
Should Prostitution Be a Crime? - jseliger
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/should-prostitution-be-a-crime.html?_r=0
======
kefka
How is prostitution any different than selling our bodies to work in a
factory, or construction, or retail, or ....

Our bodies wear down and tire doing non-sexual labor. What makes sexual labor
so horrid? As long as we do safe procedures (condoms, dental dams, etc.),
there shouldn't be any problems with labor of a sexual nature.

It's always better if you like your job. A lot of us do programming, or
designing systems, or administration. We enjoy it. There's also people who
like sex. I know a few, and they have made more in the sex industry.

The only real problems are disease and abuse. Disease is obvious, but "owners"
like pimps and such are big problems. We don't accept this in standard
employment.

And yes, sex for money for both genders is pretty awesome. It bypasses the
whole mating ritual, and makes very clear expectations up front. And once
done, the transaction is completed. Regular relationships can, and will get
messy. I can certainly understand why some would not want to venture down that
avenue in their point of life.

~~~
atmosx
> What makes sexual labor so horrid?

Religion, especially Christendom and it's various strains. Before that in many
cultures, sex was seen a something _positive_ , a pleasure in which you
_should_ indulge in.

You can see it on TV. Take DareDevils TVSeries, but I'm sure you'll find many
examples, there are countless raw violence scenes for free, but 3 seasons in
and DareDevil hasn't been with a woman with the exception of a kiss. It's okay
to display violence, no one will argue, but displaying explicit sex scenes...
Well that's a no-no :-)

We have more than a few remnants from the dark ages.

EDIT: There's this amazing song by an Italian cantautor called "Fabrizio De
Andre". The story (lyrics) are spectacular, full of everyday life wisdom. You
can read an English translation on YouTube:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysydBLMSbRs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysydBLMSbRs)

~~~
padobson
I find the moral outrage against sex by my fellow Christians to be a
perversion of the teachings of Jesus.

Two C.S. Lewis quotes on the subject:

"The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins."

"...a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer
to hell than a prostitute."

The desire for sex is ingrained in human nature, and so long as people can pay
for things, sex will be one of the things they pay for. If we can reduce the
number of victims by making it legal and regulating it, then I'm all for it.
But, at the same time, I'd consider myself a failure as a moral guide if my
daughter chose it as a career.

~~~
coliveira
It is really easy to understand why Christianity abhors sex. Sex is the most
private act we do as humans. If you can control how, when, and with whom you
make sex, then you have huge control over the whole life of a person. That's
why the Christian church is so adamant at defining what is good or bad in
terms of sexual behavior.

~~~
threatofrain
I don't believe that's why _Christians_ abhor sex. I think it's just that they
were raised in a sex-anxious environment, and they've come to proliferate that
internal response to sex.

I think they have an internal feeling of right versus wrong, and _then_ they
seek out belief structures that justify their feelings.

~~~
slowmovintarget
Christians do not abhor sex. Christians are taught to abhor sex outside of a
marital relationship.

That means all this psychological discussion of "feeling dirty" and
"justifying their feelings" is attacking a straw man fallacy.

~~~
threatofrain
You're saying that you think Christians don't feel anxious about sex because
they are taught to abhor sex outside of marriage?

I think that is a weak reframing of the breadth of sex, and that sex for the
supermajority of American people, in and out of the church, is pre-marital.

I think young Christian boys are taught that sexual fantasy and pornography is
the same as adultery, a defilement of the temple that is their body. I think
one example that's brought up along these lines of narrative is a story of
direct divine punishment for the spilling of seed. I think Protestant and non-
denominationals with sizeable youth groups form little sexual discussion
groups, especially for boys, where they vent their sexual guilt with regards
to their fantasy of the day or how they masturbated. I think American
Christian parents are ever anxious about government discussion of sex, and
that they backwardly expend finite energy to make it a political battle point.
And I think American Christian culture is as much about the implicit as it is
about the explicit.

