Every once in awhile I wake up in the morning from dreams that give me deeper insight into issues going on in the world. This morning I woke up wondering how it is possible that porn is legal to produce yet prostitution. Essentially both businesses involve people paying other people for sexual services. Porn may be safer, because they may screen people for diseases and all, but at it's root it is very close to prostitution. My only thought is that prostitution may violate solicitation laws, vagrant laws, or public indecenty laws in some way shape or form. So what are your thoughts on this?
I agree, it makes no sense. If I paid a woman to have basic sex with me, that would be illegal. However if I paid a woman to let me and a midget both fuck her in the ass at the same time while I filmed it, then I charged you a fee to see it, somehow that's not illegal. I've given up trying to figure out why it's that way, really I'm just grateful that at least porn is still legal.
harrydave has it right. This is just how it is here. You should be glad the loop holes at least exist.
It's just like the whole idea of "escorts" vs prostitutes. We all know what the money really is for but it's classified as just being for their "time."
Vagrancy laws were ruled Unconstitutional by SCOTUS a long time ago and no longer exist. Prostitution is legal in parts of Nevada. RELL: indoor Prostitution was not illegal in Rhode Island until November 2009. Rhode Island is an ultra liberal, blue state. Don't blame Christians since here the laws were changed by liberals or progressives or whatever those annoying busybodies are calling themselves now. A dumber example of laws run amuk, this time from the bluest blue state Massachusetts: Sex with a 16 yr. old girl is legal. Take a naked picture of her and you go to jail. Blame the Christians or the 97% Democrat controlled legislature?
Porn is legal because it can, for the most part, be controlled and taxed relatively easily. Prostitution on the other hand can not since the authorities can rightly assume that girls and thier pimps/agents would never declare their 'earnings'.
oh nah skibum.. im not blaming christians.. hell im one myself.. im talking about those who are extremist and try to throw god into every arguement they want to make a case for and arent even true christians
I think londonguy is right, but the real reason is because the actors are paid for portraying a work of fiction. The individual actors do not pay each other for sex; all are paid wages by the production company.
That is a significant different in the eyes of the law.
Chukko
Great question. What bothers me is that we could all benefit mightily from making prostitution legal and yet we can't seem to get past the blue laws. I am probably going to encounter someone who thinks that all prostitutes are acting out traumas from their past and are basically enslaved, but that is too simple a take.
If we were to lealize prostitution, society could choose a variety of options. Here's just a couple:
• legal prostitutes might be required to be licensed and some of the requirements might be
- Monthly physicals and tests to help prevent disease transmission and to provide the prostit. with early warning of a problem - and it could be provided w/o cost to individuals or at attractive rates to larger organizations.
• The amateur abusing pimps would quickly lose almost all their "goods and services"
• Organized crime would be displaced by organzed service providers but Org. Crims might use the business as a clean operation that afforded many chances to move money.
• A significant revenue flow would be taken away from criminal operations thereby making the business less profitable for them and also reducing the presence of illicit organized operators. (It's still a business)
**Remember that organized crime was inadvertantly built in this country by the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. Any doubters should read about the growth of drug store chains during that period - if your doctor prescribed booze for medicinal purposes, you could buy it legally at drug stores- so it appears that the major beneficiaries of Am 18 were Walgreens (No offense W) and La Cosa Nostra. There was unceasing demand and a limited number of people willing to service that demand. JACKPOT!!!!****
• Well, what is the Oldest Profession? Do we really think we can legislate this out of existence? If you believe that I would like to offer you this great bridge that I could sell you.
Since we have at least 4,000 years of recorded history about the industry (One source: The Bible)we can assume it won't cease to exist. So let's get real and deal with it for what it is - a service industry that could use a little oversight. By the way, the reforms would all be paid for by services fees(Taxes). Don't believe it? Check towns that have legalized gambling. (Somebody once observed that if we were to legalize prostitution and impose a modest tax, we could pay off the national debt in two months)
I may be mistaken, but I think there are specific laws in some jurisdictions that allow for the production of Porn videos.
Second, the argument can be made that porn is covered under the First Ammendment. That isn't true of prostitution. Also, outdoor prostitution, and some indoor prostitution causes problems from public health and safety to annoyance to traffic problems. None of that really happens with the production of porn.
Again, I could be wrong; but I don't think you could pay off the national debt with a prostitution tax if every female in America stayed on her back constantly for the entire two months.
It won't pay off the national debt obviously, but it can still help toward that. I also think that it should be legalized, and not because I wish to use such services (it's already basically possible through escorts), but for the economic reasons as well.
Similar arguments are made for legalizing drugs such as marijuana.
Good points everyone. I doubt that porn will ever be banned and if it is then it will still be watched. This is a country that moved away from church and state for a reason. Banning porn is simply an attempt to impose religious values, which would be moving us back hundreds of years in time. Plus, it won't stop human traffiking. It my increase it.
the sad truth of prostitution is that making it illegal doesn't stop it from happening, it just makes the women who engage in it more likely to become victims of many different crimes. I read somewhere once that a prostitute is far more likely to be killed or severely beaten by a dissatisfied john than the average woman is to suffer a similar attack from a boyfriend/husband. that doesn't count the number of prostitutes who are robbed and/or raped by customers. all of them face the prospect of jail for their "illegal" activities if they report what happened to them, making it less likely they will seek legal help. all because some "blue-nosed" idiots know what's best for the rest of us. hooray for America!
