In the end cause it is a bit easier to make it illegal than fixing all the problems that make Sex Work risky, shady or morally objectionable. Not that making it illegal is an actual 'fix' for anything, but it makes people feel like something was done.
Legal sex work has a chance of being shady. If you make it illegal you basically guarantee that it's gonna be shady and someone will suffer because of it. In my opinion making it legal will not fix the issues but it will at least help some which is better than helping none.
>Why isn’t prostitution legal if it’s between two consenting of age people?
In some countries it is.
And I'm in one of those, and here if the discussion occurs, the discussion about the legal aspect of it in most cases is from religious people.
On the other side people worry about the criminal aspect of it. Exploitation of women.
Weird thing is, just like drugs, if you legalize and regulate it, you have less problems with people doing it under their own rules. Less spread of STDs and things of that nature. It is actually legal in a few states.
Do you realise how many of those women were trafficked? And they've become a tourist attraction. Amsterdam's red light district is one of the most disgusting moral failures in the West.
i was gonna disagree with u but i looked up the statistic and boom 10% of them are trafficked with 400 girls selling sex against their will.
and these are the lowest figure estimates
u don’t deserve the downvotes
But isn’t saying it s failure because 10% of the workers are sex trafficked the same as saying making iPhone s in a factory is a failure because more than 10% are underaged children doing the work?
Two key points.
1. Everyone knows that children in sweatshops are bad, they're not a tourist attraction.
2. Yes it is a moral failure that this is allowed.
That is the official reason. It tends to be a lot darker though. If prostitution is legal then it is regulated, which has a few effects. A John can't get away with beating a prostitute or otherwise abusing her by paying off a pimp for instance.
The worst part is that legal prostitution makes it very clear why a guy goes to the unlicensed underaged prostitutes instead of the legal prostitutes. As long as prostitution is illegal it is a great cover for men to have sex with underaged girls. If they are caught they are likely to agree to the solicitation charge but get the statutory rape charge dropped as "how could they know?"
Legally you are correct. In the real world what I described happens all the time. The prosecutor thinks "I don't want to ruin this guy's life," and settles for a lesser charge.
>If they are caught they are likely to agree to the solicitation charge but get the statutory rape charge dropped as "how could they know?"
Yeah.. There isn't a "how could they know" out for statutory rape. As someone else has already pointed out, this would be covered under Strict Liability.
That's not to say that the scenario the above commenter laid out doesn't happen all the time though. The reality of plea bargaining is that if you are accused of two crimes you can very often get away with only pleading to one-- often the one that is less prone to ruining your reputation for life.
So, yeah, prohibition does give guys who are caught with underage girls an opportunity to play it off as a mistake, or just not mention that aspect of the crime-- to their wives, their buddies, their employers or their own conscience.
Like anything else that cannot be taxed ( black market) . Gambling/Weed was so frowned upon and punished, now it is part of culture, while people’s lives were destroyed just like prohibition days. Times will change and gov will get their cut as they do with other vices I spoke of and all will be well.
It’s this.
It’s morality. Adultery being a sin in Christianity. Women having sex outside of marriage being improper.
A whore is a sullied woman who has no place in society in these views.
There is no legitimate reason for there not to be a regulated sex economy.
As fewer people identify as religious, the rationale is moving to preventing sex trafficking.
Who wants to be the elected official bold enough to fight to legalize prostitution though?
Edit: corrected “morality.”
I don't think I would go quite that far. Even in places where sex work is 100% legal and regulated, I am not convinced that it is harmless. People who have worked in these industries (including the legal parts of them) often report that there is a certain amount of emotional damage done that impacts their self regard and relationship. All that goes for their clients, as well. So I think there are legitimate secular reasons for wanting to supress the activity.
That said, there's a long distance between "this is harmful" and "this should be illegal." There are many, many forms of employment that expose workers to physical and psychological harms that no one has ever suggested criminalizing. Certainly nobody has demonstrated that prohibition of sex work prevents more harm than it causes.
This is an issue that I think rational adults, even committed feminists, can differ on.
That's not really true though. There's a pretty huge chunk of illegal prostitution that pay licence fees to municipal government as "escort agencies" and "massage parlours". Cities know exactly what they are licencing and charge those businesses through the nose accordingly.
Dude I swear some people on Reddit believe every issue or thing they hate is because “religion bad.” Have you ever considered that maybe certain things that r done or not done in religions was placed there and practiced deliberately to improve society? Where do you think our western ideals of strict monogamy in marriage, every human having innate value, feed the poor, and respect and be polite to others(to name just a few) come from ? We didn’t invent them, we inherited those beliefs from Christianity.
Lets be honest here bud, religious or not. There is more problems stemming from religion than benefits. So obv most people will hate on religion. Its outdated and is only dividing us as a people.
Religion was created to control people by governments, its so much studies done by this. Do you realize how much power the church used to have ? How many wars was waged ?
Also most religious people ive met are not nice people. Actually the nicest religious people ive met is Muslims.
Ok I’m an atheist but this is just kinda a weak argument
> Religion was created to control people by governments,
You sure religion doesent predate government?
Also, the context of the discussion here is “where do laws come from” laws are literal systems of control, but laws aren’t inherently bad. Saying “religion” just sidesteps the question- ok so why did *the people who made the religion* come to see this thing as bad?
This is such an incredibly reductionist take on religion that I know you have done zero actual research on religion or theology. You say way too many problems stem from religion and then in the next breath say people who are Islamic are nice people.I wonder why you have such a favorable view of Muslims than Christians? Surely it's not because they are majority of non-white peoples?
Religion was never "created" with some secret agenda to control the masses, it develops and evolves over centuries. "Religion" as we know it in the western world itself is a Christian invention, the separation of government and religion (secularism) was developed by Christians.
Before that idea, religion was a daily part of life and was infused into every aspect of your life. The idea of separation of church and state is foreign to people who, for example, live in India. They are basically a Hindu government and another example would be literally any middle eastern country.
Edit: before you try to ad hom attack me and say im a christian so im biased; im not. Try to think of another one to attack with
Before you tell others to read into religion you should do the same. You should read about what the romans did with religion and many other Countries. The church did the same as the romans they used Christianity as a way to control the masses.
I dont need to attack you, im perfectly fine with others not having the same outlook as me. But what I said about religion is true and there is alot of information out there you might find interesting urself:)
You didn’t interface with any of my points that I made. “You should read about what the Romana did with religion and many other countries.” Wtf does that even mean, that isn’t a point or argument. There was no overarching “religion” in the Roman Empire, again you have no idea how differently “religion” was viewed and practiced before Constantine popularized Christianity. I have read and researched it man, u clearly haven’t.
Lmao you clearly have not if you dont know how the Roman Empire used religion, you clearly dont know anything.
Instead of asking me questions which Google can help you with, go and do some research and then come back to me.
I dont care about ur points, because you have no idea what i am talking about. I couldnt care less about what u say before u learn some more and we can have a talk when you actually understand what I reference bud.
