In most countries throughout the world, prostitution is illegal. Punishments vary tremendously, from those in countries such as the United Kingdom and most of the United States, in which prostitution is typically classed as a misdemeanour, to more extreme examples such as those in Afghanistan and other Muslim countries in which prostitution carries the death penalty. Other countries — such as the Netherlands, Germany, Greece and New Zealand — have chosen to legalise prostitution. There is one thing all these countries have in common, regardless of their legislative policy: they all have a thriving sex trade, be it legal or illegal.
This continuation of the sex trade regardless of its legality has been noticed by many lawmakers, and many countries have chosen to legalise prostitution as a result. Some merely decriminalise prostitution, resulting in the day-to-day operation of the sex trade continuing largely as normal, but without police attacks on prostitutes; others go further, and introduce state licensing and regulation for brothels and their workers and customers. Each method has its relative merits and demerits.
The first, decriminalisation, has been introduced with some success in countries such as the Netherlands, in which prostitution is legal, prostitutes pay taxes, most are self employed and all have access to health care (although it is not compulsory). So-called “window prostitution”, in which prostitutes rent a room for an hour at a time, has seen the most success in the Netherlands, accounting for around 20% of the total sex industry.
State-regulated prostitution, on the other hand, has largely been a product of the United States, although it is not a national endeavour and remains confined to one state, Nevada. In Nevada, brothels are not only legal but heavily regulated, and prostitutes are regularly given health checks and since 1988 must use condoms. Prostitution outside of this regulation is a misdemeanour — the same level of illegality as all prostitution is in most other states.
There are various reasons why many countries have decided to legalise prostitution. The first and possibly the most important is that of health and hygiene; prostitutes are frequently carriers of sexually-transmitted infections, due to their promiscuous nature, and spread these infections to their customers. With state-regulated health checks and mandatory condom use, such infections can be reduced to a barely perceptible level and the overall health of the population increases.
The second reason is one of safety. Many prostitutes who work in countries where prostitution is illegal are “employees” of violent and oppressive pimps, and their working environment is one of beatings, low pay and drug-dependency. With legalisation, prostitutes most often become self-employed — even in brothels, most prostitutes are considered contract workers — and as a result have no financial or other obligation towards abusive pimps. Prostitutes are also frequently in danger of attacks by customers; the homicide rate for female prostitutes in the US is 204 per 100,000, over 50 times the rate of the most dangerous legal job for women, working in a liquor store. With legalised brothels and employment comes security; most brothels offer CCTV and even security guard protection, and many require customers to sign in with valid identification, vastly reducing the chances of a prostitute being attacked and vastly increasing the chances of catching an attacker if such an attack is made. With prostitution illegal, many prostitutes are afraid to report their crimes for fear of being prosecuted themselves and are afforded no protection, particularly when working from the street.
The third reason is one of revenue. Many people object to state regulation of prostitution because of the cost involved; however, in a system in which prostitution was legalised, prostitutes would pay income tax on their earnings and thus contribute, in whole or in part, to the cost of state regulation. Even disregarding the other benefits, the increased tax revenue would be a considerable incentive for lawmakers to legalise prostitution, especially given the relatively high earnings prostitutes make in legal brothels — in Nevada, the average price for half an hour of intercourse and oral sex is $300 USD, a more than respectable wage that would place most prostitutes in a high-income tax bracket.
The fourth and perhaps most convincing reason is that of inevitability. Prostitution, “the world’s oldest profession”, has been around since the dawn of civilisation, and despite many attempts to legislate it away it shows no signs of disappearing. Instead of wasting police resources and public money on attempting to prosecute prostitutes, many governments have realised that it is much more effective to legalise prostitution, and spend a fraction of the resources in creating a healthy environment for both prostitutes and their customers.
