Monthly Theme - The Legality and Morality of Prostitution

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

There is a debate among feminists of today surrounding the legalities and morality of the sex trade. Many believe it should be a legitimate profession that women can choose, out of their own free will, to engage in. Sex itself is not immoral so why should the trade of it be so? It is my belief that it should be legalized, as taking away the underground aspect of the industry will remove a great deal of the risks, dangers and coercion involved. Many countries around the world have legalized prostitution. Some, including Canada, have decriminalized the act of solicitation, while operating a bawdy house, public solicitation and living off the avails of prostitution (pimping) remain illegal. There are some, including many South American countries who have seemed to have struck the best balance, with prostitution and brothels being legal for women over 18 with pimping remaining illegal.

In my opinion, the criminalization of the act is what leads to exploitation of women and to the dangers and abuse that many face. Giving women the option of choosing it as a profession while keeping pimping illegal reduces the coercion aspect. Take away the dark alley scenarios and lack of accountability and it becomes much more safe and controlled. Legalization may also reduce the stigma surrounding prostitution. Men rape and murder prostitutes as they are seen as worthless. Once it is a legitimate job it may raise the value of these women in the eyes of society and especially police. Rapes and abuse of sex workers will be reported to the police once the threat of arrest is removed. The health risks involved in prostitution for both the woman and her clients can also be reduced through legalization. Mandatory health checks can be instituted by the government to stop the spread of HIV and STDs.

Unfortunately, not enough research has been done in these areas to support the belief that legalized prostitution will lead to these positive benefits, and the information out there is conflicting, depending on who has commissioned the study. All we can go on at this point is common sense and the word of the sex workers themselves who have been working for legislation. More attention must be paid to the matter until we find a model that provides the best protection and options for the women involved.

It is my belief that prostitution should be a viable career choice for any woman who chooses to engage in it. However, I recognize that many of those who do so are doing it out of a lack of any other choice, due to socio-economic factors and addiction. A vital part of any countries prostitution standards should be exit strategies and resources available to those who wish to no longer engage in the practice. Efforts should be focused not on punishing the prostitutes, but in determining their needs and choices and giving assistance where desired.

Removing the criminal act, and allowing women greater choices will also remove some of the moral issues many women have with prostitution. Under illegal prostitution, men are seen as dominating and exploiting women. To take away that power and put it back in the hands of women should be seen as a victory by feminist groups. As well, normalizing the sex trade should help to remove the stigma of sex workers as degenerates.

Two areas that must remain illegal and fought against are child prostitution (which should, IMO, be considered anyone under the age of 18) and sex trafficking. It is estimated that 600,000-800,000 men, women and children are trafficked across international borders every year. Globalization and advanced communication devices and the internet have made the practice much easier. Traffickers prey on the vulnerable, mostly those in undeveloped or poor countries. The victims, often teenage girls, are lured from their homes with promises of a better life, removed from their countries and kept in situations where they have no control, no security and no protection from local law enforcement. These are the areas women's groups and law enforcement should be focusing their attention and resources on stopping, these are the true victims of illegal prostitution.

Prostitution is often referred to as the oldest profession in the world. This may not be completely accurate but records exist back to 2400 B.C. where it was recorded on a Sumerian list of professions (along with, interestingly, lady doctor.) and continues through historical records right up to present time. It is safe to say it is not going away. It is time for all countries to recognize this fact and provide the safest laws possible to protect these women.

Comments

[southwest]

Because it conflicts with general and traditional moral principles of the majority.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So something is immoral not because it conflicts with a certain doctrine or belief, but rather because a majority says so?

[southwest]

That's basically the definition of morality.

If we look at the poll conducted by the Social Science Research Center, we will see that among the general population of the U.S.A. 81% are against, adn 19% are in favor of legalized prostitution.

[southwest]

Ethics, morality - they all come from the same bottle.

Who determines what is moral? Who determines what is ethical?

God? Bible? The President? Your mother?

The answer is very simple: in a democratic society the opinion of a voting majority does.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

The personal answer: God does.

The non-personal answer: each person decides for him/herself. The majority opinion is nothing more that that, the majority opinion. It is rather strange that you make an assertion that it is immoral, but not because /you/ think it's immoral, or if you do you haven't said so. What is your personal opinion?

(Just for the record, I also think the sex trade is immoral. But that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal.)

[southwest]

My personal opinion is that prostitution should be legal. But it should also be regulated. For example, I would not want brothels be on every corner like MacDonalds. Where I live, it is quite legal, but if you walk around the city, you will not find many signs of it. All the exotic massage places are discrete. You can find adult escort ads in the classifieds section of the newspaper or on the internet. And only very rarely did I see a woman soliciting on a street.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Had this been so, the 13th Amendment would have secured slavery in the United States perpetually.

Transcend the context

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Does the majority of the population believe that they should control their own body?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's basically the definition of morality.