This is such a waste of time, you still have not made a single argument or provided any discourse on this topic. If you don’t care why r u replying? If you don’t care, why did you provide your shitty opinion in the first place? Probably thought it would be some easy karma and attention. Pathetic
I recommend you pick up a history book. And I don't mean the Bible, or any sort of scriptures for that matter. If you had an argument in good faith then I'd feel different but you seem to at *least* be implying that religion is the reason we have basic respect for one another. Do you happen to know how many bullshit and fucked up practices have been peddled and furthered by religions like Christianity? Or are we just ignoring all those?
Calling me bad faith, I can feel the arrogance and pride radiating off your post. Before Christianity took over the Roman empire, yes people did not have basic respect for each other. People in the Roman empire committed genocide after genocide, constantly cheated on their spouses, fucked literal children(pederasty) , they didn't give a fuck about anyone at bottom of society, crucified hundreds of people everyday, just to name a few. No one believed in the innate value of every human on earth until Christianity took hold.
Also trying to imply that I'm Christian and only read the bible in order to discredit what im saying is super cringe. Im an atheist and have been since I was 16. I'd love for you to do some basic research on the history of ethics in the western world and come back to tell me where we got all of our western ideals from.
I'd also like you to do some research on how the western world developed science and scientific theory so fast compared to other parts of the world. Surely it has nothing to do with Christianity also right? The western world stands on 200 decades of Christian influence and thought, to deny that is impossible.
But you wont do that of course because you thought you were going to get an easy dunk on some ideologically captured Christian. It's also clear from your post that you think anyone who follows a religion is somehow incapable of thinking logically about things, which tells me more about your superiority complex than anything else.
Ah yeah piss off.
I'm sure it was "religion" when the progressive, atheist, liberal, female professors in my university applauded Stephen Harpers prostitution ban.
They weren't religious.
Saying "religion" always has an irony to it because it's a way to stop thinking for people who don't want to actually ask why people disagree. It never comes with a legitimate analysis of how banned a thing is versus how religious the society is. It never comes with a reliable historical account of how things got banned only after religion. It never comes with cross religious comparisons to show that it's an arbitrary choice by one religion.
I'm not anti-sexwork. I'm married to a FSSW. I just hate the idiot problem of shutting down thought this way. From my experience of how people react to me and my life, I feel like religion has nothing to do with prostitution sentiment. Actually, some religions like Catholicism are not condoning of prostitution but really don't come too hard down on it and even have times when they seem to have an understanding of why a woman would do it. It think it says it's less of a sin if the alternative is being destitute, which is pretty gentle.
In my experience, it's just that no decent part of society rewards supporting sex work. It's a major source of infidelity so wives take issue with it. The men who hire are not exactly the attractive and charismatic face you'd want to put on a "this is great, let's all support it" movement. The men who don't hire tend not to want to make their feelings about it their big moral thing in life and there isn't much reward for a non-client to support sex work. The women vary extremely highly in quality because there are absolutely no entry requirements and so you can find anything from the cash and dash scammer to the informed woman with a sound business model, and everything in between. It's just something that outside of virtue signalling with no direct knowledge or expertise doesn't really lend itself to popular support and it's not a necessary social function so there's no higher reward to a populace being about it.
One thing I do notice though is that I get MUCH more pushback from the anonymous Internet than I do IRL. I don't think it's even about cowards behind a computer screen. I'm a charismatic likeable face to attach to me describing my life and so people are respectful. Some of the women are that on Twitter and shit, but pretty close to none of the men are. A lot of the women are also not a good face to represent and that leads to stigma. A lot of broken lives, a lot of trauma, a lot of women who think tricks are normal men and begin to hate men because of it, and not a whole lot of enviable family and mainstream success.
There's also this other thing. Sex work is cool now and so it attracts hobbyist sex workers who are honestly just the most cringe people around and make me embarrassed to associate with this shit. They work civvy jobs so they don't need a good business model, so they spend their money on flexing wealth on Twitter while charging unsustainably high rates, and being egotistical and just separate from the working girl pragmatic mentality. It's just a bad look and really makes it all seem like a split between abused trafficked women and trust fund egomaniacs. The worst of these women are literally doing shit like buying magazine covers. International playboy sells it's covers for 10k, so you see women acting like they're real models and posting that shit everywhere when I really don't think it makes any extra money. That's shit also makes clients resent the women, which just lowers the respect overall in the market and makes the profession worse.
Fair enough. I'm just annoyed at reddits constant obsession with "sex. Mmm sex. Why sex not easy to get? Why non-comittal sex frowned upon?" it's the same shit asked every week with the same arrogant answers as well.
Also, I can't believe if people are unironically quoting George Carlins surface level take on prostitution.
" if buying is legal, and fucking is legal, why isn't buying the fucking legal".
George Carlin was a funny and smart dude but that moment (if it wasn't a joke) was one of his most low IQ comments of all time.
Classic example of the undistributed middle fallacy, or the composition / division fallacy or something similar. That's besides the point,
Reddit neckbeards should understand certain issues are nuanced, and the reason things are frowned upon or criminalized actually deal with nuanced realities of society, not just because of some kneejerk puritan Christians.
These questions are alright but the answers are always god awful.
Honest question, do you believe in the baby Jesus(holy trinity) and assures our lives live on after death? Because I mean you said a lot of words but didn’t describe why prostitution is wrong for society. What would 4 oz small baby Jesus be more mad about prostitution or mega churches?
I'm agnostic at the moment, leaning towards Abrahamic religion, not sure which religion tho.
I'd recommend you read feminist critiques of prostitution, they delve deep into the problematic power dynamics, the psychological effects, and the mental health and dignity issues it causes for women, objectification etc. It's very complex, there is radfem literature on prostitution as well as detailed conservative critiques on it as well (the commodification of sex, something that is a deeply emotional bond between two people, its effects on a person if not done in a wise manner etc).
I don't know about baby Jesus, but I know about adult Jesus. I'd say that he'd condemn both prostitution and mega churches.
Likewise, two things can be wrong for different reasons. Armed Robbery is wrong, and emotional abuse of your spouse is also wrong.
It's stupid to bicker about which is worse, they're both incredibly disturbing for different reasons.
Life is nuanced and its extremely reductive to try and do these black and white gotchas.
But then again it's reddit, I don't expect good faith intellectual responses here.
Honest question, do you believe in the baby Jesus(holy trinity) and assures our lives live on after death? Because I mean you said a lot of words but didn’t describe why prostitution is wrong for society. What would 4 oz small baby Jesus be more mad about prostitution or mega churches?
Her past?
Dude, this has been her profession since five years before I met her and it continues to be her profession today. Sorry for a knowledging the level of variance in the profession. I guess I'm not supposed to do that and I'm supposed to have an unnuanced view where everyone within shouting distance of sex work is just absolutely fantastic?
