Do we really want to legalize prostitution?

I wouldn’t care all that much either way I don’t pay women for sex I pay them to leave that’s not illegal is it.

None of the legalization advocates want anything like the Nevada model. Today people are just calling for decriminalization. And what would it look like? Lots of young hotties in windows.

:)

SJG

I just don't want prostitution to be an arrestable offense and for LE to keep out of the clubs and do more important things. I think Londonguy said that in New Zealand the average hooker wasn't that expensive but the hot ones were much harder to find.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single thing that is legal right now that would be better of being illegal - it is no one else's business who has sex w/ who and why (at least if they are adults) - it's mostly hypocrisy - in the 1920's it was thought prohibition would cure many of society's ills but obviously people still wanted to drink and did and it created a huge criminal enterprise - it didn't solve shit if not make things worse.

w.r.t. Nevada brothels being expensive - of course - supply and demand - kinda a legal-sex monopoly so they are gonna be able to charge a premium by being the only game in town - Canada has legal prostitution and it doesn't seem to be outrageously expensive like Nevada if not actually quite-affordable per my limited knowledge.

It being legal does not mean it will be perfect, but I would think it'd be better and it being legal would probably bring down prices since when in the shadows there are more hoops to jump thru and a lot more "looking the other way" which adds to the cost.

We need FKK clubs.

For a few years in Rhode Island it was found that all prostitution laws only applied to outdoor transactions. Sex inside clubs was not illegal. So dancers were legally negotiating in clubs for sex. The legislature later changed the law but this was when the Providence Clubs were very busy.
About two years after the chastity belts were put on, a study was done by two graduate students from Roger Williams College.
Their study showed that while prostitution was legal the frequency of STD's dropped, sexual assaults declined at a statistically significant rate, and even child porn arrests declined.
This is from my memory and some details might be off, but if any of you who took advantage of this opportunity have a better recollection please correct my failing memory. Skibum? Others?
As usual, I didn't know about it till it was over. Similar to my investment strategies: Buy high; sell low.

Yes, I do. Even if the experience would somehow be worse for the mongers, it would still be a better arrangement because people would be free to do as they please.

Basically, I agree with everything John Stossel said. And also with everything @Papi_Chulo said.

I would also add that the reason prostitution in Nevada sucks is because it's still subject to tons of government rules and limits. Firstly, only counties with less than half a million residents are allowed to legalize prostitution. That's why they're out in the middle of nowhere... because Vegas has too many people living in it, so it's automatically illegal there. That's a stupid rule.

Secondly, for counties with smaller populations, the decision of whether or not to legalize it is up to the County authorities and the people living there. That's another stupid rule. It should be up to the hooker and her John and absolutely no one else.

Lastly, the state and the counties impose tons of additional costs that get passed on to the consumer, including licensing and inspection fees, mandatory STD testing, etc. Plus all the ridiculous rules about where brothels can be located (mostly in the middle of nowhere) and what you can and can't do with the hooker of your choice. This is a big improvement over keeping it illegal, but ideally we should want it to be legal for any adults to do whatever they wish, without needing licensing or government permission. That would make it better and prices would fall dramatically.

Restrictions people's sexuality has mever worked out well - ask the Vatican

Governments in my opinion should have no business dictating whom we can have sex with either free or paid, end of story. I understand laws protecting animals and kids but consenting adults should be legal. Elected officials want to control the masses and have been through countless stupid laws. I can't even legally play a game of poker in south carolina because someone in 1802 or 200 years ago made it illegal to play any game with dice or that involves chance. That means people can get arrested for playing a $5 poker game with friends but can bet thousands on bitcoin without any fear of arrest.

It is discrimination against single people or adults to criminalize sex between consenting adults. Legalization would likely reduce some stupid arrests and start lawmakers down the path to become more practical and police would spend more money solving crimes that hurt people rather than enforce some law that says you can't show a nipple in a strip club or fondle someone's breasts even if the adults are ok with it.

