• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Prostitution

Should prostitution be illegal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 34 52.3%
  • No

    Votes: 24 36.9%
  • Only under certain circumstances [Please post]

    Votes: 7 10.8%

  • Total voters
    65
Fantasea, thank you for sharing the article. While it reiterates that legalization is not a perfect solution. I still believe that legalization is a better solution. Condoms used, are better than condoms not used. Here are just a few studies to confirm that:

Crosby RA et al. (2003). The value of consistent condom use: a study of sexually transmitted disease prevention among African American adolescent females. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 901-902.

Holmes KK, Levine R, Weaver M. (2004). Effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infections. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 82, 454-464.

Shlay JC et al. (2004). Comparison of sexually transmitted disease prevalence by reported level of condom use among patients attending an urban sexually transmitted disease clinic. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 31, 154-160.

However, in the study, "Facilitating condom use with clients during commercial sex in Nevada's legal brothels." by Albert AE, Warner DL, Hatcher RA; it states that only 2.7% of 3290 clients had a problem with using condoms. Of these individuals, 72% ultimately used condoms, while 12% chose non penetrative sex without condoms. The remaining 16% left the brothels without services.

Now compare that with non regulated prostitution. I would like to be able to quote you some statistics here, but I haven't found a legitimate source on condom use with illegal prostitutes.

No I am not so nave to believe that just because prostitution is legalized everyone will use condoms. I do believe that it will stop any number of problems associated with illegal prostitution.
 
Fantasea said:
Thanx. I always appreciate a compliment.I don't wish to appear disingenuous, however, my interpretation of what you write could be condensed into, "It all depends upon whose ox is being gored."

Until a child reaches their majority, they are not legally allowed to enter into legally binding contracts, because it is feared that they are not mature enough to make an informed decision. A man or woman that chooses to sell sexual favors, makes that choice for themselves. A minor isn't considered to have the maturity to make that decision, and no one has the right to make a decision like this for anyone else, young or old.

A man or woman (to use your metaphor) chooses to be gored. A child isn't old enough to make the decision for themselves.
 
Medical science is somewhat akin to economics in that there is rarely universal agreement.

In the final analysis, however, the undeniable fact is that just as the stock market is filled with ebbs and flows in the short run, during the past fifty years, the trend is sharply up. So to with STDs, the pedigree of the infector notwithstanding.

From an earlier post: "So, if you are into craps shooting and would like to try your luck, just lay down your dough and toss the dice."

In the short run, you may win. However, the odds are against you, as all of the unfortunate infectees will attest.
 
Sixteen seems to the most popular age when it comes to state promulgation of the "age of consent". There are some strangely incongruous exceptions and limitations as noted here:

http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/consent.htm

These laws date to times when, in the then primarily agrarian and developing America, when living standards and educational goals were considerably different from those of today, it was commonly accepted practice for girls to marry and begin raising families shortly after puberty.

Given the complications of life in the twenty-first century, does one really believe that at this tender age, a girl has the required wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and maturity to, unilaterally, make decisions which can have consequences which would negatively influence the remainder of her life?

Perhaps it's time to revisit these laws in light of the changes which have occurred in the interim.
 
Again a good point! Fantasea, it is a pleasure to debate with a real mind for a change!

I never stated legalization was a panacea. Legalization is better because some regulation is better than none. STDs will happen, until we can eradicate the causative factors. In a perfect world, all sex would be consensual and monogamous. Every child would be wanted and loved. No one would be hungry, everyone would work for a fair wage. That perfect world doesn't exist.

If you are a Christian, the Christ says, the poor will be with you always. That doesn't mean we can't do anything about it, just that some problems are unsolvable. We fight daily to make the world a little better. Apathy, laziness, greed, and selfishness fight against us.

I don't know how to get rid of prostitution, I believe legalization will make the lives of those who choose that lifestyle a little better. Will STDs increase as a result of legalization, I don't think so. I believe that if laws such as those in Nevada are enforced we may see a decrease. I cannot prove that of course, only by testing it could I do that. I do not believe there is any data to support that despite the increased risk that Nevada prostitutes are a hot bed of sexually transmitted disease.
 
I lean more conservative on this subject. I wouldn't want one women that I know personally to go into prostitution. but thats me. I found a good link on this subject. Here is the link
 
Parents who continually cave in the the demands of their children never see an improvement in the levels of respect, obedience, or discipline shown to them or to other lawful authorities.

Similarly, while the dumbing down of school curricula may have resulted in improved grades, the same number of kids still can't read their diplomas.

I subscribe to the theory that lowering the bar never improves anything. It's no different with the subject under discussion. Legitimizing anything creates an aura of curiosity that attracts attention much as a candle flame attracts a moth; too often, with the same result.

Nevada is the prime example of this. Preying on human weakness, it legalized gambling. While confined to a couple of desert towns, it did little damage. Today, the me-too proliferation of casinos throughout the country is responsible for the failure of countless marriages and businesses; numerous crimes, defalcations, alcohol addictions, and suicides.