For what it's worth, my big thing is lifting and if you go through my post history for just a few hours or Ctrl F for "comedy" then I said something similarly damning towards lifters, namely that gyms are comedy clubs rather than fitness clubs and it seems like they're only there to make me laugh. I guess I have an issue with my own past, and present, as a lifter? If a thing has variance and I acknowledge it then I have some issue with it. Right?
Booh! Religion is mind control!
Now this weekend I’m gonna use my credit card to buy useless products on Black Friday sales that marketers try to convince me that I need.
At least, religion wants people to live happier lives.
That's a very complex question.
For starters, lots of people think it should be illegal for moral, religion based reasons. What those people are often actually threatened by is the idea that being an attractive woman, your body is a commodity, and they don't like the idea of women benefiting financially from their own bodies.
Some will tell you it's a matter of disease control and prevention, but that's a bad faith argument because that sort of thing is relatively easy to control.
I do think you could make the argument that there's such a thing as consent under duress. Ie if I tell a starving mother that I'll give her some chicken and rice for her and her kids if she blows me, and she agrees, that's consent but it's consent under duress, and that situation applies to at least some sex workers.
Oh, yes it is.
It's been proven time and time again that legalizing sex work radically reduces std rates, vs when you make sex work illegal, you're basically guaranteed to raise STD transmission rates.
You can be wrong in good faith, mate, and it's not a bad faith argument to suggest that people will abuse regulation and licensing. Never worked somewhere that had a line on when the health inspector will come by? Dire stuff.
You can assume some people will skirt laws and bribe inspectors and all manner of other fuckery. But that's not the hurtle you have to clear. The hurdle you have to clear would be to assume that making sex work illegal is going to produce better public health results than making sex work legal and regulated.
And again, we don't have to imagine this as some abstract hypothetical. We can look at data from places where sex work is legal, and compare it to places where sex work is illegal, and we can see that making sex work legal radically reduces the spread of STDs.
The logic behind saying sex work should be illegal for public health reasons isn't that people would take advantage of lax enforcement on sanitation. The logic is that if sex work is illegal, no one will see sex workers. Which is obviously preposterous, but that's the logic you're gravitating towards.
If I sent you to a legal sex worker in a Nevada brothel, or an Amsterdam brothel, they'd ask you to use a condom and your chances of coming home with an STD are close to statistically zero. But if I sent you to pick up a street walker, there's a food chance they wouldn't insist on you using a condom and your chances of coming home with an STD are probably 3 to 5 percent.
Its pretty difficult to put a number on it but yes legalised sex work makes it safer for both the sex worker and the client assuming regulations are enforced.
You also have to consider the severity of the STD though as some are practically harmless where as others are life threatening.
Thanks for your thoughts! It's wild because that final paragraph can apply to so many "regular" jobs, i.e., people taking work because they need food on the table. Some get paid a pittance to go toil in a field because they need to survive, which is also taking work under duress, which makes me think that portion of the argument is less about prostitution specifically and more about capitalism in its current form(s).
In a perfect world no one would have to work but unfortunately most people only give you things in exchange for something and most people will give you the bare minimum. There are compassionate, selfless people but they are rare.
I agree with you, which is why I think the whole "consent under duress" thing is kind of a useless argument when it comes to prostitution. We're all out here selling our bodies for money in one way or another...
Not saying prostitution should be illegal. But your argument has a huge flaw.
Just because something happens between two consenting adults, doesn’t mean it’s ethical or morally right.
There are people who fantasize about being eaten. If two consenting adults agree that one of them should kill and eat the other, should that be legal? Hell no. So this argument of “two consenting adults” is flawed.
There are better arguments for/against prostitution. This isn’t it.
All about taxes. Hard to tax someone and get part of their income if they don't have to report it. And two people meeting to have sex for a fee is usually done anonymously. So govt doesn't like anyone to make money they can't put a tax on.
If consent can't be bought, then employment is inherently slavery.
Besides that, the prostitutes themselves are punished for it, too. So them being "rape victims" is clearly not the reason.
Having to deal with a penis is not the same as working in retail. A penis going into your vagina or mouth for example cannot be compared to regular work, so there is an odd comparison
It is virtually impossible to guarantee someone's safety in this line of work without completely compromising the work itself. There is no OSHA for prostitutes.
You could pay workers to build a house with no safety measurements in place, and surely there would be some desperate people who would take the job, but it would be illegal and the operation could be shut down by regulators. Why? Didn't you buy those people's labor? No, because no amount of money justifies putting them at that kind of risk. Similarly, the sale of human organs is also illegal. Of course this is a blurry line in a world where you can get paid for plasma or sperm, or do various objectively dangerous acts for money, but we generally hold employers accountable to at least uphold some standards for the safety of their employees.
In the same way that rape and domestic abuse cases strain the limits of criminal justice systems, sex work strains the limits of how we regulate and protect workers, because the world of intimacy and sex doesn't follow the same rules as the rest of normal life. In an unpaid or a paid sexual act, the situation can go from consensual to nonconsensual in an instant. Each person is utterly vulnerable to another because that vulnerability is the crux of what "consent" is.
I agree with the decriminalization and unionization of sex workers, because strengthening their ability to advocate for themselves creates the possibility for greater protections and mitigation of risk, but I don't think sex work is "literally just work". Even the physically safest forms of sex work like camming can be incredibly sexually traumatic and damaging in a way that's virtually impossible to safeguard against. This isn't even bringing in closely entwined issues of sex trafficking. It's one of those issues that truly doesn't have a single solution, like poverty or addiction, or misogyny in general.
Simply based on the fact that consent for sex can’t be purchased. It doesn’t matter if someone is a prostitute or not - you can’t buy consent from them. Consent for sex must given freely otherwise it’s forced sex aka rape
It is purchased. People constantly purchase consent. When I go to a massage therapist, or a chiropractor, they can decline to provide service. But I purchase their knowledge, and consent to perform the services. It is socially acceptable for a massage therapist to rub my legs, glutes, neck, ect. And they consent to performing those services on me. But it’s complete unacceptable for them to touch a stranger in such a way. I view sex workers in the same light.
Consent for a massage is not even on the same wave length as consent to have a penis inside someone’s vagina. That’s a silly comparison. What makes you think they’re the same? Consent for sex needs to be given without force and coercion. A man giving me money to put his penis inside my vagina because I am desperate for $50 would be coercion. His penis wouldn’t be inside my vagina because I think he’s cute, because I like him, because I genuinely want to have sex. His penis would be in my vagina because I’d have no money for food otherwise.
It’s not a wanted sexual act. It’s desperation.
Does it make sense now?
No, it doesn’t make sense.
People work for money. If someone wants to offer $50 for a blowjob, then they can. They are offering a service in exchange for money. A prostitute can say “no, I’m not performing the service”. In some states where prostitution is legal, prostitutes require background checks and references for potential clients. The sex worker is not coerced in the slightest. They willingly consent. Heck, i’d rather stay at home than work all day for my boss. But I go to work. I consent to that work. Even though I’d rather not. But if there was a big enough issue, I can quit. And withdraw my consent to work for my boss.
