Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is why I prefer to keep it illegal. I do not wish to see people sell their drug/disease infested bodies in public. Isn't it nice to live in a democracy where we have a say in such things.
Why does legalized prostitution mean that you'll see hookers everywhere you go? It can be legalized and advertisement for their services, locations where such services could be provided, etc. all can be regulated. After all, smoking cigarettes is still legal, but there are all kinds of restrictions on where people can smoke in public, where tobacco products can be advertised, etc. Why couldn't the same paradigm apply to prostitution?
It has come several times in this thread (and others) the idea that it should be taxed and mandatory health checks.
I'm divided on this... For a long time, that I supported that notion.... until I actually discussed this with a few other supporters. Here is what I gathered from the discussion
* The core of the issue is human rights one. That a woman (and man) have dominion over their body and all decisions thereof. period. You should not tax or regulate a human right.
* If two consenting adults choose to have sex for pay are required to have some sort of certificate or license for health reasons, why is it not required among non-prostitutes engaging in promiscuous sex?
* How exactly are you going to enforce this? It isn't a practical thing to enforce. As impractical as mandating safe sex among the general population.
The world of prostitution is HUGE.... and varied. From the drug addicted all the way up to the high end escort who maintains a high level of healthy lifestyle, hygiene, and safe sex (After all, they have a business to protect). The generalization that prostitution is at higher risk from STDs than a promiscuous person is false. It is all about consistent safe sex practice...which many non-prostitutes (often with alcohol involved) don't follow. A study indicates that the difference is not promiscuity but rather consistent safe sex practice.
It explains that Nevada prostitutes (who are required to use condoms as per their employment) have lower incidence of STDs than LA porn stars who are encouraged NOT to use condoms during work.
The risk is not really whether or not one is a working prostitute but rather the person's hygiene, lifestyle, etc. A drug addict sharing needles, for example, is going to be a lot higher of a risk than the general promiscuous popuation for spreading STDs. Whether or not they sell sex is irrelevant. I would even argue a highly promiscuous non-prostitute that has a habit of having sex after a night of drinking at a bar is going to be at a higher risk than an escort who maintains a healthy lifestyle and practices safe sex.
So in the end, not only is it impractical and baseless, but also wrong to regulate a human right over body.
I guess I'm ok with some sort of certificate or proof of health record to be provided as a reference to the consumer. If a customer wants to limit his (or her) risk, they can limit themselves to solicit prostitutes that advertise this certificate. But in the end, I agree with them... that in the end it is a human right and it is up to the consenting adults to decide for themselves the risks they accept.
PS. The other part of the discussion was how terrible the US is at sex education and health. Apparently, our culture would rather let people figure things on their own rather than discuss with the younger generations a seemingly taboo topic. For much of our country, we still preach abstinence. While it is their choice, I feel that preaching abstinence is 1) ignoring the fact that most the young will have sex before marriage 2) ignores that most will have more than one sexual partner in their lifetime and 3) is an excuse to avoid talking about sex.
I've been curious about the poll results in this thread, so I did a quick search for more scientifically sound national polls. Overall there seems to be a fairly even divide. Some polls show slight majorities favoring legalization, others show slight majorities opposing legalization. So why is the poll in this thread so strongly in favor? Here was one paragraph I think might be relevant:
When it comes to whether or not these laws should exist in the first place, the public is evenly divided. 44% of Americans think that prostitution should be legal while 46% think that it should be illegal. Democrats tend to support rather than oppose legalization (50% to 40%) while most Republicans oppose rather than support legalization (54% to 34%). Independents are evenly split, 45% to 45%. ( https://today.yougov.com/topics/poli...g-prostitution )
Anyway, I find it interesting that independents are so evenly split in the national poll, and I'm somewhat puzzled about the 40% of Democrats who oppose legalization. I suspect that most of these folks are focused on the idea that a lot of under-age and/or otherwise vulnerable people become prostitutes. Statistically, I think this is true, but what I don't understand is why anyone thinks that legalization would make this problem worse? Legalization of prostitution would not change the age-of-consent, so why would legalization be a problem?
Some of you are stuck on the sex trafficking part. For some people legalizing prostitution just distasteful, including some democrats.
Some of you are stuck on the sex trafficking part. For some people legalizing prostitution just distasteful, including some democrats.
We shouldn't write laws according what people find distasteful. When it comes to human rights, it shouldn't be contingent on whether or not another finds it distasteful. It also shouldn't be contingent on popularity.
Case in point, anti-miscegenation laws.... (some find intermixing races is distasteful)
Case in point, free speech.... (some find speech from hate groups distasteful)
Case in point, civil rights laws... (some find or found sharing a bathroom with a black person distasteful)
etc....
When majority rule can subjugate a minority (and their rights) what you have is tyranny.
Any politician or person of influence bringing this issue up?
Sort of a huge gamble, probably not worth it. But I imagine at least the Libertarians have mentioned it.
Currently only local places in Nevada allows prostitution while elsewhere illegal in America.
Should Prostitution be legalized and regulated?
I consider pornography more or less legalized prostitution , because don't you pay both gender the male and female to engage in sexual activity for money?
The only difference is that pornography is video recorded and used to titillate other non-performing spectators and voyeurs.
Last edited by Howest2008; 08-20-2018 at 05:30 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