Which of the two systems is better, then? I would certainly argue that legalisation without regulation is a stop-gap solution, not worthy of long-term consideration. Whilst it solves a few problems with illegal prostitution, it does not have the same impact on the health and safety of prostitutes and customers that a state-regulated industry does. Therefore, I propose the following solution:
With such measures in place, society would see a reduction in violent crime against prostitutes, a reduction in sexually transmitted diseases amongst the prostitute and non-prostitute population and an increase in tax revenue, all from the legitimising of an industry that will continue were it legal or not. Such a noble aim is seemingly not pursued out of some Victorian, prudish attitude towards prostitution amongst the voting public; the main reason is that prostitutes suffer needlessly at the hands of oppressive pimps and savage customers and this is a crying shame.
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Tropical WeatherLast week, in the wake of another uptick in the official unemployment rate, the administration continued to claim that their economic policies were working, just not fast enough. Not only does the administration have a funny way of ending a war, but now they claim their economic policies are successful. For whom, I wonder?
Gardner Goldsmith teams up with Brett Veinotte, of the excellent School Sucks Project and the School Sucks podcast. Gard and Brett discuss the impetus of the series and project, and why public education must be stopped.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Michael Hampton
Jul 15, 2006
Hmmm. Your proposal sounds a whole lot like Nevada’s setup.
But I don’t think it’s crazy to suggest that any reputable brothel would run their business this way, whether the state required it or not.
As always, buyer beware…
Rob Miller
Jul 15, 2006
Nevada has a couple of problems though, IMO, most notably with regards to record keeping. I’d prefer something where there was less “cash in hand” tax evasion on the part of the employees, and better logging of customers to aid in health checks when an STI is discovered and to aid investigations in the case of violence against prostitutes.
Jul 15, 2006
Roblog » Bringing the world’s oldest trade into the 21st century
J. Bruno
Jul 15, 2006
I was frightened when I thought Mr. Hampton was actually advocating state regulation of a market. Then I realized he was not the author of the article.
Whose decision is it who I sleep with and under what circumstances, Rob? Mine or the government’s?
Rob Miller
Jul 15, 2006
Sleep with whoever you want. This isn’t regulation of a market any more than ensuring the hygiene of a restaurant is regulation of a market.
Michael Hampton
Jul 15, 2006
And I would prefer more “cash in hand” business and minimal or no regulations. The government is already too big; even prostitution is no excuse to make it even bigger.
Are people adults and capable of making their own decisions, or not? Even street prostitutes in places where it’s illegal have begun to use condoms.
Heliologue
Jul 15, 2006
And whose business is it what I drive, and where, and under what circumstances, Mr. Bruno? Why the hell do I have to sign up for a driver’s license and keep a BAC under 0.08% Pesky government interference!
Under normal circumstances, what goes on in the bedroom is private, sure, but the sex industry is so ripe for abuse, and in many ways poses such a threat to society at large, that regulation is necessary for the general good. Remember, that this isn’t an arbitrary hookup between two people: it’s a transaction, a service paid for. All business is regulated for reasons that should be good and clear to you already.
Michael Hampton
Jul 15, 2006
Ensuring the hygiene of a restaurant is the restaurant’s responsibility. Making a regulation that requires it is completely silly; it’s something any reputable business owner would do anyway, and the restaurants who get their customers sick aren’t going to stay in business very long, regulations or no. The catch is, with regulations, a restaurant can get their customers sick all they want, as long as they pass the inspections…
The market is fully capable of handling this, much better than the government.
Michael Hampton
Jul 15, 2006
All business is regulated so that the government can get a piece of the action. The lawmakers might think — and tell you — that it’s for public safety, but that’s not how it works in practice.
In fact, I’m working on a story right now about how the government, by regulating things it has no business in, is putting children in mortal danger.
Rob Miller
Jul 15, 2006
Does this mean I’m out of the libertarian club and I don’t get to repeal the 16th amendment with you guys :(
Michael Hampton
Jul 15, 2006
You have to be very careful when asking for government to regulate anything, especially in the name of safety. You just might get something other than what you intended.