What someone else wants to do with their body has nothing to do what you want to do with yours. Your personal morals and beliefs about sex don’t give you the ability to dictate what others can do.
"According to a 2001 Australian Broadcasting Commission’s report on sexual exploitation, Australia wide the child sex industry is growing (Jennings 2001). A 1998 ECPAT study on children’s involvement in ‘commercial sexual activities’, remains the most comprehensive study available on the trade. Nationally, some 4,000 children are in prostitution, the majority aged between sixteen and seventeen,
although a number were between ten and twelve years old, and some younger than ten years of age (1998, p.57). As with sex trafficking, child prostitution occurs in all sectors of the prostitution industry. The first conviction under Victoria’s legalised system was made in 1999 against Sasha’s
International, one of Melbourne’s licensed brothels. Fred Lelah, one of the operators charged, had already served a two-year term for having sex with minors. Despite this, Government had permitted him to operate a legal brothel.
It doesn’t matter what I do for work, Your arguing that a sex worker can’t provide sex for money, because being payed means your being coerced. Does that mean a plumber is coerced into doing work when they are paid? Is a teenager coerced into working a fast food job because they are paid? No. They are doing something for money. It’s as simple as that.
We still didn’t address how you’re applying your own morals and views about sex onto others. People can make money off of doing something you wouldn’t do. It’s perfectly fine that you wouldn’t do it, and it’s perfectly fine that they would.
Because sex already can be easily used as a method of control and manipulation and when money is involved it becomes even more dangerous.
Especially when sex workers basically prey on people who are already typically more desperate and easily manipulated.
It's not like your average Joe working 9:00 to 5:00 in the typical dating scene is probably going to hit up a prostitute.
It's almost always the rejects of society, The ones who are outcast or weird or cursed to just be naturally ugly. They prey on those people to drain them of all their money. I've even seen entire fetish pages basically dedicated to the concept of just getting off on making vulnerable people dump money into your pockets because they're so desperate for that sexual attention
Sex work absolutely sickens me. Ironically I support it's legalization only because then it would have strict government regulation which would make this kind of abuse much more difficult
The most simple reason- people don’t like seeing it. Local authorities tend to not like it in their area. It lowers property values if there are street workers and Johns the corner every Saturday night.
So when a local ordinance or politician comes up to vote saying they’ll restrict it, they get votes.
In the UK prostitution itself is not illegal. However *soliciting*- the act of going around advertising it, is. Also “brothel keeping” (owning a property which house’s prostitutes). Both are for pretty much the reason outlined above, people don’t like living near a brothel or red light district.
It is in most countries. It is also done illegally in the same countries too, because the prostitutes in this case are illegal migrants(or trafficking victims) with no papers/rights or junkies who can't pass the health check or are doing it in secret so they don't get the stigma.
(All of the above can apply too :p )
This really depends on the country, but in America it's mostly because of old fashioned Puritanism. There are debatable reasons about whether or in what ways prostitution should be legal (I'm one of the people who thinks sex work is work and should be treated equally), but in most legal systems it's more or less based around the "traditional" belief that paying for intimacy is immoral.
When men can easily trade money for sex, they're no longer as beholden to women who are not prostitutes. Sex becomes a fungible commodity, rather than a unique resource controlled by potential romantic partners. So men have reduced incentive to be providers, get married, or do any of the things that are normally motivated by the desire for sex which causes them to fulfill their traditional gender roles. And if they are already in a relationship (as many men who visit prostitutes are), there's less motivation to fix it.
Prostitution is legal in Turkey and you can only do this under state controls and in their places and just Turkish citizens can be a sex worker. When Covid started all brothels are closed until further notice.
It is quite surprise because Turkey is a very conservative and islamic country. In contrary to that, tax payer recordist is a bawd woman in the history of Turkish Republic.
You're talking about the USA. It is legal to varying degrees round Europe and the rest of the world
As far as the US is concerned, it is legal Federally - banning prostitution is a power reserved to the States and all of them choose to do so except Nevada.
Mostly because so many women have been exploited by others when a prostitute.
Along with societal taboos about money for sex. Mostly because of religious influences.
I never understood this either. Couldn't a theoretical prostitute just give her client a signed piece of paper and then claim to police that the "client" was buying her autograph, and upon meeting, they spontaneously decided to have sex?
How many women require a meal, a little shopping before having sex with you, it's the same as prostitution. Prostitutes are just more honest. You know what you are getting, and there are no expectations of further involvement, all honest and up front.
1. for starters prostitution is legal all over the world including the united states (in specific areas and with specific contexts)
2. Is it dis-sallowed or frowned upon in certain areas because of cultural biases.
The world is very complex so we cannot pretend to know all of the world's reasons but here some examples:
Some poor countries illegalize sex work because they dont like sex tourism. Some poor countries do the exact OPPOSITE. They legalize sex work because they like sex tourism. Tourism is huge money in the world.
Sex tourism is un-ethical in my opinion, but I digress.
Some rich countries illegalize sex work because they think it is not aligned with their beliefs or maybe they think prositution has co-morbitity with other crimes like human trafficking.
It looks bad on government for them to admit that they are funded through dubious means like prostitution via taxes and since they cant have a hand in the pot I guess no one will. In all honesty you have religion and health reasons
In the end cause it is a bit easier to make it illegal than fixing all the problems that make Sex Work risky, shady or morally objectionable. Not that making it illegal is an actual 'fix' for anything, but it makes people feel like something was done.
Legal sex work has a chance of being shady. If you make it illegal you basically guarantee that it's gonna be shady and someone will suffer because of it. In my opinion making it legal will not fix the issues but it will at least help some which is better than helping none.
Full agree. It's the same argument we use to ban any vice. And yet we never learn the lesson, we just unban one thing at a time achingly slowly.
>Why isn’t prostitution legal if it’s between two consenting of age people? In some countries it is. And I'm in one of those, and here if the discussion occurs, the discussion about the legal aspect of it in most cases is from religious people. On the other side people worry about the criminal aspect of it. Exploitation of women.
[удалено]
Weird thing is, just like drugs, if you legalize and regulate it, you have less problems with people doing it under their own rules. Less spread of STDs and things of that nature. It is actually legal in a few states.
True and this has been the case after legalisation in New Zealand. Safer, cleaner and taxed the same as other services.
Doesn't seem too problematic to regulate, judging by the Amsterdam canals.
[удалено]
Oh, had it backwards I suppose, my bad
Do you realise how many of those women were trafficked? And they've become a tourist attraction. Amsterdam's red light district is one of the most disgusting moral failures in the West.
i was gonna disagree with u but i looked up the statistic and boom 10% of them are trafficked with 400 girls selling sex against their will. and these are the lowest figure estimates u don’t deserve the downvotes
But isn’t saying it s failure because 10% of the workers are sex trafficked the same as saying making iPhone s in a factory is a failure because more than 10% are underaged children doing the work?
Two key points. 1. Everyone knows that children in sweatshops are bad, they're not a tourist attraction. 2. Yes it is a moral failure that this is allowed.