Some of these laws are on the books and may not be enforced unless someone is out to get someone and they happen to have a connection to a prosecutor or police. In South Carolina, they shut down a 3 billion dollar business with video poker because it was declared illegal. A 5% tax on winnings could have increased revenue for roads and schools saving taxpayers several hundred million a year. We have a serious revenue problem in the US with national debt and liabilities over 100 trillion dollars and most Americans don't realize we are fucked as a nation within a matter of a few years if national growth doesn't increase enough. It could last maximum 10 years before others realize we are fucked if growth picks up a little and tax revenue versus spending doesn't improve.

In other words if everyone was taxed 100% on their pay, our government still wouldn't be able to pay all their bills. We as Americans love debating trivial stuff.

@Rick999,

I agree with almost everything you said, but how would you feel if, somehow, legalizing gambling and prostitution wouldn't reduce the crime rate, if it wouldn't increase tax revenue, and if we didn't have a big imbalance between spending and revenue at basically every level of government? Furthermore, how would you feel if the evidence conclusively showed that legalizing prostitution directly led to more rapes, more disease, and more out-of-wedlock births? And, for good measure, let's say that all the evidence conclusively showed that legalizing gambling led directly to more gambling addiction, more organized crime, and more bankruptcies. Would you still support legalizing prostitution and gambling under these circumstances?

I know it's a silly hypothetical, but I'm just curious. For the record, I absolutely believe that legalizing these things would make the world a better place, but how would you feel if it didn't?

Yes.legalize it. 'nuff said.

We're currently in a prohibition era. It's all illegal. Some of the tax revenue could go towards those who have problems or addictions. If the overall effect was worse than it is now, then I might be in favor of making it illegal again. However just because 2 people out of 100 have trouble controlling themselves doesn't mean everyone else should refrain from sex. Same could be said for gambling or anything else. Now if those 2 people manage to hurt everyone else, we do need to prevent that.

I don't hear anyone calling for a prohibition on cars but I wouldn't be surprised if at some time in the future, some want to ban the ability of people to self drive their own cars. They will claim it will save thousands of lives per year. Would you support banning the ability of anyone to drive their own car without automation?

@Rick999,

I would never support banning anything except murder, rape, theft, slavery, and fraud. In my opinion, literally everything else should be legal.

Even if prostitution and gambling didn't raise a penny of tax revenue and even if they resulted in horrible things, it wouldn't matter much to me. I would still want them to be legal. Freedom is an end in itself, not merely a means to an end.

I think when we make these arguments where we promise things like "crime will go down," or "tax revenue will go up," or whatever, we run the risk of our predictions not coming true. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and other things may occur simultaneously that would cause crime to go up or tax revenue to go down, etc. And then, since we predicated our argument on these good outcomes, the voters and the politicians would begin to call for prohibition once again if the good outcomes fail to materialize.

The argument we *should* be making is that we live in a free society. If people can't be trusted to decide whether they want to sell their bodies or gamble with their own money, then they can't be trusted to do much of anything. And then we no longer have freedom.

I was just curious about how people would feel about legalizing these things without the positive policy implications. IMO, we should want them legalized regardless of the outcome.

Good statement, Burlington.

The problem with this country is the fact that for centuries, a lot of the laws in place are based on religious beliefs. The United States as a country exists because it was founded by people who left England to seek religious freedom. How many other nations out there have a foundation that is based on religion?

Our government is too stupid to realize that they are doing more harm than good by keeping prostitution illegal. Just take a look at Canada. Their population may not be nearly the size of the United States, but they are still have a very large population and they have legalized prostitution. I don't hear very many complaints from Canadians about having prostitution legalized.

If it works in a country like Canada, it can work in a country like the USA. All the people in Washington really need to do is implement a law that is almost identical to what Canada has. However, that is wishful thinking. Our government does not always have their priorities straight. Both Republicans and Democrats rarely act upon what is truly in the best interest for the majority of Americans.

Both political parties will argue, and all their supporters will scream from the hills " freedom party". When in actual fact the political system in the USA is far from it.

What they really mean is "we are the smart ones and will decide what you can and can't do", you are really free to do anything as long as those in power agree with it.

The attitudes in the USA toward sexuality are so out of step with the rest of the world it's laughable. Excluding the middle eastern countries prostitution is legal in some form virtually everywhere in the world. Why is that?

