On November 28 2007 12:19 Hot_Bid wrote: This would be all good if there was only one biological sex. Unfortunately, women already have huge, systemic problems as a gender in America. Legalization of prostitution will have a huge impact on this, and one can argue it will only increase the problems that women already have, for many of the reasons I stated on page 13. You simply cannot separate prostitution with the implications it has on women's rights and the overall advancement of that gender.
I really, really disagree with this. The sex trade wouldn't been in place for the wide spread exploitation and objectifying of women. It would be no worse than the state of the already operational escort services and sex trade in Nevada.
Woman's rights is a whole other discussion though.
EDIT: Also, prostitution would be a legal sex trade.
Males do escorting, prostitution and legal sex in Nevada as well. The industry would be predominantly female, sure, but that is due to the client base. The existence of the industry would be no worse than the existence of the industries that degrade women already. Sex trade is sex trade, there is little difference between pornography and prostitution. You can't have one and not the other. Not from a moral or a woman's rights view point. The objectifying as woman as sex objects doesn't really change because it has a different outlet. Pornography, strip clubs, escort services, prostitution, peep shows, sex talk lines all objectify women into sexual objects. You either have them all or none. Anything else is really just being inconsistent.
The whole "all or none" argument is very clean and easy to make, but looking at the current state of society, it's probably fair to say that all these things (prostitution, pornography, strippers, sex talk lines, etc) damage women's rights to some degree (or enhance them, depending on your view of women's rights, that's a whole other argument), and that by legalizing prostitution you are simply adding another legal way for women to be degraded. That is why it should be opposed from a certain women's rights perspective, because it's just adding another element to an already systemic problem.
Which merely comes back to my original point. Abolishing the sex trade is impossible no matter how much you try. Attempting to do so just creates a violent, very dangerous and incredibly profitable black market and wastes resources on attempting to control that black market. It puts the control right in the hands of the bad guys that will break the rules and exploit people. The only way to prevent that is to create a market so that the black market isn't worthwhile. You can't get rid of a black market by attempting to destroy it or control it. You make a market it can't compete with because it tilts the risk/reward to the point that it isn't worthwhile.
Since you can't abolish it you have to exist with it. You either live with the black market or a regulated market. It's your choice.
It's going to exist no matter what you do.
YEAH LETS LOWER THE BAR EVEN MORE AND LEGALIZE HEROIN AND CRACK TOO !
On November 28 2007 12:41 Hot_Bid wrote: Yes, there's no way to really tell how it will work the United States. I was simply being the devil's advocate to you and Tien and making arguments several people said in class in a much more eloquent and better way than I did here. I can't really elaborate much more on them because, to be honest, I'm not that knowledgeable in that field.
I just wanted to you guys know there are very legitimate reasons for opposing prostitution than simply believing it is "morally wrong" or "bad" as many have stated here.
Oh I know, I already admitted there are more reasons to opposing prostitution. I was saying the issue with the people opposing it are they are acting on the grounds of it being morally wrong or bad. As I said earlier, the world doesn't care about your morals or how you feel about them. I could argue the side opposing prostitution all day. But I'd do it more philosophically than by believing it to be how the real world would best operate as it currently exists. The opposing side has points, but I think it is obliterated by the side advocating it.
Though neither side has made really great arguments on this forum so far. I think the dominating factor is putting an end to an incredibly violent, dangerous, manipulative and profitable black market. You accomplish that by regulation not prohibition. You take the power out of the bad guys hands and put it into the hands of a regulated industry. It makes society as a whole safer. The other factors pale in comparison to this, in my opinion.
it's probably fair to say that all these things (prostitution, pornography, strippers, sex talk lines, etc) damage women's rights to some degree (or enhance them, depending on your view of women's rights, that's a whole other argument), and that by legalizing prostitution you are simply adding another legal way for women to be degraded
That's probably the strongest point against prostitution.
Yeah it's really a grey issue, since I don't think if I sleep with a prostitute I am degrading women in any way but others view it differently.