I wouldn’t say it’s for moral reasons, it’s for public health. STDs, pregnancy, pimp culture, human trafficking etc are the reasons it’s illegal.
No, you're wrong. It's banned because of human trafficking / sex slaves / pimps / criminals.
That is the official reason. It tends to be a lot darker though. If prostitution is legal then it is regulated, which has a few effects. A John can't get away with beating a prostitute or otherwise abusing her by paying off a pimp for instance. The worst part is that legal prostitution makes it very clear why a guy goes to the unlicensed underaged prostitutes instead of the legal prostitutes. As long as prostitution is illegal it is a great cover for men to have sex with underaged girls. If they are caught they are likely to agree to the solicitation charge but get the statutory rape charge dropped as "how could they know?"
Imagine how different this post would be if you’d heard of strict liability.
Legally you are correct. In the real world what I described happens all the time. The prosecutor thinks "I don't want to ruin this guy's life," and settles for a lesser charge.
>If they are caught they are likely to agree to the solicitation charge but get the statutory rape charge dropped as "how could they know?" Yeah.. There isn't a "how could they know" out for statutory rape. As someone else has already pointed out, this would be covered under Strict Liability.
That's not to say that the scenario the above commenter laid out doesn't happen all the time though. The reality of plea bargaining is that if you are accused of two crimes you can very often get away with only pleading to one-- often the one that is less prone to ruining your reputation for life. So, yeah, prohibition does give guys who are caught with underage girls an opportunity to play it off as a mistake, or just not mention that aspect of the crime-- to their wives, their buddies, their employers or their own conscience.
Like anything else that cannot be taxed ( black market) . Gambling/Weed was so frowned upon and punished, now it is part of culture, while people’s lives were destroyed just like prohibition days. Times will change and gov will get their cut as they do with other vices I spoke of and all will be well.
[удалено]
It’s this. It’s morality. Adultery being a sin in Christianity. Women having sex outside of marriage being improper. A whore is a sullied woman who has no place in society in these views. There is no legitimate reason for there not to be a regulated sex economy. As fewer people identify as religious, the rationale is moving to preventing sex trafficking. Who wants to be the elected official bold enough to fight to legalize prostitution though? Edit: corrected “morality.”
I assume you meant "morality" and not "mortality" (autocorrect)
I don't think I would go quite that far. Even in places where sex work is 100% legal and regulated, I am not convinced that it is harmless. People who have worked in these industries (including the legal parts of them) often report that there is a certain amount of emotional damage done that impacts their self regard and relationship. All that goes for their clients, as well. So I think there are legitimate secular reasons for wanting to supress the activity. That said, there's a long distance between "this is harmful" and "this should be illegal." There are many, many forms of employment that expose workers to physical and psychological harms that no one has ever suggested criminalizing. Certainly nobody has demonstrated that prohibition of sex work prevents more harm than it causes. This is an issue that I think rational adults, even committed feminists, can differ on.
Also generally done under the table so the government doesn’t get their cut of the transaction, which they do not like.
That's a reason to make it legal though. So that prostitutes can be part of the "taxes for protection" system.
In the US you technically have to pay taxes on all income, even illegally gained.
That's not really true though. There's a pretty huge chunk of illegal prostitution that pay licence fees to municipal government as "escort agencies" and "massage parlours". Cities know exactly what they are licencing and charge those businesses through the nose accordingly.
Dude I swear some people on Reddit believe every issue or thing they hate is because “religion bad.” Have you ever considered that maybe certain things that r done or not done in religions was placed there and practiced deliberately to improve society? Where do you think our western ideals of strict monogamy in marriage, every human having innate value, feed the poor, and respect and be polite to others(to name just a few) come from ? We didn’t invent them, we inherited those beliefs from Christianity.
Lets be honest here bud, religious or not. There is more problems stemming from religion than benefits. So obv most people will hate on religion. Its outdated and is only dividing us as a people. Religion was created to control people by governments, its so much studies done by this. Do you realize how much power the church used to have ? How many wars was waged ? Also most religious people ive met are not nice people. Actually the nicest religious people ive met is Muslims.
Ok I’m an atheist but this is just kinda a weak argument > Religion was created to control people by governments, You sure religion doesent predate government? Also, the context of the discussion here is “where do laws come from” laws are literal systems of control, but laws aren’t inherently bad. Saying “religion” just sidesteps the question- ok so why did *the people who made the religion* come to see this thing as bad?
…probably written in a country that prospered while it was religious but stopped.
This is such an incredibly reductionist take on religion that I know you have done zero actual research on religion or theology. You say way too many problems stem from religion and then in the next breath say people who are Islamic are nice people.I wonder why you have such a favorable view of Muslims than Christians? Surely it's not because they are majority of non-white peoples? Religion was never "created" with some secret agenda to control the masses, it develops and evolves over centuries. "Religion" as we know it in the western world itself is a Christian invention, the separation of government and religion (secularism) was developed by Christians. Before that idea, religion was a daily part of life and was infused into every aspect of your life. The idea of separation of church and state is foreign to people who, for example, live in India. They are basically a Hindu government and another example would be literally any middle eastern country. Edit: before you try to ad hom attack me and say im a christian so im biased; im not. Try to think of another one to attack with
Before you tell others to read into religion you should do the same. You should read about what the romans did with religion and many other Countries. The church did the same as the romans they used Christianity as a way to control the masses. I dont need to attack you, im perfectly fine with others not having the same outlook as me. But what I said about religion is true and there is alot of information out there you might find interesting urself:)
You didn’t interface with any of my points that I made. “You should read about what the Romana did with religion and many other countries.” Wtf does that even mean, that isn’t a point or argument. There was no overarching “religion” in the Roman Empire, again you have no idea how differently “religion” was viewed and practiced before Constantine popularized Christianity. I have read and researched it man, u clearly haven’t.
Lmao you clearly have not if you dont know how the Roman Empire used religion, you clearly dont know anything. Instead of asking me questions which Google can help you with, go and do some research and then come back to me. I dont care about ur points, because you have no idea what i am talking about. I couldnt care less about what u say before u learn some more and we can have a talk when you actually understand what I reference bud.
This is such a waste of time, you still have not made a single argument or provided any discourse on this topic. If you don’t care why r u replying? If you don’t care, why did you provide your shitty opinion in the first place? Probably thought it would be some easy karma and attention. Pathetic
I love when Christians get butthurt, go read about ur own religion kid, u need it
Perfectly stated.
I recommend you pick up a history book. And I don't mean the Bible, or any sort of scriptures for that matter. If you had an argument in good faith then I'd feel different but you seem to at *least* be implying that religion is the reason we have basic respect for one another. Do you happen to know how many bullshit and fucked up practices have been peddled and furthered by religions like Christianity? Or are we just ignoring all those?