@s275ironman, @623,

Although there are some laws against interstate trafficking of women for sexual purposes, prostitution is generally a matter that is handled at the state level, not in Washington. As such, as we've been discussing, it is actually legal in parts of Nevada (and it used to be legal due to a loophole in Rhode island), and it generally was either legal or tolerated broadly almost everywhere until around 100 years ago. So clearly, the problem isn't "Washington." The States are free to legalize it as they please.

And I doubt that the problem is with "both political parties," either, as neither one takes a position on prostitution in their respective platform, so far as I know.

Furthermore, America was founded on religious freedom, but NOT on religion itself, and many of our States are indeed very secular. Take Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Alaska, for instance. All four are very secular States and yet prostitution remains illegal in all four states. Their state legislatures are free to legalize it, just as Nevada's did, and yet they don't.

As for prostitution being legal throughout most of the rest of the world, it's actually a mixed bag:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitu…

Most of the Western world does seem to allow it, but Russia, Japan, China, the Balkans, and India do not. With the exception of India, these are very secular countries. Also, ultra-secular (and allegedly enlightened) Scandinavia and France have laws under which it's legal to sell but not legal to buy sex.

So if the problem isn't Washington, religion, or the major parties, then why is prostitution still illegal here in America? As usual, the problem is the people, specifically the voters. Majorities of voters here in America simply do not yet approve of prostitution. It took a long time to get a majority of voters to back gay marriage and marijuana. Often, nothing happens in America until the Supreme Court decides that it's time for it to happen, and our legal system moves very slowly. Plus, our justices are allowed to sit on the bench until they croak, which means that it takes several generations to change things. Not to mention that they can simply decide not to hear a case outright. The judges can and should simply decide that prostitution is a legal civil right that applies to all Americans, just as they did with gay marriage... but they won't.

Comparing support for legal prostitution with support for legal marijuana is instructive. Note that majorities of Americans now do support legalized recreational marijuana. And yet it isn't legal in most places. Why? Because supporters will still vote for a candidate who opposes it, but those who oppose it will never vote for a candidate who supports it. In other words, majorities of voters support it but it just isn't all that important to them. They've got other things on their minds.

Burl's last paragraph and, particularly his last sentence, hits the nail on the head as to why prostitution is not legal. It's not an important enough issue to people.

It seems to make sense that it be legal but I don't expect that to happen in my lifetime.

Seat belt laws are bullshit.

Require manufacturers to put belts in vehicles? Absolutely.
Require drivers to belt children? Absolutely.

Ticket me for choosing to drive unbelted. GTFO!!

Bottom line -- the government needs to stop protecting me from me. Protect me from you and protect you from me. Protect those that are helpless. That's it.

Nevada style brothels? No.

German style? Abso-fucking-lutely.

If a feminist believes their rhetoric they have to be in favor of legalization.
I think that we would be better off moving the resources from punishing willing buyers (male and female) and willing sellers (male and female) to the traffickers. The organizations that take runaways hook them on drugs and sell them. or kidnap young girls and force them into the sex trade. If it were legal there would be less money in "prostitution" making it less attractive and harder to make the amount of money those shitbags extract today. Go after instead the suppliers of underage girls and boys.

I think prostitution should be legalized before POT.

If someone could explain the difference between prostitution and any other transaction between two adults involving a service, be my guest. I was in a service industry and people paid me to use my skill set. I see no difference unless one starts getting into philosophical reasons.

I dont see how prostitution busts work...if you dont say youre paying for sex on what grounds can they arrest you. Just being a generous fwb.

I think because we live in a sexually repressed society with puritanical laws, sex is viewed as special and more regulated than other transactions. The puritanical programming certain religious people were taught is that sex in many ways is bad if not controlled and regulated. I myself received this programming going to church services and was taught for instance that sex between gay people is wrong. Many people don't fight what they have been taught or programmed to believe. Many don't care since most people aren't gay for example. We can go into moral beliefs where people think doing something is wrong but people's beliefs are the result of their programs drilled into their brains from an early age. It's not easy to fight your programming.