This is called the Law of Unintended Consequences, and it’s a law that can’t be repealed. :)
J. Bruno
Jul 15, 2006
I think people need to realize that whenever something seems to require regulation, there’s a new opportunity for business: the consumer reporting business, to be precise. Imagine a world in which you have a choice between thousands of companies whose sole function is to inform you about various products. (As now, but on a much larger scale.) The only thing keeping them in business is their expertise in their respective fields. At the end of the day, you have information from unlimited sources, and the right make your own decision.
Compare this to the current system of regulation in which idiotic government cronies with no interest in your welfare whatsoever make the decisions for you, and enforce them at the point of a gun.
Another important consideration is the false sense of security that government regulations instill in the public. It turns us into a bunch of hapless consumer-zombies, buying anything without thinking. Understand that in a world where it is one’s choice to purchase and consume poison, or to contract STDs, the consequences will at no time escape us. In fact, I believe that a truly free market would acquaint many people with the concept of personal responsibility, even as it applies to areas that cannot be legislated.
thetorpedodog
Jul 16, 2006
Even though I’d like to think that in many cases, less regulation is better (with the obvious exception of your natural monopolies and such), I think that there is definitely an “appropriate” level of regulation for most things. I base this on two observations I’ve made:
1. People aren’t these perfect rational beings that they are sometimes made out to be. They’re often quite stupid.
2. Other people are unscrupulous, and will take advantage of asymmetric information or the victim’s lack of foresight for their own benefit.
I also should note an argument for regulation in the case of externalities. If an entity can, for instance, pollute a stream, shouldn’t it have to pay for the clean water it uses up? What of the people who have to spend more money to purify their water to a drinkable standard, or the adverse health effects? The factory saves a few pennies a unit, and in this unregulated market, the consumer sees a low price, and takes it without hesitation. Surely you’ve seen the lengths to which people go to simply get a lower price, and the lack of importance they place on how it came.
Back to the topic of this post/this thread, prostitution. If an unscrupulous customer gives false information, and through some accident, he doesn’t pay for the damage he’s caused, leaving the burden on everybody else.
I’ll try to return later for some more detail.
J. Bruno
Jul 16, 2006
Right, since we’re not omniscient, we should simply pretend some us actually are and have them rule us with an iron fist.
The only effect the government can have on errors of fact is to compound their disastrous consequences–by forcing those who suffer from no such error to become victims of it.
How irrational and unscrupulous people are is completely irrelevant to the discussion. What is relevant is the fact that I am prepared to face such dangers in life and you have no privilege to deny me that right– especially by way of such absurdities as armed threats in the name of safety.
buff daddy
Jul 16, 2006
Well, my opinion on this matter is that prostitution should be legalized because of it’s economic and health saftey benefits, but I’m not so sure it would be worth the possible social impact drawbacks it would create in the process…
I believe that if we are to legalize the “profession” in the US, then it MUST be heavily regulated by the government, at least for the first 10 years or so, to ensure that it DOES become a profession instead of just having today’s illegal hooker on the streets becoming tomorrow’s legal hooker on the streets. If the result of legalization is the latter senario, then that will open the door for more child prostitutes, forced prostitution and a “way out” of the industry for those who can’t. If the local police can’t arrest them, then they can’t use their limited resources to simply police them either. Yes, they can still get some of the underaged children off the streets or arrest the pimps who enslave and abuse their “employees” regardless, but if “nobody is looking” any longer, then who’s going to find them? It MUST be considered a “business” by the US government with it’s own unique regulations in order to ensure the health saftey of both client AND vendor! Also, it would be much easier to regulate it as an incorporated business using standard “Accounting Rules” with it’s own industry-specific exceptions and requirements as well. Unless I’m REALLY missing something from an economic standpoint, creating the “Prostitution Industry” should be no different or more complication than creating any other type of industry.
BUT, would the social impact of legalizing prostitution be worth the cost?