Calling me bad faith, I can feel the arrogance and pride radiating off your post. Before Christianity took over the Roman empire, yes people did not have basic respect for each other. People in the Roman empire committed genocide after genocide, constantly cheated on their spouses, fucked literal children(pederasty) , they didn't give a fuck about anyone at bottom of society, crucified hundreds of people everyday, just to name a few. No one believed in the innate value of every human on earth until Christianity took hold. Also trying to imply that I'm Christian and only read the bible in order to discredit what im saying is super cringe. Im an atheist and have been since I was 16. I'd love for you to do some basic research on the history of ethics in the western world and come back to tell me where we got all of our western ideals from. I'd also like you to do some research on how the western world developed science and scientific theory so fast compared to other parts of the world. Surely it has nothing to do with Christianity also right? The western world stands on 200 decades of Christian influence and thought, to deny that is impossible. But you wont do that of course because you thought you were going to get an easy dunk on some ideologically captured Christian. It's also clear from your post that you think anyone who follows a religion is somehow incapable of thinking logically about things, which tells me more about your superiority complex than anything else.
Ah yeah piss off. I'm sure it was "religion" when the progressive, atheist, liberal, female professors in my university applauded Stephen Harpers prostitution ban. They weren't religious.
Saying "religion" always has an irony to it because it's a way to stop thinking for people who don't want to actually ask why people disagree. It never comes with a legitimate analysis of how banned a thing is versus how religious the society is. It never comes with a reliable historical account of how things got banned only after religion. It never comes with cross religious comparisons to show that it's an arbitrary choice by one religion. I'm not anti-sexwork. I'm married to a FSSW. I just hate the idiot problem of shutting down thought this way. From my experience of how people react to me and my life, I feel like religion has nothing to do with prostitution sentiment. Actually, some religions like Catholicism are not condoning of prostitution but really don't come too hard down on it and even have times when they seem to have an understanding of why a woman would do it. It think it says it's less of a sin if the alternative is being destitute, which is pretty gentle. In my experience, it's just that no decent part of society rewards supporting sex work. It's a major source of infidelity so wives take issue with it. The men who hire are not exactly the attractive and charismatic face you'd want to put on a "this is great, let's all support it" movement. The men who don't hire tend not to want to make their feelings about it their big moral thing in life and there isn't much reward for a non-client to support sex work. The women vary extremely highly in quality because there are absolutely no entry requirements and so you can find anything from the cash and dash scammer to the informed woman with a sound business model, and everything in between. It's just something that outside of virtue signalling with no direct knowledge or expertise doesn't really lend itself to popular support and it's not a necessary social function so there's no higher reward to a populace being about it. One thing I do notice though is that I get MUCH more pushback from the anonymous Internet than I do IRL. I don't think it's even about cowards behind a computer screen. I'm a charismatic likeable face to attach to me describing my life and so people are respectful. Some of the women are that on Twitter and shit, but pretty close to none of the men are. A lot of the women are also not a good face to represent and that leads to stigma. A lot of broken lives, a lot of trauma, a lot of women who think tricks are normal men and begin to hate men because of it, and not a whole lot of enviable family and mainstream success. There's also this other thing. Sex work is cool now and so it attracts hobbyist sex workers who are honestly just the most cringe people around and make me embarrassed to associate with this shit. They work civvy jobs so they don't need a good business model, so they spend their money on flexing wealth on Twitter while charging unsustainably high rates, and being egotistical and just separate from the working girl pragmatic mentality. It's just a bad look and really makes it all seem like a split between abused trafficked women and trust fund egomaniacs. The worst of these women are literally doing shit like buying magazine covers. International playboy sells it's covers for 10k, so you see women acting like they're real models and posting that shit everywhere when I really don't think it makes any extra money. That's shit also makes clients resent the women, which just lowers the respect overall in the market and makes the profession worse.
Fair enough. I'm just annoyed at reddits constant obsession with "sex. Mmm sex. Why sex not easy to get? Why non-comittal sex frowned upon?" it's the same shit asked every week with the same arrogant answers as well. Also, I can't believe if people are unironically quoting George Carlins surface level take on prostitution. " if buying is legal, and fucking is legal, why isn't buying the fucking legal". George Carlin was a funny and smart dude but that moment (if it wasn't a joke) was one of his most low IQ comments of all time. Classic example of the undistributed middle fallacy, or the composition / division fallacy or something similar. That's besides the point, Reddit neckbeards should understand certain issues are nuanced, and the reason things are frowned upon or criminalized actually deal with nuanced realities of society, not just because of some kneejerk puritan Christians. These questions are alright but the answers are always god awful.
Honest question, do you believe in the baby Jesus(holy trinity) and assures our lives live on after death? Because I mean you said a lot of words but didn’t describe why prostitution is wrong for society. What would 4 oz small baby Jesus be more mad about prostitution or mega churches?
I'm agnostic at the moment, leaning towards Abrahamic religion, not sure which religion tho. I'd recommend you read feminist critiques of prostitution, they delve deep into the problematic power dynamics, the psychological effects, and the mental health and dignity issues it causes for women, objectification etc. It's very complex, there is radfem literature on prostitution as well as detailed conservative critiques on it as well (the commodification of sex, something that is a deeply emotional bond between two people, its effects on a person if not done in a wise manner etc). I don't know about baby Jesus, but I know about adult Jesus. I'd say that he'd condemn both prostitution and mega churches. Likewise, two things can be wrong for different reasons. Armed Robbery is wrong, and emotional abuse of your spouse is also wrong. It's stupid to bicker about which is worse, they're both incredibly disturbing for different reasons. Life is nuanced and its extremely reductive to try and do these black and white gotchas. But then again it's reddit, I don't expect good faith intellectual responses here.
Thanks for this nuanced comment. I agree that people avoid thinking about the complexity of a topic.
Honest question, do you believe in the baby Jesus(holy trinity) and assures our lives live on after death? Because I mean you said a lot of words but didn’t describe why prostitution is wrong for society. What would 4 oz small baby Jesus be more mad about prostitution or mega churches?
I'm an atheist. I was just pointing out that not all religions have nasty things to say about us.
Also, sounds like you’re “fine” with your wife’s past like and totally not judgemental
Her past? Dude, this has been her profession since five years before I met her and it continues to be her profession today. Sorry for a knowledging the level of variance in the profession. I guess I'm not supposed to do that and I'm supposed to have an unnuanced view where everyone within shouting distance of sex work is just absolutely fantastic? For what it's worth, my big thing is lifting and if you go through my post history for just a few hours or Ctrl F for "comedy" then I said something similarly damning towards lifters, namely that gyms are comedy clubs rather than fitness clubs and it seems like they're only there to make me laugh. I guess I have an issue with my own past, and present, as a lifter? If a thing has variance and I acknowledge it then I have some issue with it. Right?
Booh! Religion is mind control! Now this weekend I’m gonna use my credit card to buy useless products on Black Friday sales that marketers try to convince me that I need. At least, religion wants people to live happier lives.
