As Canada steps closer . . .

[Handley_Page]

"Diametrically opposed views on how to deal with sex workers were on display this weekend, with Canada teetering on the brink of legalising prostitution, and the UK’s Met warning media owners that they could face criminal charges if they carry ads for massage parlours and saunas."

Full story here:-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/29/canada_prostitution_decriminalisation/

What interested me was this bit:-

"The Canadian ruling and the Met’s warning represent opposite ends of an exceedingly heated debate as to the right way to deal with sex work. On the one hand is a view espoused by a number of organisations, including the Poppy Project, some feminist politicians and some religious groups that prostitution is in and of itself a crime of violence against women.

According to that analysis, those participating in "sex work" are without exception victims, in need of rescue, which can be best effected by the state taking a strong stance against those involved in the trade, both organising it and using it.

Hence the UK has recently passed law – the Policing and Crime Act 2009 - to clamp down on anyone who might buy the services of a trafficked sex worker: and police have regularly made use of legislation such as the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to prosecute anyone involved in sex work. The track record of such prosecutions has been patchy, however, with juries notoriously unwilling to convict in a number of recent high profile POCA cases.

By contrast, organisations such as the International Union of Sex Workers and English Collective of Prostitutes take what they believe to be a more pragmatic view. They do not advocate sex work as a career of choice for the average school leaver, but they do believe that sex workers are best supported by removing conflict from the legal system and by not engaging in enforcement that leads to the development of a "them and us" attitude. "

Thoughts:
". . . . that prostitution is in and of itself a crime of violence against women" ? I confess to not understanding that bit at all.
It's like being a victim of a crime by hitting herself with a hammer.
With a few exceptions (criminal gangs, etc.,), how are prostitutes FORCED to participate in the trade ?

As usual, I leave pontificating to those who can. I just wonder, sometimes, at how women-kind can rip themselves apart in the press, to a bit of a giggle from the blokes watching from the sidelines. Calling Prostitution something else, like "sex worker" is a bit PC.

I'd just like to understand a little more.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm of the opinion that sex work should be just another job. It's none of my business what they do for a living and I'd prefer their were health and safety regulations for it.

Plus getting the pimps out of the business would be a good thing.

 

[R. Richard]

Thoughts:
". . . . that prostitution is in and of itself a crime of violence against women" ? I confess to not understanding that bit at all.
It's like being a victim of a crime by hitting herself with a hammer.
With a few exceptions (criminal gangs, etc.,), how are prostitutes FORCED to participate in the trade ?

The main reason that prostitutes are forced into the sex trade is two nasty little habits that they pick up at an early age: 1) Eating. 2) Living under a roof.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The main reason that prostitutes are forced into the sex trade is two nasty little habits that they pick up at an early age: 1) Eating. 2) Living under a roof.

Very few prostitutes are forced into the trade for those reasons, because there are other ways they can support themselves. Some are the victims of white slavers, and the only reason those people are able to function is the law against prostitution. I suspect most women who are illegal prostitutes are drug addicts who can't hold down a regular job, and they do what they can to survive.

As far as I am concerned, I believe prostitution should be legal, but regulated for health purposes and to watch for underage girls. Being legal would eliminate most of the problem, including most of the abusive pimps.

 

[oggbashan]

...According to that analysis, those participating in "sex work" are without exception victims, in need of rescue, which can be best effected by the state taking a strong stance against those involved in the trade, both organising it and using it.

Hence the UK has recently passed law – the Policing and Crime Act 2009 - to clamp down on anyone who might buy the services of a trafficked sex worker: and police have regularly made use of legislation such as the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to prosecute anyone involved in sex work. The track record of such prosecutions has been patchy, however, with juries notoriously unwilling to convict in a number of recent high profile POCA cases.

By contrast, organisations such as the International Union of Sex Workers and English Collective of Prostitutes take what they believe to be a more pragmatic view. They do not advocate sex work as a career of choice for the average school leaver, but they do believe that sex workers are best supported by removing conflict from the legal system and by not engaging in enforcement that leads to the development of a "them and us" attitude. [/FONT] "

Thoughts:
". . . . that prostitution is in and of itself a crime of violence against women" ? I confess to not understanding that bit at all.
It's like being a victim of a crime by hitting herself with a hammer.
With a few exceptions (criminal gangs, etc.,), how are prostitutes FORCED to participate in the trade ?