[yes, that was an ironic comment]
Gatorfan hit the nail on the head -- the advocacy in favor of porn (you can thank Hugh and Larry and Bob, among others, of course!) is something that prostitution seldom has had. The history of the Nevada brothels' lobbying and political methods is probably an interesting one, and might teach us all something about how we could go about securing our "right" to access paid sex and sex-related services. The models of legislation, and advocacy, from other nations might not be as instructive, since they don't labor under the history of religion-based immigration that we do. In fact, for much of Western Europe, the people who were most hung up about sex were deliberately LEAVING. And coming over HERE.
It seems to me, that the distribution of porn somehow got American people to think in terms of freedom of expression and the First Amendment, whereas plain ol' non-filmed nookie just hasn't found its proper inalienable right yet.
PS -- I also don't think this is a red-versus-blue (Democrats / Republicans) issue. The question of which "side" is "for" or "against" prostitution or liberalization is much cloudier than that, because either American wing includes people for and against.
So, when you mention "typical" Republicans, you might mean either Ron Paul or Billy Graham. A true Libertarian would reject religious-based rule of law as a type of unnecessary government restraint, and would probably want prostitution to be unregulated because of the theory that a mostly free market would enable resolution of the ancillary problems (attendant crime, etc.); whereas a true member of a Fundamentalist Protestant Christian sect would probably reject prostitution as something inappropriate and against his "morals." Yet both would probably vote for a Republican rather than a Democrat, if all other things were equal.
Similarly, the Democratic party also has people who come from both angles. There are femi-nazis who would believe that allowing prostitution would somehow enable male hegemony and phallic dominance over their sisterhood; and there are wild-'n'-hairy hippie types who would suggest that the limitation of sexuality would be unreasonable "fascism." In fact, plenty of people have written about how prostitution conflicts the traditional Left. I think if you keep the Libertarian in mind, you can see that it conflicts the traditional Right as well.
Generally, everything I like brings about a conflict in both parties. Sex, drugs, rock-n-roll, soccer, did I say sex?
22 comments
Latest
It's just like the whole idea of "escorts" vs prostitutes. We all know what the money really is for but it's classified as just being for their "time."
That is a significant different in the eyes of the law.
Great question. What bothers me is that we could all benefit mightily from making prostitution legal and yet we can't seem to get past the blue laws. I am probably going to encounter someone who thinks that all prostitutes are acting out traumas from their past and are basically enslaved, but that is too simple a take.
If we were to lealize prostitution, society could choose a variety of options. Here's just a couple:
• legal prostitutes might be required to be licensed and some of the requirements might be
- Monthly physicals and tests to help prevent disease transmission and to provide the prostit. with early warning of a problem - and it could be provided w/o cost to individuals or at attractive rates to larger organizations.
• The amateur abusing pimps would quickly lose almost all their "goods and services"
• Organized crime would be displaced by organzed service providers but Org. Crims might use the business as a clean operation that afforded many chances to move money.
• A significant revenue flow would be taken away from criminal operations thereby making the business less profitable for them and also reducing the presence of illicit organized operators. (It's still a business)
**Remember that organized crime was inadvertantly built in this country by the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. Any doubters should read about the growth of drug store chains during that period - if your doctor prescribed booze for medicinal purposes, you could buy it legally at drug stores- so it appears that the major beneficiaries of Am 18 were Walgreens (No offense W) and La Cosa Nostra. There was unceasing demand and a limited number of people willing to service that demand. JACKPOT!!!!****
• Well, what is the Oldest Profession? Do we really think we can legislate this out of existence? If you believe that I would like to offer you this great bridge that I could sell you.
Since we have at least 4,000 years of recorded history about the industry (One source: The Bible)we can assume it won't cease to exist. So let's get real and deal with it for what it is - a service industry that could use a little oversight. By the way, the reforms would all be paid for by services fees(Taxes). Don't believe it? Check towns that have legalized gambling. (Somebody once observed that if we were to legalize prostitution and impose a modest tax, we could pay off the national debt in two months)
Second, the argument can be made that porn is covered under the First Ammendment. That isn't true of prostitution. Also, outdoor prostitution, and some indoor prostitution causes problems from public health and safety to annoyance to traffic problems. None of that really happens with the production of porn.
Similar arguments are made for legalizing drugs such as marijuana.
They're working on that.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07…
[yes, that was an ironic comment]
It seems to me, that the distribution of porn somehow got American people to think in terms of freedom of expression and the First Amendment, whereas plain ol' non-filmed nookie just hasn't found its proper inalienable right yet.
So, when you mention "typical" Republicans, you might mean either Ron Paul or Billy Graham. A true Libertarian would reject religious-based rule of law as a type of unnecessary government restraint, and would probably want prostitution to be unregulated because of the theory that a mostly free market would enable resolution of the ancillary problems (attendant crime, etc.); whereas a true member of a Fundamentalist Protestant Christian sect would probably reject prostitution as something inappropriate and against his "morals." Yet both would probably vote for a Republican rather than a Democrat, if all other things were equal.
Similarly, the Democratic party also has people who come from both angles. There are femi-nazis who would believe that allowing prostitution would somehow enable male hegemony and phallic dominance over their sisterhood; and there are wild-'n'-hairy hippie types who would suggest that the limitation of sexuality would be unreasonable "fascism." In fact, plenty of people have written about how prostitution conflicts the traditional Left. I think if you keep the Libertarian in mind, you can see that it conflicts the traditional Right as well.
Generally, everything I like brings about a conflict in both parties. Sex, drugs, rock-n-roll, soccer, did I say sex?