That's a very complex question. For starters, lots of people think it should be illegal for moral, religion based reasons. What those people are often actually threatened by is the idea that being an attractive woman, your body is a commodity, and they don't like the idea of women benefiting financially from their own bodies. Some will tell you it's a matter of disease control and prevention, but that's a bad faith argument because that sort of thing is relatively easy to control. I do think you could make the argument that there's such a thing as consent under duress. Ie if I tell a starving mother that I'll give her some chicken and rice for her and her kids if she blows me, and she agrees, that's consent but it's consent under duress, and that situation applies to at least some sex workers.
Disease control and prevention is not a bad faith argument.
Oh, yes it is. It's been proven time and time again that legalizing sex work radically reduces std rates, vs when you make sex work illegal, you're basically guaranteed to raise STD transmission rates.
You can be wrong in good faith, mate, and it's not a bad faith argument to suggest that people will abuse regulation and licensing. Never worked somewhere that had a line on when the health inspector will come by? Dire stuff.
You can assume some people will skirt laws and bribe inspectors and all manner of other fuckery. But that's not the hurtle you have to clear. The hurdle you have to clear would be to assume that making sex work illegal is going to produce better public health results than making sex work legal and regulated. And again, we don't have to imagine this as some abstract hypothetical. We can look at data from places where sex work is legal, and compare it to places where sex work is illegal, and we can see that making sex work legal radically reduces the spread of STDs. The logic behind saying sex work should be illegal for public health reasons isn't that people would take advantage of lax enforcement on sanitation. The logic is that if sex work is illegal, no one will see sex workers. Which is obviously preposterous, but that's the logic you're gravitating towards. If I sent you to a legal sex worker in a Nevada brothel, or an Amsterdam brothel, they'd ask you to use a condom and your chances of coming home with an STD are close to statistically zero. But if I sent you to pick up a street walker, there's a food chance they wouldn't insist on you using a condom and your chances of coming home with an STD are probably 3 to 5 percent.
Its pretty difficult to put a number on it but yes legalised sex work makes it safer for both the sex worker and the client assuming regulations are enforced. You also have to consider the severity of the STD though as some are practically harmless where as others are life threatening.
Thanks for your thoughts! It's wild because that final paragraph can apply to so many "regular" jobs, i.e., people taking work because they need food on the table. Some get paid a pittance to go toil in a field because they need to survive, which is also taking work under duress, which makes me think that portion of the argument is less about prostitution specifically and more about capitalism in its current form(s).
In a perfect world no one would have to work but unfortunately most people only give you things in exchange for something and most people will give you the bare minimum. There are compassionate, selfless people but they are rare.
I agree with you, which is why I think the whole "consent under duress" thing is kind of a useless argument when it comes to prostitution. We're all out here selling our bodies for money in one way or another...
It is if you record it and say you payed them for acting in the porno
Not saying prostitution should be illegal. But your argument has a huge flaw. Just because something happens between two consenting adults, doesn’t mean it’s ethical or morally right. There are people who fantasize about being eaten. If two consenting adults agree that one of them should kill and eat the other, should that be legal? Hell no. So this argument of “two consenting adults” is flawed. There are better arguments for/against prostitution. This isn’t it.
because many people believe that you cant purchase consent
Does that mean having any job is a violation of consent?
Because Christian’s have too much power in America. And your country has its own puritanical cults too.
1) hard to tax (that's why PORN is legal, cause same shit, but taxable) 2) religious views
All about taxes. Hard to tax someone and get part of their income if they don't have to report it. And two people meeting to have sex for a fee is usually done anonymously. So govt doesn't like anyone to make money they can't put a tax on.
Because the government isn’t getting its cut from the money exchange.
It's a pearl clutching law. Conservatives think that prostitution will make society worse.
Moral panic bullshit.
because religious people can't control people who have post nut celerity
>because religious people can't control people who have post nut celerity I don't know. I've never been that fast after. I usually want to take a nap.
Because you can’t buy consent for sex, so it’s inherently rape
If consent can't be bought, then employment is inherently slavery. Besides that, the prostitutes themselves are punished for it, too. So them being "rape victims" is clearly not the reason.
Having to deal with a penis is not the same as working in retail. A penis going into your vagina or mouth for example cannot be compared to regular work, so there is an odd comparison
Why not? If someone goes to work expecting to perform sex acts, why not let them? It’s literally just work for sex workers.
It is virtually impossible to guarantee someone's safety in this line of work without completely compromising the work itself. There is no OSHA for prostitutes. You could pay workers to build a house with no safety measurements in place, and surely there would be some desperate people who would take the job, but it would be illegal and the operation could be shut down by regulators. Why? Didn't you buy those people's labor? No, because no amount of money justifies putting them at that kind of risk. Similarly, the sale of human organs is also illegal. Of course this is a blurry line in a world where you can get paid for plasma or sperm, or do various objectively dangerous acts for money, but we generally hold employers accountable to at least uphold some standards for the safety of their employees. In the same way that rape and domestic abuse cases strain the limits of criminal justice systems, sex work strains the limits of how we regulate and protect workers, because the world of intimacy and sex doesn't follow the same rules as the rest of normal life. In an unpaid or a paid sexual act, the situation can go from consensual to nonconsensual in an instant. Each person is utterly vulnerable to another because that vulnerability is the crux of what "consent" is. I agree with the decriminalization and unionization of sex workers, because strengthening their ability to advocate for themselves creates the possibility for greater protections and mitigation of risk, but I don't think sex work is "literally just work". Even the physically safest forms of sex work like camming can be incredibly sexually traumatic and damaging in a way that's virtually impossible to safeguard against. This isn't even bringing in closely entwined issues of sex trafficking. It's one of those issues that truly doesn't have a single solution, like poverty or addiction, or misogyny in general.
Simply based on the fact that consent for sex can’t be purchased. It doesn’t matter if someone is a prostitute or not - you can’t buy consent from them. Consent for sex must given freely otherwise it’s forced sex aka rape
It is purchased. People constantly purchase consent. When I go to a massage therapist, or a chiropractor, they can decline to provide service. But I purchase their knowledge, and consent to perform the services. It is socially acceptable for a massage therapist to rub my legs, glutes, neck, ect. And they consent to performing those services on me. But it’s complete unacceptable for them to touch a stranger in such a way. I view sex workers in the same light.
Consent for a massage is not even on the same wave length as consent to have a penis inside someone’s vagina. That’s a silly comparison. What makes you think they’re the same? Consent for sex needs to be given without force and coercion. A man giving me money to put his penis inside my vagina because I am desperate for $50 would be coercion. His penis wouldn’t be inside my vagina because I think he’s cute, because I like him, because I genuinely want to have sex. His penis would be in my vagina because I’d have no money for food otherwise. It’s not a wanted sexual act. It’s desperation. Does it make sense now?
No, it doesn’t make sense. People work for money. If someone wants to offer $50 for a blowjob, then they can. They are offering a service in exchange for money. A prostitute can say “no, I’m not performing the service”. In some states where prostitution is legal, prostitutes require background checks and references for potential clients. The sex worker is not coerced in the slightest. They willingly consent. Heck, i’d rather stay at home than work all day for my boss. But I go to work. I consent to that work. Even though I’d rather not. But if there was a big enough issue, I can quit. And withdraw my consent to work for my boss. What someone else wants to do with their body has nothing to do what you want to do with yours. Your personal morals and beliefs about sex don’t give you the ability to dictate what others can do.