As usual, I leave pontificating to those who can. I just wonder, sometimes, at how women-kind can rip themselves apart in the press, to a bit of a giggle from the blokes watching from the sidelines. Calling Prostitution something else, like "sex worker" is a bit PC.

I'd just like to understand a little more.

Locally in Kent, the police have made dozens of arrests this year of men (and women) running brothels with enslaved illegal immigrants. The women who are brought into the country are charged massive sums for their transport which they could never repay, particularly with the massive rates of interest that the traffickers add to the original debt.

Most of their earnings as prostitutes was retained by the brothel owners as repayment for 'living expenses' i.e. accommodation and food, leaving virtually nothing to pay off the increasing debts.

Some women were found chained to their work beds. Apparently some users of brothels thought this was part of the scenario, not real imprisonment. Any illegal who tried to escape was severely beaten and her debt increased even further.

One of the convicted brothel-keepers was a local secondary school teacher.

The few prostitutes we have on our streets are hard drug-users raising money to pay their dealers. Various agencies try to help them but unless and until they want to come off the drugs there is little hope. Even if they do want to quit, the addiction services are underfunded and take too long to act because of existing demand.

There are a few local women who are prostituting themselves just for the money and a better life. They are popular because they are usually drug and disease-free.

The majority of prostitutes locally should have a massive health warning for anyone who uses them. Whenever they appear before our local Magistrates, the Magistrates privately express regret that there is nothing that can be done to change the women's lifestyles - except an early death.

Og

 

[amicus]

Sighs....I am continually depressed by the ability of liberal thinking individuals to rely upon pragmatism, the practical aspect of an issue, and ignore the moral and ethical aspects.

There may be a few prostitues, male or female on this forum, but for the most part, I suspect most are mere spectators, although those very promiscuous recreational sex participants may as well be identified as prostitutes.

Every adult woman was once a child and the darling of her father's eyes as the little 'princess' he protected and cherished.

Where is the disconnect when those of you who accept prostitution as merely another avocation and ignore that each and every human is an individual worthy of respect?

There is so much more I would say, but England, as the parent of Democracy and human rights around the world, could be so blase' about the selling of one's body, is akin to human slavery, which, still a part of the Asian, African and Islam world, is looked upon with disgust by all rational people.

Canada, as expressed by RGraham and Pure, seems to have no moral imperative and no ethical foundation; a bastard child of England and America, without a history of its' own...I guess I can understand that.

There is a vast moral abyss that few seem willing to address.

I wonder why?

Amicus

 

[Liar]

"Diametrically opposed views on how to deal with sex workers were on display this weekend, with Canada teetering on the brink of legalising prostitution, and the UK’s Met warning media owners that they could face criminal charges if they carry ads for massage parlours and saunas."

Afaik, the laws in Canada and the UK are pretty similar, allowing for prostitution under certain condititons.

So how Canada can be "teetering on the brink of legalising prostitution", when it's aleady legal, is kind of odd.

 

[Pure]

note to ami--- canada, etc.

greetings from the moral abyss-- yoohoo!

ami opining: There is so much more I would say, but England, as the parent of Democracy and human rights around the world, could be so blase' about the selling of one's body, is akin to human slavery, which, still a part of the Asian, African and Islam world, is looked upon with disgust by all rational people.

Canada, as expressed by RGraham and Pure, seems to have no moral imperative and no ethical foundation; a bastard child of England and America, without a history of its' own...I guess I can understand that.

There is a vast moral abyss that few seem willing to address.
==

Prostitution is legal in Canada.

Ami's concerns are valid, but need a MORAL concern be put into the criminal law, and how far? that is the question.

It's quite possible, isn't it, to say that, for example, making false promises about marriage, to obtain sex, is despicable, without having an offense "false promises" in the criminal code. same for adultery.