The first thing that WILL happen is an avalanche of criminal and/or civil lawsuits that will crush the legal system! There will no longer be the “You can’t sue for damages if your illegal act put you in danger in the first place” roadblock if Joe Blow contracted AIDS from Jane Doe the Hooker. Imagine the world’s perception of the state of our country when the US Supreme Court issues it’s landmark decision on the redefining the legal term for “Ejaculation” when John Q. Public sues a brothel for “breach of contract”, claiming that he interpreted “pay-per-ejaculation” as FULLY ejaculating? Imagine being the first lawyer in history to enter a used condom into evidence as the undeniable proof that a few drops of semen isn’t ejaculating under the law?
The second thing that WILL happen is a huge jump in the divorce rate in the US. Does a spouse have the right to know if their partner was a client of a brothel? Does anybody have the right to that information for use in background checks or used as circumstantial evidence in a criminal investigation/trial to prove that he’s a rapist or child molesterer? Could it be used as proof of character or even to speculate that a stalker would have raped his victim eventually because he visited a brothel 10 times a month? And lastly, could a wife use “adultery” as a reason for divorce if all of his extramarital affair were done in a legal fashion?
The third thing that WILL happen is that the client assumes that s/he loses their right to anonimity and has to live the rest of their lives with the stigma that comes with paying for sex. If a brothel is raided and exposed in all the national newspapers for violating numerous health codes and there is a need to inform EVERYONE that has ever been a client at that establishment for health reasons, then how would they be able to inform him without exposing him? What if a major crime was committed at a brothel and Joe Blow visited their 5 hours before it happened; will he be required to testify at the criminal proceedings because he witnessed the perpetrator at the scene even though he didn’t see the crime committed?
Sorry for the long post, but I believe that any debate involving sex in general is the most complicated of them all. The “legalizing recreational drugs” debate is easier because it has only a minor stigma attached because most people are guilty of breaking that law at least once in their lives themselves! Contrary to popular belief, though, “sex issues” of any kind is only acceptable if nobody knows that you’re doing it! :)
J. Bruno
Jul 16, 2006
Do you realize what a monstrous despotism it is to argue the merits of legislation from the standpoint of “social impact”? Your talent for appealing to the consequence is both admirable and terrifying.
Also, you’ve engaged in another fallacious type of thinking that involves considering the group rather than the individual, as if a populace were a single entity. It’s called “collectivism.” Write that one down.
Heliologue
Jul 16, 2006
It’s called a “social contract,” J. Bruno. Write that one down.
Michael Hampton
Jul 17, 2006
Where’s this social contract? I’d like to read it and find out when and where I supposedly signed it.
Rob Miller
Jul 17, 2006
Trying to get a libertarian to agree with contractarianism is pretty much the most futile endeavour in the world. It’s collectivist to the libertarian’s individualism, it requires coercion and pretty much the core tenet of libertarianism is to be free from coercion.
Different strokes for different folks :)
Michael Hampton
Jul 17, 2006
Yeah, so remind me again, why did I let a contractarian write stuff here? :)
Rob Miller
Jul 17, 2006
I’m not a contractrarian, I was talking to Heliologue :/
buff daddy
Jul 17, 2006
Hi guys,
First off, let me just say that I’m really excited that you actually READ my whole comment!
Now Bruno… did you miss the first sentence that began my entire comment?
“Well, my opinion on this matter is that prostitution should be legalized because of it’s economic and health saftey benefits, but I’m not so sure it would be worth the possible social impact drawbacks it would create in the process…”
Or the first sentence in the last paragraph?
“…I believe that any debate involving sex in general is the most complicated of them all…”
I was just wondering if you knew what the term was for somebody who actually SUPPORTS your point of view but has the “cajones” to point out the possible negative outcomes that could occur?
You have the worst kind of opinion… The “If you’re not with me, you’re against me” kind. Can you think of any other groups that had that same attitude?
You will never be taken seriously if you attack the very same people who agree with you. Just because you are willing to jump off a cliff without looking doesn’t mean everyone else should do it to! You’re going to find that the fall will be a very lonely one.
buff daddy
Jul 17, 2006
Oh, and by the way… Contrary to popular belief, whenever you read a sentence that ends with a question mark (?), that means one of two things… It’s something to ponder or something to answer. You can’t expect to be taken seriously believe that it means it’s a factual statement. That’s just silly… right?