But somehow your choice framing of the discussion is that Christians don't
feel dirty about sex because they are explicitly taught that only sex outside
of marriage is dirty.

Young boys and girls in the church learn the anxiety of the community and
their parents _first_ , and _then_ they listen to the belief structures to
justify that anxiety.

A straw man, by the way, is a misrepresentation of someone else's discussion,
and not actually a logical fallacy at all. It is by definition outside of
logical purview. Most people would be better off not ever hearing about
logical fallacies, because it gets in the way of quality thinking.

Anyways, I want to make one last point about American Christians expending
their precious, finite energy in politics. I say that there are 3 high
consensus Christian political issues in America, in order of strength: (1)
abortion, (2) homosexuality, and (3) sex education in school. The latter is
the weakest, and mostly in state-level politics, but there it is brutally
fought. Notice the theme of these 3 issues?

It's really kind of silly that _these_ are the highest consensus issues for
American Christians. Um, not poverty, right? Or injustice in the police
system, and classism and racism in America? Yes. Let's discuss abortion,
homosexuality, and sex education in schools (condoms detract from
abstinence!).

~~~
slowmovintarget
First, that's not what I said. I said the notion that Christians are taught to
abhor sex is a deliberate straw man argument. I made no claims about anxiety
or lack of it.

I made no reframing of the breadth of human sexuality, because that was not
what was being discussed. I did make assertions regarding the Christian
teaching of what was moral in regard to human sexuality.

You then state a number of assumptions (prefaced with "I think") which are
largely irrelevant. The story of Onan, who spilled his seed during intercourse
rather than give his brother's widow a child as the Mosaic law required, was
punished because of disobedience to the law. That had nothing to do with
fantasy or pornography.

Christian teachings regarding sexual fantasy or pornography are all aimed at
the training of one's conscience to avoid behavior that typically leads one to
the societal norm of extra-marital sexual experience. This expands to a wider
belief regarding self-control. If you routinely do something wrong, you come
to accept it as normal, and are likely to continue where that path winds.

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy [1]. It is the _deliberate_
misrepresentation of someone's position in order to make it easier to attack.
My opinion is that understanding logical fallacies (formal and informal) is
important for conducting honest and rational discussions, so we disagree on
that.

I tend to agree with your point about wasted effort regarding enforcement of
morality with law.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

------
keithnz
Here in New Zealand we made it legal a number of years ago, and now it mostly
seems like a non issue these days, and from reports it's made the industry
safer. None of the horror scenarios that people predicted would happen if we
legalized it came about. I think there is the odd problem with asian women
brought in illegally to the country and exploited, but I think because the
industry itself is legal it actually makes it easier for the police to find
out about it and for whistle blowers from the industry to come forward.

~~~
nostrebored
New Zealand actually decriminalized prostitution. Legalization is an entirely
different system.

~~~
LeoPanthera
Honest question: What's the difference? I have no idea.

~~~
Mz
My understanding: Decriminalization is more sweepingly favorable to freedom
for sex workers. Legalization tends to involve a lot of regulations. It is
sometimes no better for sex workers than criminalizing it.

Decriminalization seems to be about making as few laws as possible concerning
the matter. Legalization involves writing a bunch of laws about what you can
and cannot do.

Based on the opinions of sex worker and political activist Dolores French, I
have long been for decriminalization. If a legal adult wishes to take money
for sexual services, I don't see why anyone should care.

~~~
cortesi
You have this the wrong way round. Legalisation _does_ involve bringing
something into the same set of regulations that applies to everything else,
and that's a good thing. However, when we speak of "decriminalising"
something, we usually mean removing criminal penalties for something that can
still be against the law, and can still result in fines and other penalties.
This means that the industry remains underground, which is usually worse for
all involved. See the links I gave upthread for citations and the NZ context.