---
Incidentally the change which prompted this thread was a Canadian judge's ruling that some laws about prostitution RELATED offenses, are invalid, specifically:
Akeeping a brothel,
B.living off the avails,
C.and communicating in a public place (soliciting) for purposes of prostitution (either buying or selling).

B. is a very tricky one, since one wants to prosecute predatory pimps, but WITHOUT extending it to lazy liveins and husbands. and indeed, as the articles pointed out, if you were, for example, an accountant who kept the books for a whore, you could be charged with living off the avails (since that's where your salary comes from).

==
ami, of course, is here blatantly contradictory: he wants to follow Rand and have a free market determine everything (Rand would legalize prostitution) BUT where his daughter's sex work or her pregnancy is involved, he wants a heavy handed state to step in and send the immoral ones to jail.

 

[Liar]

Sighs....I am continually depressed by the ability of liberal thinking individuals to rely upon pragmatism, the practical aspect of an issue, and ignore the moral and ethical aspects.

Au contraire, mi amico. You confuse "no morals" with "not amicus' morals".

My "liberal" or rather libetatian stance on the issue is moral. Government control over how and why a woman (or man for that matter) choose to engage in consensual sex, is morally and ethically wrong.

That position is principled, but not comfortable. I'd rather see there was no prostitution, or at least close to none, that it was never a choice of desperation or nessecity, with the misery that follows. That's why one has to look at solutions. What drives women towards prostitution? What can be done to prevent that? Apparently, blanket outlawing, smug finger wagging and sticking one's head in the sand ain't working.

Problems don't go away because you sit in an ivory tower and condemn them. that's irrespiónsible, cynical and depickable.

 

[R. Richard]

Locally in Kent, the police have made dozens of arrests this year of men (and women) running brothels with enslaved illegal immigrants. The women who are brought into the country are charged massive sums for their transport which they could never repay, particularly with the massive rates of interest that the traffickers add to the original debt.

Most of their earnings as prostitutes was retained by the brothel owners as repayment for 'living expenses' i.e. accommodation and food, leaving virtually nothing to pay off the increasing debts.

Some women were found chained to their work beds. Apparently some users of brothels thought this was part of the scenario, not real imprisonment. Any illegal who tried to escape was severely beaten and her debt increased even further.

One of the convicted brothel-keepers was a local secondary school teacher.

We have a bit of the enslavement problem near where I live. Most of the slaves are young 'Mexican' girls (some from Nicarauga, Honduras, etc.) The local courts go through the dance of, 'We'll deport these slavers.' A couple of months later, the slavers are back, with more slaves. (The local government admits that I could solve the problem, more or less permanently and boost local sales of heavyweight logging chain, in the process. However, they would rather continue to fail instead of letting me solve the problem, using methods that they don't like.

The few prostitutes we have on our streets are hard drug-users raising money to pay their dealers. Various agencies try to help them but unless and until they want to come off the drugs there is little hope. Even if they do want to quit, the addiction services are underfunded and take too long to act because of existing demand..

Yes, we have the same problem here. A lot of the street 'ho's are actually enslaved, either to their drug dealers and/or their pimp. Again, I could solve the problem, more or less permanently. However, the local powers that be would rather continue to fail instead of letting me solve the problem, using methods that they don't like.

There are a few local women who are prostituting themselves just for the money and a better life. They are popular because they are usually drug and disease-free.

The majority of prostitutes locally should have a massive health warning for anyone who uses them. Whenever they appear before our local Magistrates, the Magistrates privately express regret that there is nothing that can be done to change the women's lifestyles - except an early death.

Og

The problem here, is that a street 'ho' must have a pimp, as a practical necessity. If a 'ho' doesn't have a pimp, one of the local pimps beats her up, takes her money and adds her to his stable. The non-violent solution would be to have legal, licensed, health inspected bothels. However, the local powers that be would rather continue to pretend that they just don't see.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

The main reason that prostitutes are forced into the sex trade is two nasty little habits that they pick up at an early age: 1) Eating. 2) Living under a roof.

I thought you were going to describe some of my nasty habits that I picked up at an early age.