An entire industry based on "objectifying" / "degrading women" exists but in my oppinion, I think the feminists are taking this out of proportion, men are just hardwired completetly different than women.
On November 28 2007 12:19 Hot_Bid wrote: This would be all good if there was only one biological sex. Unfortunately, women already have huge, systemic problems as a gender in America. Legalization of prostitution will have a huge impact on this, and one can argue it will only increase the problems that women already have, for many of the reasons I stated on page 13. You simply cannot separate prostitution with the implications it has on women's rights and the overall advancement of that gender.
I really, really disagree with this. The sex trade wouldn't been in place for the wide spread exploitation and objectifying of women. It would be no worse than the state of the already operational escort services and sex trade in Nevada.
Woman's rights is a whole other discussion though.
EDIT: Also, prostitution would be a legal sex trade.
Males do escorting, prostitution and legal sex in Nevada as well. The industry would be predominantly female, sure, but that is due to the client base. The existence of the industry would be no worse than the existence of the industries that degrade women already. Sex trade is sex trade, there is little difference between pornography and prostitution. You can't have one and not the other. Not from a moral or a woman's rights view point. The objectifying as woman as sex objects doesn't really change because it has a different outlet. Pornography, strip clubs, escort services, prostitution, peep shows, sex talk lines all objectify women into sexual objects. You either have them all or none. Anything else is really just being inconsistent.
The whole "all or none" argument is very clean and easy to make, but looking at the current state of society, it's probably fair to say that all these things (prostitution, pornography, strippers, sex talk lines, etc) damage women's rights to some degree (or enhance them, depending on your view of women's rights, that's a whole other argument), and that by legalizing prostitution you are simply adding another legal way for women to be degraded. That is why it should be opposed from a certain women's rights perspective, because it's just adding another element to an already systemic problem.
Which merely comes back to my original point. Abolishing the sex trade is impossible no matter how much you try. Attempting to do so just creates a violent, very dangerous and incredibly profitable black market and wastes resources on attempting to control that black market. It puts the control right in the hands of the bad guys that will break the rules and exploit people. The only way to prevent that is to create a market so that the black market isn't worthwhile. You can't get rid of a black market by attempting to destroy it or control it. You make a market it can't compete with because it tilts the risk/reward to the point that it isn't worthwhile.
Since you can't abolish it you have to exist with it. You either live with the black market or a regulated market. It's your choice.
It's going to exist no matter what you do.
YEAH LETS LOWER THE BAR EVEN MORE AND LEGALIZE HEROIN AND CRACK TOO !
why not?
oh wait, because if heroin was legal everyone would use it, abuse it, overdose on it and die. forgot about that. good thing we're controlling our neighbor's lives by babysitting them with the gun of a 10 year prison sentence pointed at their head, or the whole world would collapse, right?
On November 28 2007 12:19 Hot_Bid wrote: This would be all good if there was only one biological sex. Unfortunately, women already have huge, systemic problems as a gender in America. Legalization of prostitution will have a huge impact on this, and one can argue it will only increase the problems that women already have, for many of the reasons I stated on page 13. You simply cannot separate prostitution with the implications it has on women's rights and the overall advancement of that gender.
I really, really disagree with this. The sex trade wouldn't been in place for the wide spread exploitation and objectifying of women. It would be no worse than the state of the already operational escort services and sex trade in Nevada.
Woman's rights is a whole other discussion though.
EDIT: Also, prostitution would be a legal sex trade.
Males do escorting, prostitution and legal sex in Nevada as well. The industry would be predominantly female, sure, but that is due to the client base. The existence of the industry would be no worse than the existence of the industries that degrade women already. Sex trade is sex trade, there is little difference between pornography and prostitution. You can't have one and not the other. Not from a moral or a woman's rights view point. The objectifying as woman as sex objects doesn't really change because it has a different outlet. Pornography, strip clubs, escort services, prostitution, peep shows, sex talk lines all objectify women into sexual objects. You either have them all or none. Anything else is really just being inconsistent.