~~~
Mz
[http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2015/10/differ...](http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2015/10/difference-
between-decriminalisation-and-legalisation-sex-work)

 _Some clarification: under legalisation, sex work is controlled by the
government and is legal only under certain state-specified conditions.
Decriminalisation involves the removal of all prostitution-specific laws,
although sex workers and sex work businesses must still operate within the
laws of the land, as must any businesses._

~~~
cortesi
Well, I can't speak for the New Statesman, but that's just not what
decriminalisation means. Here:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization)

------
cm3
In places where drug use or prostitution are illegal there are usually
interest groups earning quite bit via the penal system or just plain stealing
people's stuff because they were involved in drugs or prostitution.

So logically speaking it should be officially accepted as a profession and
managed by the health department in order for the sex workers to not suffer as
much. Then you can also apply the same controls to sex trafficking as you do
to the non-sex shadow work force.

Portugal's health system allowed them to legalize drug use and create a
healthier society and decrease related crime. Let's face it, if someone wants
to smoke crack or pay a sex worker, they will do it regardless. Might as well
control and earn money the usual way like liquor taxes.

~~~
mmanfrin
Baptists and bootleggers.

~~~
cm3
What do you mean?

~~~
ghkbrew
Basically, regulations are supported by people who believe the activity should
be not happen and those who profit from the facilitating an illegal activity.
The phrase itself is reference to Prohibition in the US.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists)

~~~
cm3
So basically human traffickers and drug cartels would if they could, as absurd
as it sounds, sponsor campaigns of right-wing conservatives.

~~~
gozur88
Assuming you mean social conservatives, that doesn't sound conservative at
all.

~~~
cm3
Does conservative have a different meaning in the US just as liberal? If so,
maybe I should have written "right-wing republicans".

~~~
gozur88
There are different kinds of conservatives. Social conservatives make up only
about 30% of "right-wing republicans". Most of us are more interested in the
fiscal side.

~~~
cm3
I many ways US politics is similar to some middle east countries, but it could
be solved by getting rid of the two party system and adopting one like in
Germany or other places where you can be represented by real liberals who
actually don't dabble in social beliefs but just freedom and tax reforms.

~~~
gozur88
I agree. The two party system worked pretty well when power was devolved to
the lowest practical level, but at this point US states are just
administrative districts, so we'd probably be better served with a multiparty
parliamentary system where you can pick a national party that more closely
resembles your beliefs.

------
throwaway34416
I'm 22 and paying for sex is a routine of mine. Most countries in Europe have
it decriminalized and in some it's even regulated, thankfully.

Let's see, why I pay for sex?

    
    
      1) I'm in the bottom 20% in attractiveness.
      1.1) Tinder and real life take work.
      1.2) Low market value -> Low value offers.
      1.3) Return on investment is negative.
      2) It's not that expensive
      2.1) 60 euros -> top 10% for 30 minutes
      2.2) Time and effort. Better write python a couple hours.
      3) Selection
      3.1) Age, physical characteristics, services, "personality"..
      3.2) There are forums/webpages with reviews by other customers.
      4) Not interested in relationships.
      4.1) I don't even know in which country I'm going to live next year.
      4.2) I expect to do that when older.
    

I haven't been with a woman that didn't had other options or was being
trafficked. Or at least I think so. The experiences vary but were mostly good,
certainly better than randomly hooking up in a party. It's not a solution if
you have emotional needs though, or at least not a good one. But if you want
to relax and live/play a little, paid sex is a solid yes.

------
drostie
One of the things that has really changed my thinking about an entire cluster
of related questions, and informs this one, is a Bloomberg article from a law
professor about a year and a half ago.[1]

If you followed the link, skimmed through the article, and are now back at
this comment going "what the hell are you talking about," go back to it and
_reread the first two paragraphs._ It's really short, and it packs a punch,
even if you're not a libertarian (I'm certainly not).