 

[oggbashan]

There is so much more I would say, but England, as the parent of Democracy and human rights around the world, could be so blase' about the selling of one's body, is akin to human slavery, which, still a part of the Asian, African and Islam world, is looked upon with disgust by all rational people.

...

There is a vast moral abyss that few seem willing to address.

I wonder why?

Amicus

So prostitution doesn't happen in Amicus' America? I am surprised.

In the UK prostitution is not illegal and has not been for many years. Unfortunately organised prostitution is often carried out by professional gangs.

What is illegal is running a brothel that employs more than a couple of women and their maid; living off the proceeds of prostitution, except for the prostitutes themselves and their maid; and soliciting in public.

If a woman in the UK chooses to become a prostitute it is difficult for her to stay within the law, but possible.

I have mentioned before the local prostitute who became a member of our Chamber of Commerce. She was selling her services, paying her taxes (and her subscription to the Chamber of Commerce) and was well known to the local police as a legitimate businesswoman. Her life became more complicated when her husband's antique business failed. If she supported him, he was living on the proceeds of prostitution, yet he couldn't get state benefits because of his wife's income. Catch 22.

Eventually HE was convicted of receiving stolen property in his restarted business and went to jail because of the large scale of his activities. She was given a suspended sentence for being a partner in his business and moved to another town to set up as a prostitute again under a different nom-de-plume.

Whether she was actually a prostitute was arguable. She was selling sexual services to mature gentlemen, usually pensioners, including acting as a domme. Did anyone actually get penetrative sex during their sessions with her? How do you prove whether they did or did not? What she sold successfully were sexual fantasies.

One local brothel made the headlines a few years ago. The police were called to a serious disturbance. They expected to find that a john was being roughed up for failure to pay the high charges. What had actually happened was that one gang had tried to take over the brothel from another using edged weapons. The neighbours rescued a naked woman who had jumped from an upper window with her hands handcuffed behind her back. She had broken an arm and an ankle. She was an illegal Chinese immigrant enslaved in the brothel. Several other women were 'rescued' by the police.

The two gangs were known to be of Chinese origin but none of them were present by the time the police arrived. Several members from both gangs were arrested over the next couple of days and prosecuted using the injured woman's and the other 'rescued' women's evidence. They were given new identities and permission to stay in the UK - elsewhere. The convicted gang members were recommended for deportation when they have served their sentences. Whether they will be? I don't know. They're still in jail.

Og

 

[Pure]

There is a vast moral abyss that few seem willing to address.

I wonder why?

Amicus

Ogg So prostitution doesn't happen in Amicus' America? I am surprised.


i think ami's point is that prostitution [p'n] is illegal in the States. IOW, he likes the fact that the government/state is expresssing moral condemnation of p'n.

by extension, ami holds that the Canadian and British gov's are declining to condemn a bad thing [p'n], amounting to de facto approval. so to say, it's a pragmatic approach.

the standard libertarian [l'n] position--see liar, above--- is for the state to ignore prostitution as 'victimless' or at least voluntary on the part of the ho. 'free market' type libertarians [Rand] argue that commerce in pussy is like commerce in hamburgers, so the state should not intervene.

ami is a libertarian WITH exceptions-- he holds that the state should intervene where something is REALLY immoral.

 

[Boxlicker101]

There is a vast moral abyss that few seem willing to address.

I wonder why?

Amicus

Ogg So prostitution doesn't happen in Amicus' America? I am surprised.


i think ami's point is that prostitution [p'n] is illegal in the States. IOW, he likes the fact that the government/state is expresssing moral condemnation of p'n.

by extension, ami holds that the Canadian and British gov's are declining to condemn a bad thing [p'n], amounting to de facto approval. so to say, it's a pragmatic approach.

the standard libertarian [l'n] position--see liar, above--- is for the state to ignore prostitution as 'victimless' or at least voluntary on the part of the ho. 'free market' type libertarians [Rand] argue that commerce in pussy is like commerce in hamburgers, so the state should not intervene.

ami is a libertarian WITH exceptions-- he holds that the state should intervene where something is REALLY immoral.