The whole "all or none" argument is very clean and easy to make, but looking at the current state of society, it's probably fair to say that all these things (prostitution, pornography, strippers, sex talk lines, etc) damage women's rights to some degree (or enhance them, depending on your view of women's rights, that's a whole other argument), and that by legalizing prostitution you are simply adding another legal way for women to be degraded. That is why it should be opposed from a certain women's rights perspective, because it's just adding another element to an already systemic problem.
Which merely comes back to my original point. Abolishing the sex trade is impossible no matter how much you try. Attempting to do so just creates a violent, very dangerous and incredibly profitable black market and wastes resources on attempting to control that black market. It puts the control right in the hands of the bad guys that will break the rules and exploit people. The only way to prevent that is to create a market so that the black market isn't worthwhile. You can't get rid of a black market by attempting to destroy it or control it. You make a market it can't compete with because it tilts the risk/reward to the point that it isn't worthwhile.
Since you can't abolish it you have to exist with it. You either live with the black market or a regulated market. It's your choice.
It's going to exist no matter what you do.
YEAH LETS LOWER THE BAR EVEN MORE AND LEGALIZE HEROIN AND CRACK TOO !
Having a regulated and controlled drug market(would be combined with the alcohol market because lets face it, alcohol is a drug) would be great for society as it currently exists. Destroying the market that revolves around the current drug would would be a huge step forward. It would make substances able to be more readily researched and make the general population more educated about drugs. It would largely remove the stigma caused by the underground nature of much of the drug culture and bring society more together. It would keep from poor substance quality from causing deaths and would keep people safer(both due to the non-existence of the black market, the greater education and the guaranteed quality of the substances). That really only scrapes the surface of it. Anybody who really wants to get drugs can get them. Prohibitions don't stop that. Regulations wouldn't change that. Unless you are going to disagree with this by doing anything more than an emotional outburst of some form or another, don't bother. The issue goes far beyond what you think it does and involves a lot more than "drugs are bad, mmmkay". It has to do with how societies work and react to prohibitions and how people work. It has more things tied in to it than you are apparently aware of.
But I've been told not to derail the thread so I'll leave it at that. If this was inappropriate, delete this Hot_Bid. I thought the point tied in with prostitution some what. The drug market and the prostitution market are fairly similar. The society effects would be in different areas but are similar in some ways.
On November 28 2007 12:19 Hot_Bid wrote: This would be all good if there was only one biological sex. Unfortunately, women already have huge, systemic problems as a gender in America. Legalization of prostitution will have a huge impact on this, and one can argue it will only increase the problems that women already have, for many of the reasons I stated on page 13. You simply cannot separate prostitution with the implications it has on women's rights and the overall advancement of that gender.
I really, really disagree with this. The sex trade wouldn't been in place for the wide spread exploitation and objectifying of women. It would be no worse than the state of the already operational escort services and sex trade in Nevada.
Woman's rights is a whole other discussion though.
EDIT: Also, prostitution would be a legal sex trade.
Males do escorting, prostitution and legal sex in Nevada as well. The industry would be predominantly female, sure, but that is due to the client base. The existence of the industry would be no worse than the existence of the industries that degrade women already. Sex trade is sex trade, there is little difference between pornography and prostitution. You can't have one and not the other. Not from a moral or a woman's rights view point. The objectifying as woman as sex objects doesn't really change because it has a different outlet. Pornography, strip clubs, escort services, prostitution, peep shows, sex talk lines all objectify women into sexual objects. You either have them all or none. Anything else is really just being inconsistent.
The whole "all or none" argument is very clean and easy to make, but looking at the current state of society, it's probably fair to say that all these things (prostitution, pornography, strippers, sex talk lines, etc) damage women's rights to some degree (or enhance them, depending on your view of women's rights, that's a whole other argument), and that by legalizing prostitution you are simply adding another legal way for women to be degraded. That is why it should be opposed from a certain women's rights perspective, because it's just adding another element to an already systemic problem.