If you don't want to click through: _Don 't support a law unless you accept
that it will kill some of the perpetrators._ A law needs to survive its
collateral damage. It is always a strong, non-theoretical possibility that due
to some law, and whatever dynamics are available at the time, that someone
will die as a result of it. It just requires a pimp or prostitute (in this
case) who is being apprehended to accidentally move in just the wrong way,
show just the wrong disrespect, that some police officer thinks they're in
imminent danger of being attacked or shot. And, are you going to be
comfortable with it?

The linked article points out that this is true in the case of Eric Garner's
crime of selling loose cigarettes: nobody really thinks that this is something
anyone should potentially die over. Similarly, I would say, for the act of
selling one's body -- perhaps it might come with _fines_ , to discourage it,
but _jail time_ seems insane. And one of the reasons is that it puts a threat
on the lives of the women who are presumably already being trafficked.

(The article contains a bunch of other gems from a book it recommends: for
example if you're having the "I don't need privacy; I've done nothing wrong"
thing, you can be like, "statistically according to this book there's a 70%
chance you have -- you probably just don't know it yet. Have you read the
3,000+ federal laws and do you know the 300,000+ federal regulations to be
sure of that?")

[1] [http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-12-04/law-
puts-u...](http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-12-04/law-puts-us-all-
in-same-danger-as-eric-garner)

~~~
sokoloff
Three Felonies a Day excerpt:

The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to
work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she
has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in
the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number
but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A.
Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously
disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin
arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly
innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has
increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of
Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague
and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions...

[http://amzn.to/24vLd3O](http://amzn.to/24vLd3O)

------
nicolas_t
I strongly believe that making prostitution illegal only creates problem by
driving prostitution underground and favoring human traffic and abuse.

An open society should make prostitution legal but also regulate it, institute
regular health checks for the workers, find a way to ensure that there are
legal ways for both prostitutes and clients to do the transaction in a safe
environment and be tough on any abuse that happens outside of the law.

Some countries like Sweden have started penalizing customers but that, while
the government claim that it's been efficient and shows that there are less
streetwalkers nowadays in Sweden, the opposition claims otherwise by saying
that prostitution just moved to online venues and that there's been an
increase in sexual tourism by Swedish Nationals.

~~~
nostrebored
Prostitution is something that people get into out of desperation. The
disconnect that people seem to have here is a "Pretty Woman"-ified view of
prostitution; even in places where prostitution is decriminalized, people
enter due to desperation and do not exit due to dependence.

There is no way to do the transaction in a safe environment as by nature you
(nearly always a woman) are locking yourself in a room with someone who is
likely larger and stronger than you (nearly always a man) who views your body
and emotional output something they can buy.

The people who oppose the criminalization of purchasing sex via the Nordic
Model make vague claims about stigma and 'shifting underground' but ignore the
reality of the data: The Nordic model has been shown to reduce being hit with
a fist (38%) and rape (48%) by significant amounts. Research done by anti-
Nordic model researchers substantiates this, while claiming that an increase
in reports of verbal abuse and hair pulling makes this a failure. From the
report, we also see: “Most of the women who said they would seek help to
protect against violence said that they called or threatened to call the
police when they found themselves in a dangerous or threatening situation.
This would often scare the customers, or others, who were acting
threatening/violent away.” There was also an 80% reduction in prostitutes
seeking help from emergency care. [1]

Also, claiming that people leaving your borders to break your laws constitutes
a failure would be a great way to repeal age of consent laws in the US.
Pedophiles just go on sexual tourism trips to places where the age of consent
is lower -- but does that make the law unsuccessful?

Even if the law is placing the focus on johns, that doesn't mean that johns
are the group that are designed to see the primary effects of the law. The
Nordic model is very upfront about trying to minimize coercion, trafficking,
and violence against women, and does so by providing exit programs for
prostituted women and placing the burden of the law on those who purchase sex.