By federal law, p'n is illegal in federal areas, but it is otherwise left up to the individual states. With one exception, it's illegal in every state, although sometimes winked at if practiced in certain areas of some cities. The one exception is NV, where it is left up to counties to decide, and legal brothels exist in that state, although not in the counties that include Reno and Las Vegas.

Personally, I consider p'n to be a victimless crime, because there are no victims in the sex acts themselves, nor in the paying for those sex acts. However, I also realize there are crimes committed in association with p'n, such as peonage, abduction, pederastry and others. People who commit these crimes should be severely punished with long prison sentences, possibly even by death in extreme cases.

I have always believed the main problems of prostitution result from the fact it is illegal. If not for the illegality, the criminal element would be mostly shut out.

 

[Liar]

i think ami's point is that prostitution [p'n] is illegal in the States. IOW, he likes the fact that the government/state is expresssing moral condemnation of p'n.

by extension, ami holds that the Canadian and British gov's are declining to condemn a bad thing [p'n], amounting to de facto approval. so to say, it's a pragmatic approach.

the standard libertarian [l'n] position--see liar, above--- is for the state to ignore prostitution as 'victimless' or at least voluntary on the part of the ho. 'free market' type libertarians [Rand] argue that commerce in pussy is like commerce in hamburgers, so the state should not intervene.

ami is a libertarian WITH exceptions-- he holds that the state should intervene where something is REALLY immoral.

First of all: p'n? Really now, too long a word to type?

Secondly: I think you're misrepresenting the libertarian position a bit. Or at least my version of it. It's not for the state to ignore prostitution as victimless or voluntary. There are victims and it's many times not voluntary. (Some would argue it's not voluntary most times - I haven't asked all ho's so I don't know.) But the crime then is not the selling of sex, the crime is to force or coerce someone to make that involuntary choice. As splitting hairs ats it may seem, it's an important distinction.

There's a pretty apt word for forcing someone to have sex. What was it again...?

Oh yes: rape.

 

[Boxlicker101]

First of all: p'n? Really now, too long a word to type?

Secondly: I think you're misrepresenting the libertarian position a bit. Or at least my version of it. It's not for the state to ignore prostitution as victimless or voluntary. There are victims and it's many times not voluntary. (Some would argue it's not voluntary most times - I haven't asked all ho's so I don't know.) But the crime then is not the selling of sex, the crime is to force or coerce someone to make that involuntary choice. As splitting hairs ats it may seem, it's an important distinction.

There's a pretty apt word for forcing someone to have sex. What was it again...?

Oh yes: rape.

Actually, in the case of the white slavers, it would be called peonage, abduction, false imprisonment, and a variety of things, such as battery, terroristic threats and maybe, depending on a reading of the state laws, rape. Except for rape, those laws would apply whether the victim was forced into prostitution or any other kind of work.

 

[Liar]

Oh, I know what it is called. I'm talking about what it should be called.

 

[Pure]

nope

pure former//the standard libertarian [l'n] position--see liar, above--- is for the state to ignore prostitution as 'victimless' or at least voluntary on the part of the ho. 'free market' type libertarians [Rand] argue that commerce in pussy is like commerce in hamburgers, so the state should not intervene.

ami is a libertarian WITH exceptions-- he holds that the state should intervene where something is REALLY immoral. //

liar First of all: p'n? Really now, too long a word to type?

Secondly: I think you're misrepresenting the libertarian position a bit. Or at least my version of it. It's not for the state to ignore prostitution as victimless or voluntary. There are victims and it's many times not voluntary. (Some would argue it's not voluntary most times - I haven't asked all ho's so I don't know.) But the crime then is not the selling of sex, the crime is to force or coerce someone to make that involuntary choice. As splitting hairs ats it may seem, it's an important distinction.

There's a pretty apt word for forcing someone to have sex. What was it again...?

Oh yes: rape.
====================
pure's present response.

no, i don't think that's the right word at all. as i have read and been told, the coercion, is not "I will have sex with you against your will", which would be rape.

the coercion is, more typically 1) "You will have sex with clients, as a way of earning money, that you must earn it because you owe it to me."