Which merely comes back to my original point. Abolishing the sex trade is impossible no matter how much you try. Attempting to do so just creates a violent, very dangerous and incredibly profitable black market and wastes resources on attempting to control that black market. It puts the control right in the hands of the bad guys that will break the rules and exploit people. The only way to prevent that is to create a market so that the black market isn't worthwhile. You can't get rid of a black market by attempting to destroy it or control it. You make a market it can't compete with because it tilts the risk/reward to the point that it isn't worthwhile.
Since you can't abolish it you have to exist with it. You either live with the black market or a regulated market. It's your choice.
It's going to exist no matter what you do.
YEAH LETS LOWER THE BAR EVEN MORE AND LEGALIZE HEROIN AND CRACK TOO !
why not?
oh wait, because if heroin was legal everyone would use it, abuse it, overdose on it and die. forgot about that. good thing we're controlling our neighbor's lives by babysitting them with the gun of a 10 year prison sentence pointed at their head, or the whole world would collapse, right?
Oh definitely. If we allowed people to do as they pleased rather than enforcing prohibition the world would quickly degrade into endless debauchery. Not only you, me and my dying grand mother, but the kids at the playground would have heroin needles protruding from the many arteries, there skin would be ravaged by the meth and there lips would be permanently melded to the crack pipes. We would be chasing the pink dragon forever more while having our way with an endless line of female and/or male prostitutes. The world as we know it would collapse as surgeries and law enforcement were carried out in the nude and amputation was considered a way of saying "Hey, I like you". The economy would collapse. School wouldn't matter. Genital mutilation would be all the rage. People would slowly revert back into apes but with all sorts of new appendages and mutations. The world would be a horrible horrible place.
On November 28 2007 12:19 Hot_Bid wrote: This would be all good if there was only one biological sex. Unfortunately, women already have huge, systemic problems as a gender in America. Legalization of prostitution will have a huge impact on this, and one can argue it will only increase the problems that women already have, for many of the reasons I stated on page 13. You simply cannot separate prostitution with the implications it has on women's rights and the overall advancement of that gender.
I really, really disagree with this. The sex trade wouldn't been in place for the wide spread exploitation and objectifying of women. It would be no worse than the state of the already operational escort services and sex trade in Nevada.
Woman's rights is a whole other discussion though.
EDIT: Also, prostitution would be a legal sex trade.
Males do escorting, prostitution and legal sex in Nevada as well. The industry would be predominantly female, sure, but that is due to the client base. The existence of the industry would be no worse than the existence of the industries that degrade women already. Sex trade is sex trade, there is little difference between pornography and prostitution. You can't have one and not the other. Not from a moral or a woman's rights view point. The objectifying as woman as sex objects doesn't really change because it has a different outlet. Pornography, strip clubs, escort services, prostitution, peep shows, sex talk lines all objectify women into sexual objects. You either have them all or none. Anything else is really just being inconsistent.
The whole "all or none" argument is very clean and easy to make, but looking at the current state of society, it's probably fair to say that all these things (prostitution, pornography, strippers, sex talk lines, etc) damage women's rights to some degree (or enhance them, depending on your view of women's rights, that's a whole other argument), and that by legalizing prostitution you are simply adding another legal way for women to be degraded. That is why it should be opposed from a certain women's rights perspective, because it's just adding another element to an already systemic problem.
Which merely comes back to my original point. Abolishing the sex trade is impossible no matter how much you try. Attempting to do so just creates a violent, very dangerous and incredibly profitable black market and wastes resources on attempting to control that black market. It puts the control right in the hands of the bad guys that will break the rules and exploit people. The only way to prevent that is to create a market so that the black market isn't worthwhile. You can't get rid of a black market by attempting to destroy it or control it. You make a market it can't compete with because it tilts the risk/reward to the point that it isn't worthwhile.
Since you can't abolish it you have to exist with it. You either live with the black market or a regulated market. It's your choice.
It's going to exist no matter what you do.
YEAH LETS LOWER THE BAR EVEN MORE AND LEGALIZE HEROIN AND CRACK TOO !