[1]
[https://humboldt1982.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/dangerous-l...](https://humboldt1982.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/dangerous-
liaisons.pdf)

~~~
DanBC
> There is no way to do the transaction in a safe environment as by nature you
> (nearly always a woman)

About 40% of the prostitutes in the UK are male.
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11169544/Are-
we-...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11169544/Are-we-doing-
enough-to-protect-male-sex-workers.html)

I agree the clients are almost entirely men.

Lots of sex-worker organisations have criticised the Nordic model as something
that increases the risk to sex workers. Restricting the client base to men who
are willing to break the law means you've biased the client group towards men
who are more likely to be violent.
[https://newrepublic.com/article/121981/northern-ireland-
sex-...](https://newrepublic.com/article/121981/northern-ireland-sex-work-law-
based-wrong-model)

(EDIT I don't think I downvoted you, and I think it's a shame you were
downvoted. I've upvoted your other reply.)

~~~
nostrebored
I'm skeptical of your first link which has absolutely no remarks about data
collection besides a link to an aggregation tool, although I do think that the
number of men who are g4p is drastically undercounted.

Studies conducted in Nordic Model countries show that the Nordic Model reduces
violence, trips to the ER, and increases rates of calls to the police by
extremely significant margins. (note that this source is actually anti-nordic
model, look through their data to see the reality of the situation)

[https://humboldt1982.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/dangerous-l...](https://humboldt1982.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/dangerous-
liaisons.pdf)

~~~
thsealienbstrds
I don't think you can really conclude that it works based on the linked
research data. I'm assuming you're referring to table 12, where they compare
the percentages of incidents with the pre-Nordic model study. I think you
cannot compare the percentages (something that the author acknowledges)
because in the 2012 study a time limitation was set when reporting on the
occurrence of an incident (only report it if it occurred since introduction of
Nordic model), but this time limitation was not set in the other study (report
it if it happened at any point in time in the past). You cannot compare
victim-percentages of incidents that happened over a period of three years
with victim-percentages of incidents that happened over an indefinite period
of time. Claiming that the Nordic model works based on such a comparison is
like claiming that the birth rate has dropped in the last three years because
the total number of children born since 2013 is less than the total number of
children born before 2013.

------
steego
I've argued in the past that making prostitution illegal fuels human
trafficking because it finances criminal enterprises by incentivizing the
exploitation and enslavement women who have little protection from the law.

Personally speaking, I think it's a misogynistic policy that creates untold
tragedy for exploited women everywhere.

------
alwaysdoit
I guess my biggest concern with this is tied up in this potential dystopian
future where prostitution is basically the only unskilled job humans can do
better than machines. How do we prevent people from being forced into this out
of economic desperation?

~~~
maaku
You really think we won't be able to build a better sex bot?

~~~
hkmurakami
Japan's on the case. ;)

------
Sumaso
"Members of the human rights group in Norway and Sweden resigned en masse,
saying the organization’s goal should be to end demand for prostitution, not
condone it."

How would you ever set about trying to remove the demand for prostitution?

