the doctor and the lawyer.
Theres plenty of work atmospheres where drug addiction and children are not permitted. Prostitution would certainly fit that category. ...which would be regulatable if it were legal
On the above point I disagree as our laws tend to be based upon the mitigation and penalization of harm ergo morality, for example murder, rape, larceny, etc are illegal because they cause harm and it is immoral because it causes harm to others. The question is what harm does prostitution in and of itself cause others? I say none. STD's are not caused by prostitution, they are caused by unprotected sex, something that if prostitution were legal could be mitigated through oversight such as inspections and mandatory periodic screening. Prostitution breaks up marriages some will say and I say that unfaithful people break up marriages not prostitution. Humanity is shallow and hypocritical, case in point the prohibition of alcohol, where some of the men who passed the laws for prohibition during the day were at night going to speakeasies to imbibe the very substance that they made illegal in an effort to please the more conservative people that they represent. Humans wear a facade of goodness while acting in ways contrary to the public persona. We as a species are so hypocritical.
Sex acts are only a big deal if there is emotion involved, and the single guy who can't get a girl that just wants to nut has no effect on the nuclear family. Why does your first thought come to people cheating on their spouses? Must be weird to see in black and white in a would of color. Also the regulation that makes it safe means service workers are tested regularly and aren't allowed to work in the industry if the have a disease they'd pass on. Again, stop being obtuse. Just admit you want to place yourself on a pedestal and claim the moral high ground.
What about the single guy who just wants to pay for sex because he has no chance of getting any from any woman who's not a beast and always uses a condom? Why are you always pointing out worst case scenarios? What about the guy who's married and gets herpes while cheating on his wife with the girl next door who's not a prostitute? Should that be against the law too and both should be jailed in your world? Who are you to preach your brand of morality to everyone else? S-h-i-t happens in any scenario, a baby could choke to death eating baby food. The idea is not to criminalize everything that is harmless between 2 consenting adults because bad s-h-i-t might happen, maybe. Because when you do that, it doesn't help anyone, doesn't solve any problems and instead intentionally harms those involved without any legitimate reason. Your personal view of morality is NOT a legitimate reason.
It seems to me that murder, rape, larceny etc were made illegal not to prevent harm, but to promote a minimum amount of order necessary for a society to function. The purpose of govt, in its earliest forms all the way through to today has always been about order, whether it was protecting the kings rule or protecting an economy or protecting political power over resources (human production among them), 'harm avoidance' of the individual or even the collective has never been a primary concern of the ruling (or legislative) caste. As evidence, I present the following: War. I think order is (and should be) the goal, not morality (which leads to theocracy) or even harm prevention (as that ultimately leads to the nanny state).
It should be a state by state, then country by country and then city by city. The majority of the voters should have the final say what they want in their communities. The majority of people in my state and area don't see enough positives. Those with below average looks and social anxiety issues that can't find women to suit their tastes should move to Nevada or live across the border with Mexico if they want to use legal brothels. I knew a guy in college that had was going to go to the Mustang Ranch as a graduation gift to himself. If a married guy cheats on his wife and is found out, then that is grounds for a divorce and having his assets divided. If the spouse cheats on their other and gets some bad disease like HIV, then maybe jail would be fitting. Otherwise, not. You still haven't convinced me of the wonders of legal prostitution. Time to move on.
Since I've been married so long, my thinking is more swayed by that. But in reality, between 41% and 56% of men using street hookers are married. Substantial differences were found in marital status, with clients much less likely to report being currently married (41%) than the national sample (56%) and more likely to report never having been married (37%) than the nationai sample (29%). Of the married respondents, clients were much less likely to describe their marriages as "very happy" (38% in comparison to 60%) and much more likely to describe their marriages as not too happy (22% in comparison to 2%). https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/182859.pdf It's good to be on moral high ground. I'm so sorry if I've discolored your world by putting a cloud over it.
If you're suggesting that prostitution endangers the institution of marriage and therefore the family, then I would have to question- is the nuclear family founded upon sex? I dont think it is. I think the family exists in spite of sex. Human sexuality is based on the instinctual need to procreate. The family is based on the human emotional need for love, and the instinct to 'spread seed around' must be suppressed in a marriage. People dont break marriages by engaging prostitutes, they engage prostitutes when their marriage is already broken; the family is damaged, or they wouldnt be doing it. Cheating (prostitute or no) is a symptom of damaged relationships, not a cause of them. as to the 'state by state' thing, I fully agree. States should not be forced to accept OR restrict prostitution by federal authority. it should be up to their residents.
BTW- refusing to engage in prostitution is the 'moral high ground' and a worthy stance that I respect. Threatening others with violence for engaging in prostitution (which is the result of making it illegal) is most decidedly NOT moral at all.
Pro So you are protecting the little dears from themselves? Prostitution is the oldest profession and marriage hasn't gone down yet. I think the two can co-exist, on account of them co-existing since civilization began.
It seems to me that there is little difference between calling it establishing order or penalizing harm, IMO both are true.
Seeing there is no such word in the official language of this forum, I'd have to guess not. Better I should ask whether you're in the right universe. Of course you would, because you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. That's pretty funny, considering that since the birth of Christ, no nation has come closer to the ideal of morality based law than the United States. And of course if you had even the merest wisp of a clue as to what morality is, you'd understand that mortals do not establish morality by fiat, wherefore it follows that whatever they do establish by fiat is not morality, regardless of any label one may see fit to attach to it. But congratulations on dodging the original question. Gee, first I've heard of any federal anti-prostitution laws.
I guess it all comes down to intent. Whether laws are made to protect us, or to protect the lawmakers.
What is your argument, exactly? Shall I presume (due to your lack of specificity) that morals come from God, instead of us 'mortals'? Because I would actually agree with you, but thats a whole new issue- making laws based on religious doctrine.
It should be the way it is with all laws. There is no reason why this one should be unique. Agreed, unfortunately it's rarely ever what the majority of voters want, it's usually what the politicians want which is often the opposite of what their constituents want. You know and you speak for the majority in your state? There you go dictate what others should do based on your own personal beliefs. What makes you think I'm trying to convince you of anything just because I post my opinions? From what? This is a discussion forum and I'm discussing the topic of this thread. If you want to "move on", by all means go for it. I'll "move on" when I choose to do so.