Having a regulated and controlled drug market(would be combined with the alcohol market because lets face it, alcohol is a drug) would be great for society as it currently exists. Destroying the market that revolves around the current drug would would be a huge step forward. It would make substances able to be more readily researched and make the general population more educated about drugs. It would largely remove the stigma caused by the underground nature of much of the drug culture and bring society more together. It would keep from poor substance quality from causing deaths and would keep people safer(both due to the non-existence of the black market, the greater education and the guaranteed quality of the substances). That really only scrapes the surface of it. Anybody who really wants to get drugs can get them. Prohibitions don't stop that. Regulations wouldn't change that. Unless you are going to disagree with this by doing anything more than an emotional outburst of some form or another, don't bother. The issue goes far beyond what you think it does and involves a lot more than "drugs are bad, mmmkay". It has to do with how societies work and react to prohibitions and how people work. It has more things tied in to it than you are apparently aware of.
But I've been told not to derail the thread so I'll leave it at that. If this was inappropriate, delete this Hot_Bid. I thought the point tied in with prostitution some what. The drug market and the prostitution market are fairly similar. The society effects would be in different areas but are similar in some ways.
What part of your brain says to you that legalizing drugs would be better for the society? You dont destroy a market by "embracing it", you destroy it by isolating it and setting laws against it. And define having a control market of drugs. ill go to sleep
On November 28 2007 11:40 ManaBlue wrote: I am throughly impressed with the quality of debate that has sprung from this thread. Nice stuff. I wish I had gotten more involved earlier.
As a moderate, but still identifiable, libertarian I tend to automatically side with free will and minimalist regulation. However, STDs are deadly and more importantly, terrifying. I do agree with many of the points baal made about regulation being more safe than the current black market.
However, the fact that it would be safer doesn't necessarily mean that we should automatically condone it as a society.
Here's an example, which in it's extremism is stupid but better serves to prove a point. If we regulated death matches in place of every murder, which netted us less deaths due to a lack of bystanders and collateral damage (accept this hypothetical, I know it's retarded), would it be okay for us to regulate and thus condone such killing?
Based entirely on the consequences, less people would die, so it would be good. However, would that fact free us of our responsibility to stand against the morally repulsive act of murder?
I know there are a gajillian holes in that hypothetical, but run with me on this. It's kind of an ends justifying the means question I suppose.
Regulation has nothing to do with condoning it. It is an acceptance of the world existing as it does and attempting to mold your society for the best possible outcome for everybody. Unless you can think of a way to abolish the sex trade(or murder as in your hypothetical) then your only option is to find a method in which to best exist with it.
It has nothing to do with morality. That's my issue with the people arguing the anti-prostitution side of the argument.
Good point. But how do we define how to "best exist with it"?
Perhaps we should track every John in our society and out them in a national advertising campaign! We could ruin reputations and increase the exposure of the terrifying stigma of being a hooker's trick.
Would that be okay? What if it decreased the number of contracted STDs by a noticable amount? What if it decreased violence against women by a noticable amount? Or increased the education and general success of people that would otherwise be taken into the sex trade?
What if it accomplished none of this? What exactly do we need to accomplish to "best exist" with prostitution?
After the first 2 sentences you basically gave me no desire to respond to this. What are you expecting from this post? Your suggestion is horrible and you already know it is.
Please post something a bit less ridiculous if you actually want to have a debate. I'm not trying to be offensive but seriously...
Are you kidding me? There's nothing ridiculous about my post, and you dismissing it does not make it so.
I'm trying to be good natured and continue the debate. Being shitty like this is what started your tiff with inc and nearly ruined the thread.
Nobody has addressed the fact that prostitute-cum will drench your balls, despite a condom. And that's a big fucking deal with a prostitute, maybe 1000x moreso than with any other type of woman. Gross, yucky. Warts and herpes FTL
On November 28 2007 11:40 ManaBlue wrote: I am throughly impressed with the quality of debate that has sprung from this thread. Nice stuff. I wish I had gotten more involved earlier.
As a moderate, but still identifiable, libertarian I tend to automatically side with free will and minimalist regulation. However, STDs are deadly and more importantly, terrifying. I do agree with many of the points baal made about regulation being more safe than the current black market.