As far as seat belt laws I once read an argument that seemed valid to me. It went something like those who do not wear seat belts increase the costs for everyone else who do with higher insurance premiums. The premiums are higher because of those who feel they don't need to use them and then they have more injuries and deaths as a result increasing costs into everyone else. In that respect since those who choose not to wear seat belts cost everyone else money, it is fair to pass a law which if they violate, fines will be imposed to recoup some of those costs back onto the group of people who are raising insurance premiums on everyone else. In this way, a law for seat belts and fines for violators seems more than fair to me. If I thought overall not wearing a seat belt didn't hurt me at all, I would have opposed the seat belt law in my state but I did not. If self driving cars eliminate insurance premium cost increases due to some not wearing seat belts, then I will think the law is not needed but it will likely stay on the books because not many might care to change it.

I could make the same argument against legalizing prostitution if I thought the cost to everyone else or society would outweigh the benefits, it should stay illegal. However I see more benefits on the legal side. Tax revenue could go for useful purposes such as education on std's and roads, education, and testing for std's. Local governments police and undercover could focus efforts and spending on crimes that hurt society instead of enforcing nipple covers in a strip club or worrying if a girl or guy got a better lap dance than they were supposed to. If some guy wants to spend 2000 a visit for a whole year to get sexual activity in a strip club like Greenville SC agents spent instead of finding an escort for much less for instant sex, then that should be there choice. 99% of the public can't afford what agents in Greenville spent to get evidence of sexual activity.

I don't expect to see prostitution legalized in the US in my lifetime. Most people don't care about it much in my opinion. I could be wrong. I didn't even know there was a drug opiate problem until I kept hearing it on the news this year.

One alternative that might win support is that everyone who wants to participate in an otherwise illegal activity like not wearing seat belts, prostitution, in a much different US society, is that everyone who participates pay a tax to offset all the extra costs associated with the activity. In the case for not wearing seat belts, you would have no law but if you say or choose not to wear one either the entire group pays say a $60 extra tax per year as a group or alternative, anyone involved in an injury or death that costs extra money to society pays several thousand more each accident do that premiums are covered for everyone else without raising costs on everyone else. This is not how our insurance system is set up though. The costs are currently spread out to everyone so we all pay higher premiums due to all accidents and injuries.

Mobile devices aren't the best for typing.

Might win support is as likely as a snowball in hell chance.

@Rick999 said:

"those who do not wear seat belts increase the costs for everyone else who do with higher insurance premiums.... those who choose not to wear seat belts cost everyone else money, it is fair to pass a law which if they violate, fines will be imposed to recoup some of those costs back onto the group of people who are raising insurance premiums on everyone else... a law for seat belts and fines for violators seems more than fair to me."

- You can use that silly line of reasoning to restrict almost any risky human behavior. Eat a fattening meal? Pay a fine. Have unprotected sex? Pay a fine. Ride a skateboard? Pay a fine. Date Chris Brown? Pay a fine. This seems ridiculous to me. If we determine that your being alive is actually costing society more than your life benefits society, would you therefore decide to kill yourself? Or would you be ok with other people's insurance rates going up? Isn't it just better and more logical to argue against "community rating" for health insurance? Or against socialized medicine and mandatory car insurance in the first place?

You also said "Tax revenue could go for useful purposes such as education on stds and roads, education, and testing for std's. "

- Well, I can see that my line of reasoning had no effect on you. Ok, fair enough. Everyone's entitled to their opinions.

And lastly, you said "One alternative that might win support is that everyone who wants to participate in an otherwise illegal activity like not wearing seat belts, prostitution... is that everyone who participates pay a tax to offset all the extra costs associated with the activity."

- So you're really saying that it should still be illegal, but just punished less harshly? That's what your idea boils down to. Well, that would be an improvement, and I'd vote for it if it were my only option, but I would prefer to just legalize it and leave everyone else the hell alone.

s275ironman mentioned that prostitution was legal in Canada. If I am not mistaken, the law was changed the a few years back by the conservative government at the time that it is legal for a sex worker to sell services, but illegal for customers to buy services. Similar to the laws in Scandinavia and France that BHF mentioned above. If you're a hobbyist in Canada, be careful because the sexual transaction isn't legal on both ends of the agreement.

That is correct joeblow44.

I have to agree with Burlington here. Completely.

Allowing the government to regulate human behavior on the grounds that failure to do so results in higher insurance premiums is a fools errand at best and dangerous precedent at worst. Drawing the line is too subject to the moral whim of the moment.

I will stick with my original premise. Protect you from me. Protect me from you.