Heliologue
Jul 17, 2006
Michael,
Quite frankly, you signed it by your continued existence here.
I consider myself a Hobbesian, yes—I think the only thing more powerful than collective stupidity is individual selfishness. So, we have what we have.
Jerry A. Pipes
Jul 17, 2006
Talk of regulating the sex trade is as equally problematic as proposals for regulating the drug trade. Both ignore the simple fact that humans have a basic right to freely contract with one another, as well as a basic right to privacy. Neither the sex trade or the drug trade can be regulated without violating one or both of these individual rights.
If you truly value personal freedom, you cannot support either of these proposals.
Michael Hampton
Jul 17, 2006
Come on, then, show me the contract, if you really think I signed it.
As for Hobbes, I’m sorry to hear that.
J. Bruno
Jul 17, 2006
Mr. “daddy”
You miss the point: Your opinion of consequences that come to bear on another as the results his own actions is thoroughly irrelevant. Your apparent uneasiness in respect to change in society is equally irrelevant. To so much as suggest they have any weight in this discussion is to advocate with authoritarianism. These are not valid considerations in a free society.
Heliologue,
In a libertarian society, individuals would be free to form communes and to live under “social contract.” Oh wait, will that work without the armed threats and coercion?
buff daddy
Jul 17, 2006
Hey, Bruno…
Sorry if I went a little overboard. There is only one “point”, though… My considerations ARE valid if we are CONSIDERING the debate to begin with. I’m not sure what you’re stance is on the subject, but if you DO have a stance at all, then you have considered what the alternative outcomes will be also. You might consider it on a factual basis, but I consider it on a theoretical basis.
I don’t think you are right or wrong about what you are saying because I consider your opinions and theories myself, and I just might change my opinion because of it; I just don’t understand why you believe that my theories have no value at all.
Again, my apologizes for “going off” on you… I meant no offense towards you.
forstand
Jul 18, 2006
In 1968-9 I was in the USAF stationed in Kwang-Ju, S. Korea. Prostution was legal and regulated. Each girl had a picture VD/ID card with two squares for each week. She would be tested for venereal disease once or twice per week and a black N or red P would be stamped in one of the squares. It was up to the customer to check her card and use a condom.
Our First Sargent (nicknamed Mother, a great guy!) kept an opened box of condoms by the door in his tent so we had no excuse for not having some when we went to town. Yes, we lived in tents for awhile.
I was told that the punishment for rape was thus: First offense was 5 years in jail, second was 20 years in jail and third was the execution of the day such as shooting, hanging, etc. If the woman was under 17 or a virgin then it was considered a third offense and the offender killed. Life expectancy was about 3 years in a Korean jail. There were few repeat offenders.
The system worked there and could work here.
Oddly enough pornography was illegal at that time! Go figure.
GRAYWOLF
Jul 20, 2006
Just found this site today…nice place.
“I believe that if we are to legalize the “profession†in the US, then it MUST be heavily regulated by the government, at least for the first 10 years or so, to ensure that it DOES become a profession instead of just having today’s illegal hooker on the streets becoming tomorrow’s legal hooker on the streets. If the result of legalization is the latter senario, then that will open the door for more child prostitutes, forced prostitution and a “way out†of the industry for those who can’t.”
That might be a short term cost, but it wouldn’t be that difficult to set an age limitation on the legality of it. Just like drinking. Forcing someone to do something against their will is illegal (unless you are the government) regardless of the industry…no regulation necessary.
“If the local police can’t arrest them, then they can’t use their limited resources to simply police them either. Yes, they can still get some of the underaged children off the streets or arrest the pimps who enslave and abuse their “employees†regardless, but if “nobody is looking†any longer, then who’s going to find them? It MUST be considered a “business†by the US government”
Why do the federales need to be involved at all?
“with it’s own unique regulations in order to ensure the health saftey of both client AND vendor! Also, it would be much easier to regulate it as an incorporated business”
Corporations should be eliminated, this is a state creation that makes it easier for monopolies to exist and easier for people in power to do the wrong things and be protected from it.
