Should prostitution be legalized?

Telling people about what is decent isn't the problem. It is the idea that the government should have a say. An individual can talk about how denigrated you are all day long, can even try to get you to quit your job through persuasion, but saying the government should set the measure of what level of "denigration" you should set upon yourself? Just total poppycock.

Some people feel denigrated if they have to work as a Janitor, should we make that job illegal? Some people feel proud of what they are doing at that same job, yet kids still make fun of them. Should we make it so they can only do it in the dark of night and protect them from "denigration"?

It is never the government's place to ensure you do not make a choice that might "denigrate" you. It is not okay to suggest that it should be, it is an insult to the idea of freedom that we should work to protect anybody from choosing such a path. Protect the underage, protect the health of customers, but stop saying it is okay to dig into freedoms because you are protecting people from "denigrating" themselves.
 
Southern Man said:
Post 39. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Yeah, you keep insisting that prostitution denigrates women.

But the truth is that it doesn't denigrate them when its legal.

Besides, keeping it illegal means they prostitutes are not protected from pimps, violent customers, or diseases.

By making it legal and regulating it, you would remove those hazards.


http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/prostitution.htm

"That view is consistent with the experience of the European countries where prostitution is legal. They have far lower crime rates than the U.S.

A similar situation applies in the Nevada counties where prostitution is legal. According to Barb Brents and Kate Hausbeck, two professors of sociology at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas who have extensively studied the Nevada brothel industry, those counties are quite peaceable and have very low crime rates. "


"Many people work in the sex industry because they see it as their only means of alleviating serious financial problems. Other sex workers aren't poor but simply enjoy that type of work and receive both income and personal satisfaction from it.

As one sex worker wrote in an article for a national newspaper: "All in all prostitution has been good to me and I have been good to it. . . . I don't really have to work anymore, but I love the business, so I still see my regular clients."

Likewise for the customers, there's no reason their freedom should not include the right to purchase the companionship and affection they may want but, for whatever reason, don't find in other aspects of their lives.

For example, one disabled man told researchers he was lonely and visited prostitutes because "I'm ugly, no women will go out with me. . . . It's because of my disability. So prostitutes are a sexual outlet for me." Another man reported that he did the same for a number of years due to being "anorexic and very reclusive. There was no chance of forming a relationship." A physically unattractive man added, "I pay for sex because that is the only way I can get sex."

Another person said his experiences with prostitutes and other sex workers helped him overcome an extreme aversion to physical intimacy, which had resulted from years of physical and emotional abuse while growing up. He explained: "I very likely would have died a virgin if I hadn't somehow gotten comfortable with physical intimacy, and sex workers enabled me to do that. At least for me, it's been a healing experience."

Dr. John Money, a leading sexologist and a professor at Johns Hopkins University, similarly notes that sex workers, with proper training, can assist clients in overcoming "erotic phobia" and various other sexual dysfunctions. He says that for the clients, "the relationship with a paid professional may be the equivalent of therapy."

Can anyone, other than the ignorant or cruel, argue that sex workers should not be permitted to help such persons?"
 
Damocles said:
Telling people about what is decent isn't the problem. It is the idea that the government should have a say. An individual can talk about how denigrated you are all day long, can even try to get you to quit your job through persuasion, but saying the government should set the measure of what level of "denigration" you should set upon yourself? Just total poppycock.

Some people feel denigrated if they have to work as a Janitor, should we make that job illegal? Some people feel proud of what they are doing at that same job, yet kids still make fun of them. Should we make it so they can only do it in the dark of night and protect them from "denigration"?

It is never the government's place to ensure you do not make a choice that might "denigrate" you. It is not okay to suggest that it should be, it is an insult to the idea of freedom that we should work to protect anybody from choosing such a path. Protect the underage, protect the health of customers, but stop saying it is okay to dig into freedoms because you are protecting people from "denigrating" themselves.
Click to expand...

The US government was founded on moral principles. If we lose that we lose the justification for our founding. How can that acceptable to anyone?
 
Southern Man said:
The US government was founded on moral principles. If we lose that we lose the justification for our founding. How can that acceptable to anyone?
Click to expand...

They didn't seem to have much problem with, for example, slavery and the disenfranchisement of women and the poor back in the day.

I know you're always banging on about some imaginary golden age of principle and morality. So, you want those moral principles back then?
 
Southern Man said:
The US government was founded on moral principles. If we lose that we lose the justification for our founding. How can that acceptable to anyone?
Click to expand...
No, the US government was founded on the idea that YOU get to pick your moral principles, not the government. If an adult woman chooses that line of work, you deny her because you are protecting her virtue? Total and absolute over-reach of any government power. She is the master of her virtue, not you.
 
charver said:
They didn't seem to have much problem with, for example, slavery and the disenfranchisement of women and the poor back in the day.

I know you're always banging on about some imaginary golden age of principle and morality. So, you want those moral principles back then?
Click to expand...

The founding principles are as stated in the Declaration of Independence; the Self-Evident Truths. That would be independence from you Limeys.:pke:
 
Southern Man said:
The founding principles are as stated in the Declaration of Independence; the Self-Evident Truths. That would be independence from you Limeys.:pke:
Click to expand...

Honestly mate, we got over it a long, long time ago.

So, you want those principles back or not?
 
Southern Man said:
The founding principles are as stated in the Declaration of Independence; the Self-Evident Truths. That would be independence from you Limeys.:pke:
Click to expand...
One of those self-evident truths is that they have the right to choose where their pursuit of happiness leads them, another is that they get to choose what moral values drive them. The problem is, and where you fall well outside of "conservative" into radicalism, is the idea that the only moral values are yours. They have a right to their own religion and beliefs, the founders even wrote it directly into the constitution as the first of Amendments.
 
Damocles said:
No, the US government was founded on the idea that YOU get to pick your moral principles, not the government. If an adult woman chooses that line of work, you deny her because you are protecting her virtue? Total and absolute over-reach of any government power. She is the master of her virtue, not you.
Click to expand...

Damo nice southern idoit burn:clink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top