How long before the same things can be said about "legalized" prostitution which will only suck any remaining dollars out of the pockets of the same Barnum type suckers? Only this time, they have a good chance of leaving with something they didn't have going in.

However, even though they had to pay for it, they can spread it around for free.
 
Fantasea, If I understand the gist of your posting you are comparing people to unruly children, that won't obey the parent or is it big brother. These are adults, and have a right to their choice. Whether you or I agree with it or no.

As far as lowering the bar, no one has the right to put a bar there to begin with. By holding persons to a higher moral standard than they care to consent to, only contributes to the problem, and doesn't do a thing to solve it.

Instead of trying to hold back the sea, why don't you try to channel it. If you can't stop it, make it move to more constructive areas.
 
 


It is in the common interest of society to regulate anti-social behavior. Sex isn't anti-social. So paying for it is? I believe the anti-social part, is that which surrounds illegal prostitution. Street Walkers being a public nuisance. Increased risk of transmission of STDs, because of no or poor preventative techniques. Other interdependent factors of illegal prostitution are usually found in areas where law enforcement has broken down; such as elevated crime rates, and drug addiction.

By propagating laws that force prostitution into these dark lawless environments. These laws are reinforcing the misery, rather than making anything better.

To make it simple. If you try to clean your kitchen in the dark, you are going to miss things. Only by bringing everything out into the light where it can be seen clearly, can those dirty (anti-social) things be cleansed.
 
So what you wish to do is discriminate against the men in the lower economic group who are unable to afford the rates charged by the fancy gals.

If some guy is willing to take a chance on a twenty dollar investment in the back seat of a car, consequences be damned, what business is that of the law authorities? It's only a little commerce which gives the guy a thrill and the gal a few bucks with which to supplement her "entitlement".
 


Indubitably this too will come to pass. The question is how many others will go to a reputable establishment, and not take those same risks.

No, the government has no business in the back seat of that car. If it's legal if she/he gives it away (which happens far more often), it should be legal if she/he is paid.

I am concerned about the tone of your reply however. "Entitlement"? I am an Agnostic, if there is a God, he hasn't made his presence known to me. A very good religious sentiment is, "There but for the grace of God go I"
 
puck said:
I am concerned about the tone of your reply however. "Entitlement"?
Sure. With no visible means of support, most streetwalkers qualify for all kinds of benefits and usually take full advantage of the opportunity.
I am an Agnostic, if there is a God, he hasn't made his presence known to me.
I am concerned about the tone of your declaration. I can't imagine why God should take the first step to make his presence known to anyone.

I'm not proslytizing, but it works like this; the Bible encourages us to seek, and provides instructions for seeking. Whether one follows the instructions or ignores them is a matter of personal choice.

The Bible tells us what to seek first:

Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Mat 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Mat 7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Act 17:27 That they [all nations of men] should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

Deu 4:29 But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.

Jer 29:12 Then shall ye call upon me [the Lord], and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.

Jer 29:13 And ye shall seek me [the Lord], and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Rev 3:20 Behold [Here I am!], I [Jesus Christ] stand at the door, and knock: if any man [anyone] hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup [eat] with him, and he with me.

A very good religious sentiment is, "There but for the grace of God go I"
An even better one in this context is, "Waste not [your God given talents]; want not.
 
Certainly not under any circumstances. It is immoral and an unhealthy activity for the American public.
 
 
The first rung on that ladder is the ability to read well and to comprehend what is read. Solve that problem and the magnitude of all others will shrink dramatically.

The United Negro College Fund is still using the slogan, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."

Truer words were never spoken.
 
Fantasea, you're not suppose to make the person your debating with laugh. But that was great. :rofl Maybe you should get extra points for that.

Now to your points, I wasn't complaining about Enron. They cheated, it good that they were caught, and hopefully will receive appropriate punishment. I was merely pointing out, that law breakers come from the wealthy, as well as the poor.

As to your delightful description of the prospective educational requirements of a prostitute. I would say that sounds about like a PhD to me.

To your third, and I believe most important point. Reading. I couldn't agree with you more. Education has got to be the foundation of raising our selves from the near sighted, self serving culture we have become. I frequently feel like an outsider among my peers. I was reading a book the other day, when a co-worker commented on how boring the subject was. When questioned, she didn't have a clue what the subject even was. It ended in "ology" so it must be dull. What is to become of a culture that leaves it's poor, cold and hungry in the streets, while society vegetates before a television, learning little.

How do we compete with play station? We can only do what we can, but I fear that the weight of cultural momentum is against us.
 
 
Fantasea: I'm not sure kids wouldn't get tired/burned out with "to the exclusion of all else" but by making it entertaining, it might just be worth a try. Yes, I think I could get behind your theory, it deserves a test. I am afraid we are getting off topic however, perhaps we should start a new thread devoted to education?

PhD=Pretty hot dish. :lol:
 
For the record, I hit the wrong button. I read the question as, "Should prostitution be legal?" When it really reads, "Should prostitution be illegal?"

I hit yes. I meant to hit no. If a mod could hook me up and edit my vote, I'd appreciate it.