“using standard “Accounting Rules†with it’s own industry-specific exceptions and requirements as well. Unless I’m REALLY missing something from an economic standpoint, creating the “Prostitution Industry†should be no different or more complication than creating any other type of industry.”
There is no “creation” of the industry, it is already there.
“BUT, would the social impact of legalizing prostitution be worth the cost?”
What value has freedom?
“The first thing that WILL happen is an avalanche of criminal and/or civil lawsuits that will crush the legal system!”
Good, maybe put an end to some of the other idiotic prosecutions/persecutions.
“There will no longer be the “You can’t sue for damages if your illegal act put you in danger in the first place—
That already doesn’t exist. Try setting boobie traps in your house for burglers…
“roadblock if Joe Blow contracted AIDS from Jane Doe the Hooker. Imagine the world’s perception of the state of our country when the US Supreme Court issues it’s landmark decision on the redefining the legal term for “Ejaculation†when John Q. Public sues a brothel for “breach of contractâ€, claiming that he interpreted “pay-per-ejaculation†as FULLY ejaculating? Imagine being the first lawyer in history to enter a used condom into evidence as the undeniable proof that a few drops of semen isn’t ejaculating under the law?”
Who cares what other countries think? So what?
“The second thing that WILL happen is a huge jump in the divorce rate in the US. Does a spouse have the right to know if their partner was a client of a brothel?”
Do they have the right to know if they rent a hotelroom for an affair?
“Does anybody have the right to that information for use in background checks or used as circumstantial evidence in a criminal investigation/trial to prove that he’s a rapist or child molesterer?”
That is what sopeneas/warrants are for.
“Could it be used as proof of character or even to speculate that a stalker would have raped his victim eventually because he visited a brothel 10 times a month?”
“And lastly, could a wife use “adultery†as a reason for divorce if all of his extramarital affair were done in a legal fashion?”
Can she do it now? “Affair” does not automatically mean hooker.
“The third thing that WILL happen is that the client assumes that s/he loses their right to anonimity and has to live the rest of their lives with the stigma that comes with paying for sex.”
Why?
“If a brothel is raided and exposed in all the national newspapers for violating numerous health codes and there is a need to inform EVERYONE that has ever been a client at that establishment for health reasons, then how would they be able to inform him without exposing him?”
If there was a problem, present the info and leave the responsibility to the patron to follow up.
“What if a major crime was committed at a brothel and Joe Blow visited their 5 hours before it happened; will he be required to testify at the criminal proceedings because he witnessed the perpetrator at the scene even though he didn’t see the crime committed?”
What happens today if the same thing happens anywhere else?
“Sorry for the long post, but I believe that any debate involving sex in general is the most complicated of them all.”
Why, thake the emotion out of it and view it as just another business.
“The “legalizing recreational drugs†debate is easier because it has only a minor stigma attached because most people are guilty of breaking that law at least once in their lives themselves!”
How many people are not guilty of having sex?
buff daddy
Jul 21, 2006
Yikes! This is the first time that I’ve been picked apart for AGREEING with everyone! :)
GRAYWOLF… EVERYTHING is based on emotion! I just happen to be the only person who ever seems to make it a point to bring it up! You made an emotional decision to pick apart my emotional-based comment, did you not?
If all you guys want are my biased opinions or just the plain ol’ facts, then here they are:
1. Prostitution should be legalized.
2. It should be heavily regulated for at least the first 10 years
3. It should be treated as a business and must conform to standard business and accounting rules.
4. The main focus of legalizing it should be to get children off the streets and to get abused women at least into a safer working environment.
5. Women and children who are “left behind” will be worse off since there will no longer be a visible police presence to protect them anymore (a speck of protection is better than none at all)
Regarding some of your specific comments to my own:
1. “That already doesn’t exist. Try setting boobie traps in your house for burglers…” Not sure what this means, but I think you’re actually agreeing with me. If I illegal exchange money for sex and I contract AIDS, you mean to tell me that I can sue her for monetary damages in a court of law? For a similar analogy to yours, in the state of New York, I can be tried for murder if a burgaler breaks into my house with no weapon whatsoever, throws his hands in the air in a conceding matter and I shoot him in the head anyway. I can’t use somebody else’s illegal act to justify my own.