Do not protect me from me.

In a free society, we each, simultaneously, enjoy freedoms and accept personal risks and costs related to those freedoms. You cannot have one without the other.

Stay out of my bedroom. Stay out of my car. Stay out of my wallet.

I think most people don't realize how much it would expand if legalized, and how much younger and more out in the open the girls will be.

But it seems to improve it, greatly so. Just most people are scared of it.

Forget that Nevada model.

But also consider that most of the efforts to continue to criminalize it are directed at the discount forms. The high ends almost never gets busted.

I say we have to legalize.

SJG

Yardbirds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9ULMxxl…

I would be fine with doing away with required insurance if it wasn't required by law. It is our government requiring us to pay premiums for car insurance, health insurance, etc. I think insurance premiums paid are far higher than any benefit I have gotten back from insurance companies. I probably could have bought a whole new car or two with all the car insurance I've paid. I could have had over $60,000 saved up over 20 years to pay for doctor visits and emergency room visits if I had all the premium payments back over 20 years between what I paid and what my employer paid on my behalf that they could have paid me instead.

I still stand by the argument if our government is going to require us to pay insurance premiums for whatever, then it is also fair that our go rennet impose fines for related insurance premium violators that raise everyone else's premiums. Instead of arguing we shouldn't have the stupid laws making things illegal resulting in fines, I think we shouldn't be required to pay insurance premiums in the first place. Our government has in effect required us to support insurance companies by requiring car insurance and health insurance and home insurance. If I paid for every doctor visit, every car accident out of my own pocket in my life without insurance payments of any kind ever paid, I would be thousands ahead without all these required insurance payments. I think it's stupid for our government to dictate or require insurance but they do. We are in a nanny state. It's probably just a matter of time before others argue or impose fines on people for eating too much or being too fat etc etc because they are required to pay insurance premiums that are a lot higher because certain people choose poorly. We need to do away with required insurance so that no one's poor choices raise costs on everyone else without them being able to opt out. This is part of the problem with socialism in my opinion. They argue it is ok to require insurance and that makes it ok to impose fines and make new laws. Politicians argue we need the laws to protect us from our own stupidity.
I say we need to do away with required insurance premiums. I will likely keep my car insurance and then likely be ok with paying extra because some choose not to wear set belts. I like having insurance in case disaster strikes. I never did argue for motorcycle helmet laws in South Carolina. I think many of them just die when they crash without raising costs too much but could be wrong. Insurance companies probably charge more for driving a motorcycle so I never supported a helmet law here because it doesn't affect me. The argument may sound silly if you don't like it but I read it and many bought into it. It's also scary that if this argument works, many of our freedoms could be taken away in the future by making similar arguments for all kinds of things. A steak dinner might have a fine imposed in the future because it makes everyone's insurance premiums jump because a study inducted those who eat steaks, have a 5% higher chance of heart attacks raising medical costs.

As far as killing oneself, our government is going down that path by using Obama care to decide what medical treatments are ok to give to patients in their elder years. If a life saving drug costs too much, they may decide to post pone treatment killing the patient. I would like all of us to be free to choose but most others seem opposed.

You make very logical arguments and I agree that the cost argument can be used to impose all kinds of restrictions on our daily lives which I don't like. Usually though, most good laws protect public safety if they are good laws in my opinion. Example, illegal to pass on a double yellow line. You might not see a car coming and obeying the law saves innocent lives.

What you don't seem to like is that I'm agreeing with if our government is ok with requiring us to pay insurance for cars or Heath care, I'm saying it is ok for them to also impose laws and fines on those raising the costs on everyone else. Many have already accepted the extra costs they pay. Alcohol has sin taxes. Cigarettes have high taxes. I pay between $3 to $5 dollars a bottle for one bottle of beer every time I visit a strip club and rarely complain. I can choose to not pay it by not buying. I can't do that with government imposed insurance requirements. That's also why I think we should do away with required health insurance. The next thing you know, we will have fines and payments for making bad choices as far as eating junk food, etc, etc, like Bloomberg thinking it is ok to add taxes to soda. I don't want to go down that path with Health insurance like we have with car insurance. I don't care for excessive Nanny states.