2)"you will have sex with clients or I will beat you up [or harm in some other way, or, occasionally, kill]."

3) "you will have sex with clients or I will harm your family [e.g. back home in China]"

none of these situations can be called rape; they are under the law as 'forced prostitution', and of course 'threats of bodily harm' are also criminal offenses. also, some of the above seem to contain elements of extortion.
==

but I draw you attention to your words

the crime then is not the selling of sex,

and may i assume that you also hold _a crime does not exist in the buying of sex' [assuming that neither I nor anyone else has coerced the prostitute]_

if you hold both, or even just the first, you have what i called the standard libertarian position, which is that the transaction is not a problematic thing that the state should involve itself in, why? because i suppose it's just like you selling me your hair [or your bone marrow]. there is, the l'n asserts, no SOCIAL harm, hence no such crime should be on the books.

that you hold that the gov't should involve itself in cases of FORCED prostitution or sex slavery, is another matter entirely. it's the FORCE that makes the state take note, according to the l'n, just as--to make an analogy-- the state notes if I force you to go from point A to point B, and/or be confined at B. that is, kidnap you.

the socially conservative position is that there IS social harm in and caused by the act of A selling sex services [body] to B.

 

[Boxlicker101]

pure former//the standard libertarian [l'n] position--see liar, above--- is for the state to ignore prostitution as 'victimless' or at least voluntary on the part of the ho. 'free market' type libertarians [Rand] argue that commerce in pussy is like commerce in hamburgers, so the state should not intervene.

ami is a libertarian WITH exceptions-- he holds that the state should intervene where something is REALLY immoral. //

liar First of all: p'n? Really now, too long a word to type?

Secondly: I think you're misrepresenting the libertarian position a bit. Or at least my version of it. It's not for the state to ignore prostitution as victimless or voluntary. There are victims and it's many times not voluntary. (Some would argue it's not voluntary most times - I haven't asked all ho's so I don't know.) But the crime then is not the selling of sex, the crime is to force or coerce someone to make that involuntary choice. As splitting hairs ats it may seem, it's an important distinction.

There's a pretty apt word for forcing someone to have sex. What was it again...?

Oh yes: rape.
====================
pure's present response.

no, i don't think that's the right word at all. as i have read and been told, the coercion, is not "I will have sex with you against your will", which would be rape.

the coercion is, more typically 1) "You will have sex with clients, as a way of earning money, that you must earn it because you owe it to me."

2)"you will have sex with clients or I will beat you up [or harm in some other way, or, occasionally, kill]."

3) "you will have sex with clients or I will harm your family [e.g. back home in China]"

none of these situations can be called rape; they are under the law as 'forced prostitution', and of course 'threats of bodily harm' are also criminal offenses. also, some of the above seem to contain elements of extortion.
==

but I draw you attention to your words

the crime then is not the selling of sex,

and may i assume that you also hold _a crime does not exist in the buying of sex' [assuming that neither I nor anyone else has coerced the prostitute]_

if you hold both, or even just the first, you have what i called the standard libertarian position, which is that the transaction is not a problematic thing that the state should involve itself in, why? because i suppose it's just like you selling me your hair [or your bone marrow]. there is, the l'n asserts, no SOCIAL harm, hence no such crime should be on the books.

that you hold that the gov't should involve itself in cases of FORCED prostitution or sex slavery, is another matter entirely. it's the FORCE that makes the state take note, according to the l'n, just as--to make an analogy-- the state notes if I force you to go from point A to point B, and/or be confined at B. that is, kidnap you.

the socially conservative position is that there IS social harm in and caused by the act of A selling sex services [body] to B.

I have never read anything about the Libertarian position on the subject, but I would suppose it would be prostitution should be legal, although there should be some limitations, such as age. This is not the same thing as being ignored by the cops, because crooked cops could still extort working girls, and pimps would still be in their positions of authority over their stables.

As for rape, it has always been my impression that part of the act of turning a girl or woman out on the street is breaking her spirit through rape, physical abuse, starvation and threats of worse.