~~~
makomk
By making it as difficult and dangerous as possible for everyone involved. For
example, Sweden - which is generally used as the model example of this
approach by those who support it - criminalized people who paid for sex and
landlords who knowingly continued to rent to women who had sex for money,
amongst others. One of the consequences of this is that sex workers in Sweden
who've been raped by a client and reported it to the police have been evicted
as a result; the police have gone to their landlords and told them that unless
they evict those women, they could go to prison. I believe this was a big
reason Amnesty took the position they did. The response of the "end
prostitution" campaigners was basically to lie, claiming that Amnesty were
making the issue in question up because Sweden hadn't criminalized the sex
workers. (Which was half-true but irrelevant because Sweden had criminalized
their landlords instead.)

~~~
marvin
The effect of the pimping laws making it illegal to rent apartments to sex
workers in Oslo has in fact made life a lot more difficult for sex workers.

The Oslo police has had a long-running operation called "Operation Houseless"
(official name), where the police threaten landlords with prosecution unless
they evict suspected sex workers from their home.

Just thought I'd share that tidbit - the left's rhetoric has the sex worker
laws painted as protecting women from exploitation, but the enforcement of the
law doesn't support this goal at all. (Not to mention that enforcement of
these laws when the sex workers are male, is non-existent). My skeptic view is
that the criminalization of the purchase of sexual services came about mostly
because there were a lot of Nigerian prostitutes in the main street outside of
Parliament in 2008, and that the politicians needed a palatable legal excuse
for getting rid of what seemed like a disgraceful situation.

------
joesmo
I don't understand why people consider sex a moral issue. This is a deeply
personal issue and when done between consenting adults affects no one else.
Why should it matter with whom one has sex with if all parties consent? It
seems to me that people that want to put limits on this are simply
overstepping their bounds because they can and they want to force their ideas
onto others in an effort to control and dominate others. I mean the stated
purpose of Amnesty International, according to some members, "should be to end
demand for prostitution, not condone it." These people must be delusional,
even more delusional than the anti-drug warriors who love to kill, imprison,
and enslave. Interestingly enough, the outcome of both is the same.

These delusional people are the ones who need to be regulated as making sex a
moral issue has indeed led to horrors that would have otherwise been avoided.
I wouldn't even say they have good intentions in this case as it's obvious
what happens when sex is made into a moral issue. We have the evidence and we
know. We also know what happens when it's not and people are allowed to have
sex with whomever they want for whatever they want. To still want to control
who people have sex with and under what terms after knowing all this is to
intentionally support all the negatives of having sex be a moral issue and
outlawed in most places: human trafficking, slavery, etc.

These people making moral judgements about an amoral topic are the ones
providing the foundation for the global sex trade. Shame on them indeed.

~~~
combatentropy
> I don't understand why people consider sex a moral issue. This is a deeply
> personal issue and when done between consenting adults affects no one else.

I guess for the same reasons we make other personal decisions illegal, like
suicide and the use of certain drugs.

C. S. Lewis once gave a metaphor. In a fleet of ships, if one fires on
another, that of course is bad and should be illegal. But also if a ship's
internal mechanisms are so bad that the ship careens into others, that is bad
too.

Promiscuous sex spreads disease. Before the 1960s in the US, there were two
main STDs, and both curable: syphilis and gonnorhea. After the '60s, it
ballooned into a nationwide epidemic, and now we also have chlamydia, HIV, HPV
(causes more deaths than HIV), and many others.

Another common-sense splash of water is to ask the question, "Would you want
your child to grow up to be a prostitute?"

I don't see how the exploitation and abuse will end just by making it legal,
either.

~~~
tluyben2
> I guess for the same reasons we make other personal decisions illegal, like
> suicide and the use of certain drugs.

They shouldn't be illegal either imho.

------
smegel
Coming from Australia, it amazes me how big a deal this is in the United
States.

~~~
andrewstuart
It's a total non issue here isn't it.

Sex workers get on with their lives and it rarely seems to be a problem for
anyone.

------
bastardoperator
Why can't two consenting adults enter into a contract with one another? I
suspect the governments issue with prostitution has something to do with
taxes.

If you film it... changes everything.

~~~
justinlardinois
I'm tired of this argument. A john pays a prostitute for their services for
their own enjoyment. A porn actor isn't paid by their costar, they're paid by
the production company so it can sell the recording.

It's like comparing filming a romantic comedy to a lonely guy paying an escort
to hang out with him. There's a bigger difference than just the fact that a
camera is involved.

Also not really into the contract angle either. Why can't a consenting adult
sell their vote?