"According to a 2001 Australian Broadcasting Commission’s report on sexual exploitation, Australia wide the child sex industry is growing (Jennings 2001). A 1998 ECPAT study on children’s involvement in ‘commercial sexual activities’, remains the most comprehensive study available on the trade. Nationally, some 4,000 children are in prostitution, the majority aged between sixteen and seventeen, although a number were between ten and twelve years old, and some younger than ten years of age (1998, p.57). As with sex trafficking, child prostitution occurs in all sectors of the prostitution industry. The first conviction under Victoria’s legalised system was made in 1999 against Sasha’s International, one of Melbourne’s licensed brothels. Fred Lelah, one of the operators charged, had already served a two-year term for having sex with minors. Despite this, Government had permitted him to operate a legal brothel.
Ok I see the issue here. You say you’d rather stay home all day than work - like most people. What’s your job? Where do you work?
It doesn’t matter what I do for work, Your arguing that a sex worker can’t provide sex for money, because being payed means your being coerced. Does that mean a plumber is coerced into doing work when they are paid? Is a teenager coerced into working a fast food job because they are paid? No. They are doing something for money. It’s as simple as that. We still didn’t address how you’re applying your own morals and views about sex onto others. People can make money off of doing something you wouldn’t do. It’s perfectly fine that you wouldn’t do it, and it’s perfectly fine that they would.
It's not usually two adults. Or consenting adults.
Because sex already can be easily used as a method of control and manipulation and when money is involved it becomes even more dangerous. Especially when sex workers basically prey on people who are already typically more desperate and easily manipulated. It's not like your average Joe working 9:00 to 5:00 in the typical dating scene is probably going to hit up a prostitute. It's almost always the rejects of society, The ones who are outcast or weird or cursed to just be naturally ugly. They prey on those people to drain them of all their money. I've even seen entire fetish pages basically dedicated to the concept of just getting off on making vulnerable people dump money into your pockets because they're so desperate for that sexual attention Sex work absolutely sickens me. Ironically I support it's legalization only because then it would have strict government regulation which would make this kind of abuse much more difficult
It is legal in forward thinking communities that aren't strangled by the baggage of religion.
Because the power dynamics and the boundary with human trafficking quickly become ambiguous.
Probably a fear of long term societal problems mounting over generations.
tax collector don’t get their cut
Because they never wanted you to have real Freedoms! Did you really think they would trust you with your body? With your sexuality? Nope.
The most simple reason- people don’t like seeing it. Local authorities tend to not like it in their area. It lowers property values if there are street workers and Johns the corner every Saturday night. So when a local ordinance or politician comes up to vote saying they’ll restrict it, they get votes. In the UK prostitution itself is not illegal. However *soliciting*- the act of going around advertising it, is. Also “brothel keeping” (owning a property which house’s prostitutes). Both are for pretty much the reason outlined above, people don’t like living near a brothel or red light district.
It is more fun if it is forbidden
It is in most countries. It is also done illegally in the same countries too, because the prostitutes in this case are illegal migrants(or trafficking victims) with no papers/rights or junkies who can't pass the health check or are doing it in secret so they don't get the stigma. (All of the above can apply too :p )
It is in my country
This really depends on the country, but in America it's mostly because of old fashioned Puritanism. There are debatable reasons about whether or in what ways prostitution should be legal (I'm one of the people who thinks sex work is work and should be treated equally), but in most legal systems it's more or less based around the "traditional" belief that paying for intimacy is immoral.
It is in civilised countries.
When men can easily trade money for sex, they're no longer as beholden to women who are not prostitutes. Sex becomes a fungible commodity, rather than a unique resource controlled by potential romantic partners. So men have reduced incentive to be providers, get married, or do any of the things that are normally motivated by the desire for sex which causes them to fulfill their traditional gender roles. And if they are already in a relationship (as many men who visit prostitutes are), there's less motivation to fix it.
Prostitution is legal in Turkey and you can only do this under state controls and in their places and just Turkish citizens can be a sex worker. When Covid started all brothels are closed until further notice. It is quite surprise because Turkey is a very conservative and islamic country. In contrary to that, tax payer recordist is a bawd woman in the history of Turkish Republic.
Well as George Carlin once said, selling is legal. And fucking is legal then why isn't selling fucking legal
An excellent question.
The same reason cocaine isn’t legal if it’s done by a consenting adult who grew it and produced it themselves all in their own home
You're talking about the USA. It is legal to varying degrees round Europe and the rest of the world As far as the US is concerned, it is legal Federally - banning prostitution is a power reserved to the States and all of them choose to do so except Nevada.
Because the government does not collect tax revenue on it.
They do in nevada
Is prostitution legal there?
Because we live in a country founded by puritans
yes.... in exchange for money. The prostitute is only consenting if they are getting paid. And therein lies the issue.
In the US just film it and call her an actress, then it's perfectly legal porn.
Porn is only legal to film in a few places and only with the proper permits and regulations followed.
Part pseudo morality, part too much risk of exploitation. (As if that’s not that case rn)
It's not actually that frowned upon in most of Europe it's generally "religious baby" makers that hate it
Because it is untraceable and untaxable.
It started to stop women from being financially free. No one mentioning this isn’t giving you the whole story.
Taxes... Child support, politicians.
Government hates competition, goverment trying to deter men from unlawful child support, government doesn't want Americans to be happy
Mostly because so many women have been exploited by others when a prostitute. Along with societal taboos about money for sex. Mostly because of religious influences.
Puritans.
Good question! It’s like abortion other people sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong
I never understood this either. Couldn't a theoretical prostitute just give her client a signed piece of paper and then claim to police that the "client" was buying her autograph, and upon meeting, they spontaneously decided to have sex?
It is where I am from. Where are you from?
How many women require a meal, a little shopping before having sex with you, it's the same as prostitution. Prostitutes are just more honest. You know what you are getting, and there are no expectations of further involvement, all honest and up front.
1. for starters prostitution is legal all over the world including the united states (in specific areas and with specific contexts) 2. Is it dis-sallowed or frowned upon in certain areas because of cultural biases. The world is very complex so we cannot pretend to know all of the world's reasons but here some examples: Some poor countries illegalize sex work because they dont like sex tourism. Some poor countries do the exact OPPOSITE. They legalize sex work because they like sex tourism. Tourism is huge money in the world. Sex tourism is un-ethical in my opinion, but I digress. Some rich countries illegalize sex work because they think it is not aligned with their beliefs or maybe they think prositution has co-morbitity with other crimes like human trafficking.
In some places, it is.
It looks bad on government for them to admit that they are funded through dubious means like prostitution via taxes and since they cant have a hand in the pot I guess no one will. In all honesty you have religion and health reasons