I would not compare commerce in pussy as being like commerce in hamburgers, and I don';t believe anybody else would. I would compare it to somebody providing manicures or haircuts or other personal services and being paid a fee or working on salary, possibly a share of the fee collected by the person running the barber shop or other place where the service is being performed.

 

[amicus]

When you come across a debate or discussion in which Oggbashan, Pure and Liar are on one side and Amicus is on the other, and none are throwing ripe tomatoes on a regular basis, then you should recognize that there is a fundamental issue involved.

My query was directed at the basic morality, not the 'legality', of prostitution; and I will point out, in the strongest terms possible, that the question remains unaddressed.

I also attacked moral pragmatism, 'if it works it is moral', as Johnathan Swift's, "A Modest Proposal", about roasting English babies for food as they are most tender and succulent, is perfectly 'moral', and should be approved or tolerated by society at large.

What my three flame belching, dragons are all so upset about, is my insistence that there is and must be an universal code of morals that is applicable to all men at all times throughout history.

Under Kings and Popes, or any system in which the common man is class constructed to remain in poverty, prostitution may indeed be a necessity for survival, just as cannibalism may be, but moral? Never.

Now...all three of my able antagonists may indeed smile down upon their prostitute daughters and pat them on the back with approval and affirmation, but somehow, I doubt it would be sincere, even as it satisfies their malignant philosophical moral tenets.

An individual has the innate right to act in any manner he or she chooses. Society, on an almost universal standard, forbids and punishes the pre meditated taking of another human life. Thus, the protection of human individual life, becomes the primary philosophical and political 'truth', upon which civilizations are built.

Someone snidely made a reference to my Objectivist leanings from the Ayn Rand camp...in a free society, there would be ample opportunity for productive work, eliminating the pragmatic need to sell one's body for the means by which to survive.

In essence; absent the absolute morality of a religious belief, man is called upon to create or observe, a rational and objective set of moral principles that guide all his actions.

It is not a simple task, ergo the conflicting world of formal philosophy that has struggled for centuries to provide just such a rational moral foundation for human behaviour.

That three fertile minds cannot agree on the morality of selling one's body is ample evidence that Philosophy, writ large, has failed.

Amicus

 

[oggbashan]

Amicus,

I agree that prostitution IS immoral, but has been around since before taxes were invented.

Many aspects of human life can be considered immoral, including Literotica, but when a modern state considers whether to make a law, whether such a law can be enforced, and whether making such a law will improve the situation, are more important factors than morality.

Some states take the view that leaving, or making, prostitution legal is better than making it illegal and leaving its operation in the hands of criminals. Where legal prostitution exists, illegal prostitution still happens because there are some women who would never meet the criteria, e.g. health, that a legal prostitute must comply with.

The US's moral experiment with alcohol was an example of how not to legislate. Has making prostitution illegal stopped its availability?

When politicians start talking about morals, hang on to your wallet.

Og

 

[amicus]

Oggbashan, I pause for a moment and lift an ale, (it is only 1:30a.m. here), to celebrate this moment of our agreement, which, you will no doubt agree, is a rarity.

That, being said and meant, may precede another disagreement about to unfold.

Some small clarifications, if I may: my moral pronouncements are often greeted with derision, as being 'prudish' in the least, and idiotic and stupid, at the other end. I have not lived my life as a Monk, devoted to my calling, and by that, I intend to convey that I have made moral errors in my life and that I do not hold myself as a role model for any to follow.

But...it is not my convictions that I place before this forum, it is rather, my attempt at a scholarly pursuit, inasmuch as I can, towards an understanding of how humanity judges human actions, and why that is of primary importance in all aspects of life.

"...Many aspects of human life can be considered immoral, including Literotica, but when a modern state considers whether to make a law, whether such a law can be enforced, and whether making such a law will improve the situation, are more important factors than morality..."

I do not necessarily disagree with your observation; that is somewhat the nature of a modern state, to use your term, but I suggest that both society and individual men eventually suffer. I say that because the principle you outlined above, is that the end justifies the means.