~~~
yarou
There isn't really much difference other than a camera being involved. In
fact, I'd argue porn is more exploitative than prostitution. And if you think
filming porn is akin to filming a romantic comedy, you haven't seen Hot Girls
Wanted.

~~~
justinlardinois
> if you think filming porn is akin to filming a romantic comedy

That's not the comparison I was making.

------
Zikes
The majority of the abolitionists seem to be approaching the issue in an
entirely one-sided manner: prostitution is male customers and female
prostitutes. It completely ignores that women can desire purely sexual
encounters (which Tinder and Chippendales are big examples of evidence
against) or that sex can be a moral and healthy experience for both parties
even if money is involved.

> "They’re sexual objects. What does that mean for how professional women are
> seen? And if women are sex toys you can buy, think about the impact on
> relationships between men and women, in marriage or otherwise."

They're really showing their hand here. First, they want you to believe that
all women are accountable for all other women. They see every sexual depiction
of a woman to be representative of all women, which to me is the real
objectification of the gender.

Second, as it relates to "relationships between men and women", they want to
exert control over personal relationships, which is just ludicrous. Do they
honestly think men only have monogamous relationships for the sex?

~~~
drdeca
I disagree with the claim that prostitution can be moral.

Whether it should be legal is another question, and one which I don't have
much of an opinion on. But I do not believe that it is moral to pay for sex.

However, I also don't think that sex should occur outside of marriage, so, my
viewpoint might be kind of far from what others are stating in this thread.

~~~
Zikes
There's nothing immoral about what two consenting adults do in the bedroom.

------
mc32
If it is going to be a crime, let the John or Jane be the penalized, i.e. the
service user rather than the service provider, because, in the majority of
cases, this industry is enabled by exploitation of the people in a weak
economic state.

See France.

~~~
CaptSpify
I posted something similar elsewhere but...

If we had systems in place that prostitues could turn to instead of
prostitution, then only those that _actually wanted_ to be a prostitue would
be. People wouldn't turn to it as a last resort.

~~~
mc32
One confounding issue is that some are captive participants --that is someone
is controlling their behavior (i.e. making them do it) via manipulation,
threats and codependence, etc.

~~~
CaptSpify
And that's kind of my point. It's not just financial situations, it's
sometimes structural/societal situations that force them into that lifestyle.
And if we supported people in shitty situations, we give them an "out" they
wouldn't otherwise have, they wouldn't turn to something that they don't
really want to do, that we as a society don't want them to do.

------
hvmonk
This is one of the oldest "profession" on this planet. IMO, it is still active
today is a sufficient proof that it serve some folks well (on both sides), and
shouldn't be labelled as crime or illegal. Sure, there are irregularities in
this trade, but don't they exist in other professions as well? Underpaid
waiters, underpaid workers, etc. Similarly it has its own poisonous weeds -
pimps, trafficking, etc. That needs to be eradicated, not the industry per se.

------
eplanit
Along with how automation and robots will affect other aspects of our lives,
one can wonder how it will be involved in our moral and physical perspectives
on sex. To the point, for moral and health reasons, will people be drawn
increasingly to robot sex?[1][2] (links maybe NSFW)

[1] [http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/robot-sex-may-be-
co...](http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/robot-sex-may-be-coming-
sooner-than-you-think/560c199399ec6d3aff0001fb)

[2] [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/lovesick-
cyborg/2016/03/10...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/lovesick-
cyborg/2016/03/10/women-men-want-sex-robots/)

------
stretchwithme
Like many other things, this should be decided at the neighborhood level.

There are problems allowing it and problems outlawing it. Letting each
neighborhood decide will enable those benefitting from this trade to also pay
the costs of it. If it does attract crime, they'll need to consider that when
they make their decision, tax brothels enough to pay those costs.

There will always be some neighborhoods that allow it. Everybody that wants to
engage in this will have a place to do it.

And neighborhoods that don't want it can just levy fines rather than prison
sentences. That alone will make people do this in more permissive
neighborhoods.

------
BatFastard
I am against Prostitution, but I do not think it should be a crime. As a
society we should legalize all behaviors that do not harm others. I know
that's a slippery slope, but rehab is better all around then jail.

~~~
jordigh
Maybe if we handle it like we handle cigarette smoking? Not illegal, but
regulated, heavily taxed, only for adults, only in designated areas, and with
a government campaign that points out all of the (mental) health hazards that
come with it?