2. “Can she do it now? “Affair†does not automatically mean hooker.” You’re missing my point here. Affair means having sex with someone who is NOT your wife. Unless there are COLD-HARD FACTS that a wife could use to prove his infidelity, it’s just circumstantial (it’s also an open invitation for the husband to make his own “circumstantial” claim against her as well. Does “No-Fault Divorce” ring a bell?) But, if there are bookkeeping records of it, can this be used against him in a court of law. Remember this… An affair is ONLY an affair if you can PROVE it! :)
3. “That is what sopeneas/warrants are for.” This isn’t much of a problem right now, is it? The hookers that are unreliable witnesses today just might be the same hookers that are all of a sudden a “reliable witness” tomorrow. After all, they would be hard-working women making a living in a legal profession with the governments seal of approval based on how well they regulate the industry. The government can’t contradict itself by saying that they made it legitamate but can’t trust the legitamacy of the same employees they regulate.
4. “There is no “creation†of the industry, it is already there.” You are using semantics, here. You’d be HARD PRESSED to find anybody who would consider Prostitution an “industry”. Hooker’s don’t say they’re in the “Prostitution Industry”, Local, State and the Federal Governments don’t say that they have a major problem with the “Prostition Industry” in their districts AND the average citizen doesn’t say “We need to do something about the Prostituition Industry in our neighborhoods!” An INDUSTRY would be created if it IS legalized! This way, we can all say “We don’t want the Prostitution Industry in OUR neighborhoods! Our property values will plummet!”
5. “Who cares what other countries think? So what?” We’re seeing the effects of that statement right now, aren’t we?
6. And finally: “What value has freedom?” Freedom ONLY has value when it doesn’t impede upon other people’s freedoms. Do you know how fast you’ll scream for the government to regulate the zoning laws of brothels in America when your landmark you use when giving directions to your house is “I’m two houses down from the building with the big neon purple sign that says ‘The Whore-aaay Brothel’… You can’t miss it!”
You make some good points, though, and I have taken them into consideration, but (ready for the big “closing joke”?) I’m too emotional right now to name them. :) Seriously, though, you do make some interesting observations about what I said and I do take them into account.
Oh, and welcome!
buff daddy
Jul 21, 2006
Actually, forstand makes a GREAT point (the best so far, in my humble opinion!) If we are going to consider do this, then why not use a successful model as a starting point? It’s better to do it right rather than do it our own stubborn way.
Q
Aug 10, 2006
I agree. i have been saying this for years. it may be hard to get it started, but its well worth it, and a much better solution than just leaving it illegal. hey maybe when cops are no longer harassing these people they can have time to find real criminals, just a thought.
GRAYWOLF
Aug 10, 2006
Buff Daddy,
I wasn’t picking you apart, I was responding directly to your questions. We agree it should be legalized, we disagree on the government’s role.
I’ll try to clarify:
GRAYWOLF
Aug 10, 2006
Well, that didn’t work worth a damn.
Aug 13, 2006
A Modest Construct » The Social Contract
suppordersss
Mar 04, 2007
Do you like sex? if your answer is no, you need to check with a doctor because you may not be a normal people whom God makes.
If yes,then open your heart and solve the problem instead of over it.We need learn from Germany.
Nichole
May 25, 2007
WoW! ..First, Rob I wish we could pass this law and start tomorrow.
I think if everyday EVERYONE before you start your day ..would just wack off,get off, have a good orgasm this world would be a better place. I don’t think that we would be at war if those Irac’ens and the world would just follow this rule, it is just human nature and it’s ok..it’s a stress releave
and you guys posting ..What! you need to go jack off.. you’ll feel better.
and thetorpedodog your right on …that is just my opinion ..isn’t America Great?!