As a moral precept, that principle has destroyed entire civilizations; and you know of what I speak.

Don't go pulling at your whiskers over that, I know it is a thorny and oft mentioned contradiction. For example, America is criticized over the failure to include emancipation of women and abolishing slavery at its' inception.

Both were political decisions, practical ones at that, as there would not have been a Declaration or a Separation had the compromises not been made.

Then again, women suffered as chattel more than a hundred years afterwards and the Civil War, over slavery, took countless lives.

So, in the end, was either compromise worth it?

There are those at all levels who engage in politics, most knowing that 'politics corrupts', is an avoidable trusim; it is the nature of the beast.

There are also some few who take an aside and do not participate and those who deign themselves above the fray and perhaps that is applicable to both extremes of the political universe.

Just as Statesmanship is essential to any society, I also hold that those 'purists', who insist upon moral and ethical perfection, are also necessary as beacons of truth and reminders when the art of compromise has gone too far.

With warm regards...

I remain...

amicus

 

[Pure]

correction:

ami When you come across a debate or discussion in which Oggbashan, Pure and Liar are on one side and Amicus is on the other, and none are throwing ripe tomatoes on a regular basis, then you should recognize that there is a fundamental issue involved.

My query was directed at the basic morality, not the 'legality', of prostitution; and I will point out, in the strongest terms possible, that the question remains unaddressed.
---

pure: ami, friend, you blur the picture a bit. i think i do disagree with liar to some extent, since he apparently took no objection to prostitution, but rather to someone being forced to undertake it.

where ogg and i agree is about the state's role, which is, in Canada and UK--the moral abysses as you call them-- that prostitutes can't be arrested for prostituting (nor customers for purchasing).

as to your quest for objective morals and their implementation:

amiSome small clarifications, if I may: my moral pronouncements are often greeted with derision, as being 'prudish' in the least, and idiotic and stupid, at the other end. I have not lived my life as a Monk, devoted to my calling, and by that, I intend to convey that I have made moral errors in my life and that I do not hold myself as a role model for any to follow.

But...it is not my convictions that I place before this forum, it is rather, my attempt at a scholarly pursuit, inasmuch as I can, towards an understanding of how humanity judges human actions, and why that is of primary importance in all aspects of life.

----

I think the basic principle here, was stated by Kant: you ought not to treat others as a means, only, but as an end. it's a corollary that when a person's body is sold--by her/himself, or by another-- for the 'end' of some other parties-- i.e their pleasure, profit or whatever, you have an immoral situation. and the arrangers of such sales, share in the immorality. as well, the purchasers, though to a lesser degree, are a tainted; they are a part of the problem (like those who purchase heroin are a part of that problem).

the special immorality of prostitution has to do with primal human modesty and desire to fence off sexual matters as crucial, and sexual organs as non-public items. the sale of any body part for profit is wrong--e.g a kidney-- but we have a special disapproval for the sales of cocks and pussies.

so you see, ami, we have an area of agreement.

 

[Liar]

There's a pretty apt word for forcing someone to have sex. What was it again...?

Oh yes: rape. [/I]
====================
pure's present response.

no, i don't think that's the right word at all. as i have read and been told, the coercion, is not "I will have sex with you against your will", which would be rape.

the coercion is, more typically 1) "You will have sex with clients, as a way of earning money, that you must earn it because you owe it to me."

2)"you will have sex with clients or I will beat you up [or harm in some other way, or, occasionally, kill]."

3) "you will have sex with clients or I will harm your family [e.g. back home in China]"

none of these situations can be called rape; they are under the law as 'forced prostitution', and of course 'threats of bodily harm' are also criminal offenses. also, some of the above seem to contain elements of extortion.
==

As I said to box... I'm not talking about the hair splitting of the legal letter. I'm talking about my ethics.

To me, they are morally equivalent to rape. And should be thought of as such.

What separates your 2) from a scenario quite common in cases of date rape or spousal rape, except someone else is doing the penetrating?

 

[Handley_Page]

To my mind, making Prostitution legal, with defined constraints where necessary, would eliminate the illegal trades.