~~~
Fastidious
Absolutely not. There is too much regulation as it is. Cigarette smoking
harms, the smoker and others. Prostitution does not.

~~~
jordigh
Prostitution harms too, even legalised:

[http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/10/10/1087.abstract](http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/10/10/1087.abstract)

~~~
riyadparvez
I do not think prostitution does harm to the same extent smoking does.

~~~
jordigh
It exposes you to STIs that cannot be prevented with condoms, if nothing else.

------
darawk
As with all headlines that end in a question mark, the answer here is pretty
obviously 'no'.

This is one of those issues where intelligent people cannot disagree. If you
think prostitution should be illegal, you are stupid. Categorically and
unequivocally. There are precisely zero valid arguments in favor of its
criminalization.

~~~
ams6110
You are quite obviously wrong, as most cultures and societies have made it
illegal, and have done so for a long long time. So there are many many smart
people who think it should be so. Whether their reasons are valid in your mind
or not is irrelevant.

~~~
darawk
You seem to be arguing that something has been done in the past or is
widespread, therefore smart people agree that it is a good idea. Which, after
even a brief moment of reflection, you should realize is not a very fruitful
line of reasoning.

------
padmanabhan01
I think its the state violating individual human rights if what consenting
adults do with themselves without violating anyone else's rights is considered
illegal. I am curious to understand how it is not or counter arguments if any.

------
nice_byte
It should definitely be _decriminalized_ (i.e. people engaged in it should not
be persecuted by law). However, legalizing it does not necessarily eliminate
issues like human trafficking/people being forced into prostitution.

------
jheriko
i think the more important question, at least where i am, is if seeking the
services is a crime... because it is here, even if prostitution is not.

seems a tad unfair to penalise someone who can be viewed as being exploited
and a victim on either side of it to me. some women/men are desperate for
money and others are desperate for sex... and the only harm these people do to
the world is to each other.

(... and the ones who do it for other reasons are probably in need of help
imo)

(EDIT: actually after some reflection, all of them are. its a sad state of
affairs on both sides. :( )

------
spriggan3
France decided to make clients criminals, not prostitutes, thus it is legal to
sell sexual services yet illegal to consume them ?!?

------
morazow
It is legal in some European countries, for example, Germany and Netherlands.

In Germany, they pay income tax and charge VAT for their services.

~~~
germanier
To be fair, (at least in Germany) it was taxed even before it was legalized.
To make tax collection easier they even created a simplified procedure
(Düsseldorfer Verfahren) which is still in partial use today.

Just because you do something illegal doesn't mean you shouldn't pay taxes. I
think there is something similar in the US, where you can "take the fifth" on
a tax return. Kansas even taxes illegal drugs and requires dealers to purchase
and affix "drug stamps" to them.

------
mjevans
Why is paying for sex any different from bribery ('dates') for potential sex?

~~~
drdeca
If that is how you understand dating, I would recommend that no one date you,
at least until that understanding of yours changes.

~~~
Mz
That is how I generally view dating. I think, on some level, most people view
it that way. It offends a lot of people to point it out, but the general
expectation is that the man pays for dates and he hopes that it results in sex
at some point.

Edit: people seem to be missing my point. I am female and I don't date.
([http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/01/no-dating-
re...](http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/01/no-dating-
required.html)) Stating that this is a logical interpretation of dating does
not mean I condone it. (Yup, as stated elsewhere, I am for decriminalization
of sex work.)

~~~
burfog
The time scale matters.

My expectation was sex, yes, but with marriage. I had no real desire to be a
manslut, or whatever you'd call it. The risks and costs would not be
worthwhile.

BTW, I mostly avoided paying. I didn't want to feel used.

~~~
Mz
FWIW, I would call that _courtship_ , not _dating._

------
ksou32
As long as you need to be a citizen , I'm concerned about human trafficking.

------
edoceo
No

------
pinkskip
No

------
seany
No