However, the fact that it would be safer doesn't necessarily mean that we should automatically condone it as a society.
Here's an example, which in it's extremism is stupid but better serves to prove a point. If we regulated death matches in place of every murder, which netted us less deaths due to a lack of bystanders and collateral damage (accept this hypothetical, I know it's retarded), would it be okay for us to regulate and thus condone such killing?
Based entirely on the consequences, less people would die, so it would be good. However, would that fact free us of our responsibility to stand against the morally repulsive act of murder?
I know there are a gajillian holes in that hypothetical, but run with me on this. It's kind of an ends justifying the means question I suppose.
Regulation has nothing to do with condoning it. It is an acceptance of the world existing as it does and attempting to mold your society for the best possible outcome for everybody. Unless you can think of a way to abolish the sex trade(or murder as in your hypothetical) then your only option is to find a method in which to best exist with it.
It has nothing to do with morality. That's my issue with the people arguing the anti-prostitution side of the argument.
Good point. But how do we define how to "best exist with it"?
Perhaps we should track every John in our society and out them in a national advertising campaign! We could ruin reputations and increase the exposure of the terrifying stigma of being a hooker's trick.
Would that be okay? What if it decreased the number of contracted STDs by a noticable amount? What if it decreased violence against women by a noticable amount? Or increased the education and general success of people that would otherwise be taken into the sex trade?
What if it accomplished none of this? What exactly do we need to accomplish to "best exist" with prostitution?
After the first 2 sentences you basically gave me no desire to respond to this. What are you expecting from this post? Your suggestion is horrible and you already know it is.
Please post something a bit less ridiculous if you actually want to have a debate. I'm not trying to be offensive but seriously...
Are you kidding me? There's nothing ridiculous about my post, and you dismissing it does not make it so.
I'm trying to be good natured and continue the debate. Being shitty like this is what started your tiff with inc and nearly ruined the thread.
Learn from your mistakes buddy, seriously.
I was not shitty to inc, but to each their own.
There is no mistake to learn from. You suggested a ridiculous smear campaign against the clients as a suggestion for a "best exist" scenario? I can't possibly take you seriously if that's how you're going to debate. If that is honestly how you view best exist you are a terrible individual who has a very unfortunate view of what is good and is not.
Best exist would be a situation in which all parties who are not committing harm or exploiting others come out ahead in some fashion, as well as the rest of society being either progressed in some fashion or remaining unchanged. Maybe some variation of that explanation but that would be the general idea anyway.
You honestly expect me to take somebody seriously who wants me to debunk how a giant smear campaign against a group of people who are (for the most part) not hurting anybody to scare people into not feeding the black market. It wouldn't work and if you can't see that you're blind. Black markets don't respond to scare tactics. The people who use black markets don't respond to scare tactics. You're hurting people. People who are undeserving. People who are largely innocents. You suggest hurting them above hurting the bad guys. You suggest something that harms a large number of people rather than one that assimilates the industry, gets rid of the black market and leaves society largely unaffected.
What's the matter with you?
EDIT: I mean, I just thought you were being over the top for the sake of argument. If you're actually sincere...I just don't know =\
Newsflash... alcohol probably kills 100,000 to 1 ratio compared to Hookers...
But lets focus on the other samples, lets ban any extreme sport, these idiots are putting their own bodies willingly in danger, lest stop them!!!!! Hey, tackle me i risk my life racing rallies, putting my life at risk and also spectators at risk.
Yeah lets tackle any adult who willingly and understanding the risks take a decision thats puts him in danger.
Incontrol you gotta realize when you are just saying dumb shit, be honest with yourself i get you dont like prostitute, but thats because you are a fat prude dumbass and you dont have a strong argument about it, just read your post.
And if you want to protect people so much then common sense would say that yo ushould agree with the legalizaiton and regulation of prostitution so that prostitutes would be forced to have medical check-ups and practice safe sex... YAY now we got less people dying that apparently its ur goal.
EPT