I'm not sure a majority of Christians are against birth control, but it's still moral doctrine.

If we look at the poll conducted by the Social Science Research Center, we will see that among the general population of the U.S.A. 81% are against, adn 19% are in favor of legalized prostitution.

Polling appears to be inconsistent at best (http://prostitution.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000121), but one also assumes information about the benefits of legal prostitution is hard to come by.

[southwest]

I'm not sure a majority of Christians are against birth control, but it's still moral doctrine.

Does the concept of democracy applies to the society of Christians? Not at all.

Polling appears to be inconsistent at best.

This is the best poll I could find. It covers the general population of the United States (not just Berkely or San Fran) and has a large sample size to avoid a significant error.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

And it's from 16 years ago. Public opinion just may have changed in that time.

[southwest]

I've replied to that below.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Does the concept of democracy applies to the society of Christians? Not at all.

Are we talking about morality or democracy, then?

This is the best poll I could find. It covers the general population of the United States (not just Berkely or San Fran) and has a large sample size to avoid a significant error.

And it's ancient, to boot.

[southwest]

Are we talking about morality or democracy, then?

Don't know about you, but I am talking about how morality is shaped in a democratic society. We can also talk about how it is shaped in an absolute monarchy or tyranny.

And it's ancient, to boot.

I replied to that below.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Don't know about you, but I am talking about how morality is shaped in a democratic society. We can also talk about how it is shaped in an absolute monarchy or tyranny.

Democracy does not create morality.

[southwest]

Nobody said that it does.

Again, I was talking about how morality is shaped in a democratic society. It changes, it evolves, it depends on many, many factors. In the States it is moral to eat beef, in another society it is not. It used to be moral to have slaves, a long time ago, now it is not. There are contries where prostitution is moral, and then there are those, where it is not.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Wait, are you seriously arguing that majority opinion defines morality?

What if the majority decided that it was ok to rape or murder, would that all of a sudden make them moral? How about slavery, theft, pederasty?

Just magically they all suddenly become moral of 50% + 1 of the population decides they are.

[southwest]

The answer to your question is, unfortunately, yes.

Why? - Once again, in a democratic society, the opinion of a majority decides what is moral and what is not.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

No, did you fail 3rd grade social studies or something?

We do not live in a "Democratic Society", we live in a Constitutional Republic in which the powers of the government are limited and defined by a preexisting moral code.

You seem to have us confused with a direct democracy.

Then again, you have another problem. You are mistaking policy for morality. Morality is always individual, society does not have a moral code, people do and while certain moral tenets can be commonly enough held to appear as if there is a societal morality but that is just the illusion of a lot of people who happen to agree on a few specific things, those individuals moral codes are all unique and individual.

[southwest]

I was approximating the current political system by the direct democracy, so to make it easier for others to understand my point.

Morality is always individual, society does not have a moral code.

No, society does have morals too, which are more important that the individual morality. Why? Because moral values are the standards of good and evil, which govern an individual’s behavior and choices. Individual’s morals may derive from society and government, religion, or self. When moral values derive from society and government they, of necessity, may change as the laws and morals of the society change. An example of the impact of changing laws on moral values may be seen in the case of marriage vs. “living together.” In past generations, it was rare to see couples who lived together without the benefit of a legal matrimonial ceremony. In recent years, couples that set up household without marriage are nearly as plentiful as traditional married couples. But, not only are such couples more plentiful, they are also more accepted by other individuals in our society. In earlier society, the laws and morals simply came from the Roman system of law, which was largely based on the Ten Commandments. As society moved into the modern era, that earlier system of laws became more and more eroded.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

My individual morals do not change one whit because of what the government says is okay.

Your assertion really doesn't hold any water. Or maybe you aren't talking about "morality" the way myself and others on this subthread see it.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

No, society does have morals too, which are more important that the individual morality. Why? Because moral values are the standards of good and evil, which govern an individual’s behavior and choices.

It's interesting to see someone contradict themselves so fast and not even realize it.

Individual’s morals may derive from society and government, religion, or self.

They never derive from society, and I only know of one person who derives them from government (and he has other mental issues).

But, not only are such couples more plentiful, they are also more accepted by other individuals in our society.

You're confusing "society" with a real thing. The people who make up society have changed, thus your view of "society" is now different, but "society" itself has not changed. Couples living together are not "more accepted", there are more individuals who accept it now than there were before. Do you see the distinction?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually societies do have moral codes. The Roman Empire's acceptance of morality rooted from the javelins and gladii of the legions, the USSR, PRC, Nazi Germany, and Ba'ath Iraq all accepting as preconditions that individuals have the right to arbitrary power that derives from the barrel of a gun, the various radical Christian and Muslim sects that try to create utopias and are just as horrific a bunch of failures about it as the totalitarians were......

Societal moral codes can differ vastly, even when all those societies are part of one fundamental civilization. And sometimes the moral differences are not so great.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

At one point, so did abolishing slavery.