I'd rather do away with lots of laws and requirements. Just remember most people voted for more of the Nanny state by voting for Sanders and Hillary. Republicans can't seem to get anything done via congress. I just heard today anyone who makes less than $75,000 will pay more taxes after these temporary tax cuts expire. Better work at making more money before 2021 or whenever they expire if the senate votes for it. I can believe Democrats will fix things by raising taxes on everyone. Then they will be ok with everyone paying more for sugar, strip clubs, anything they think is not healthy for you. Leave that to President Chelsy Clinton if we continue going down that path. You might even need a permit that costs extra money to buy a case of beer from the grocery store if Chelsy Clinton is voted in.

As far as not wearing seat belts I could argue something similar like I would like to be able to drive 100 mph without fear of getting arrested or fined when the road is almost empty. I might think it's stupid to have to drive 55mph on an empty divided highway when I have an hour drive ahead of me and things to do. I know of several sections of highways where the speed limit is a lot less than where I would like it. I think the speed limit should be a lot higher. However I understand our government and many people believe in protecting us from ourselves and feel it is ok to impose laws, fines, and penalties for decreasing public safety by making a law which if I violate, then I pay fines or penalties. I don't like it. I still like a speed limit in the right lane. However my car tires are only designed to go up to a certain speed and if someone is flying in a new tesla at 140 mph and hits me because we didn't see each other, I won't be happy. I might want to drive only 60mph if gas goes up to $8 a gallon or I need to save money and some guy popping up or several at 140 would get nerve wracking. Insurance premiums would skyrocket if everyone wrecked their car. We would need a system to elimate everyone who can't drive. Death race driving. Can't handle fast cars? you die to save everyone else money and sky high insurance premiums. Or get rid of the insurance requirements and then if you hit me, you pay for my car and all my medical bills for life or pay for kids costs and college if I had some if you killed me. That would be fair. I don't mind car insurance though. I think the speed limit could be safely raised in a lot of places though.

@Rick999,

We basically agree on most things. For the record, I'm not against car insurance either. I'm just against the government forcing you to have car insurance, and I think we agree on this, too. If a person wants to protect himself, he should have a car insurance policy. That way, if he is struck by an uninsured driver, he can always sue his own policy to recover damages. And if a pedestrian or passenger is injured by an uninsured driver, many states have funds set up for such occurrences. New Jersey has the NJ-PLIGA organization, which is funded by the industry and by small surcharges on each policy that is written. Is it perfect? No. I just think it works better than forcing people to buy a product that they don't want and perhaps can't afford. But I would still keep my car insurance, even without a government mandate.

A few quick hits:

- Personally, I don't believe in speed limits. Here in New Jersey it seems like everyone just ignores them anyway. People seem to drive as fast as everyone around them is driving. I've never gotten a speeding ticket.

- You're right that if you weren't forced to buy insurance you might be better off financially today. I would also point out that health insurance itself causes medical costs to increase. So do Medicare and Medicaid. If health insurance didn't exist, and if Medicare and Medicaid were repealed, prices of all medical treatments would plummet immediately.

- Lastly, I would say, if we're going to argue for change, let's argue for something we actually want. Yes, risky behavior does increase the cost of insurance for others. This is true. And you may feel that the small increases justify prohibition and fines. But rather than slide down a slippery slope to total government control, why don't we just argue against the mandates in the first place? And while we're at it, we should argue against comunity rating, as well. After all, your insurance premium should be based upon YOUR claims history, not the claims history of everyone in your entire zipcode.

@Clubber "I was in a service industry and people paid me to use my skill set."

When girls in the club ask me what I do for a living, I tell them "I'm a technology whore." My clients don't pay me to work magic with computers and networks, they pay me to go away once the magic is done.

@rane1234 LE usually has to set up a sting with an undercover cop posing as an escort. The really bad stings are when they catch a known escort for something else and get her to "flip" on her client base. When I was "in" with the local escort scene, we had some code phrases set up so that if a girl or client was being forced by LE to contact people, we could use the code phrases and it would appear to LE we were cooperating but the other person would know not to go through with the transaction.

This is one reason I like using money transfer apps like Venmo or Cash. There is no money present at the time I'm with someone. Also, the increased effort to shut down escorts is why I started playing in the OTC stripper and SB playgrounds.