Legalizing Prostitution

College Life
81

<p>Porn =/= prostitution; I’m not focusing on porn, I’m focusing on prostitution…
Porn is more public, so it’s more difficult to get away with injustices. Plus, porn and stripping are more entertainment related, while prostitution is more of a service…</p>

<p>Prostitution is more private. If it is legalized, it can expand to other parts of the country and I don’t see the government making prostitute protection a priority. If prostutition is legalized it has to be heavily regulated, which I don’t see happening - otherwise it’s easier to get away with more illegal activity. I can’t see too many social organizations wanting anything to do with prostitution. </p>

<p>In other words…I predict that the government force vs prostitution business would be very very very diluted - only enough manpower to skim the surface and they probably won’t find anything wrong. Not enough money is involved (in comparison to other venues) to generate much attention. The government has to pick and choose how it expends its resources - I really don’t think it can afford to monitor prostitution the way prostitution should be monitored if it were made legal. </p>

<p>Just briefly looking on Google, it seems that many sources agree with me that legalizing would make the problem worse…and increase sex trafficking, which it has already helped to do in other western countries (see Germany):</p>

<p>[70%</a> Rise in German Sex Trafficking Due to Legal Prostitution? | End Human Trafficking | Change.org](<a href=“The World’s Platform for Change · Change.org”>The World’s Platform for Change · Change.org)
[Legalizing</a> Prostitution Will Not Stop the Harm, Making the Harm Visible, Global Sexual Exploitation of Women and Girls, Speaking Out and Providing Services](<a href=“http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/mhvlegal.htm]Legalizing”>http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/mhvlegal.htm)</p>

<p>Why on earth does the US have to follow along with everything the other Western countries do? We have different priorities and problems. Just because they legalized prostitution doesn’t mean we should. They also have socialized health care and we are still not sure how following suit has effected the US - for all we know in the long run Obama might’ve made the biggest f-up in US history.</p>

82

<p>What about child pornography? What about videos of rape that end up online?</p>

<p>Porn= having sex for money, videotaped.
Prostitution= having sex for money</p>

<p>How is paying people to have sex on video different than prostitution?</p>

<p>Listen, I don’t like Europe. At all. I am all about, however, freedom to do what you want if it doesn’t hurt another person.</p>

<p>Maybe legalizing results in a spike in illegal activity, in which the gov can react with policy. But when marijuana was decriminalized, rates did not increase. </p>

<p>“If prostutition is legalized it has to be heavily regulated, which I don’t see happening - otherwise it’s easier to get away with more illegal activity. I can’t see too many social organizations wanting anything to do with prostitution.”</p>

<p>Again, what about big tobacco? It is heavily regulated. Agriculture is heavily regulated. Prescription drugs are heavily regulated. How can you KNOW that social organizations wouldn’t help? What about NOW? </p>

<p>“Just because they legalized prostitution doesn’t mean we should. They also have socialized health care and we are still not sure how following suit has effected the US - for all we know in the long run Obama might’ve made the biggest f-up in US history.”</p>

<p>Legalizing prostitution would increase liberty, socialist programs decrease freedom. That is the difference. I don’t agree with Obama, and am tired of his campaign lies. He said he would support marijuana reform, and now he saying the DEA will enforce federal laws in CA even if Prop 19 passes.</p>

<p>Do you think alcohol should be legal? The end of prohibition brought about higher levels of alcohol abuse. </p>

<p>Maybe a compromise would be decriminalizing prostitution. </p>

<p>The article seemed to discuss trafficking, and prostitution against the will of the woman, not the effects of allowing consenting women to engage in legal contracts with men. Hasn’t human trafficking increased in all parts of the world in the past 5 years? Additionally, maybe there is not an actual increase in the human sex slave trade, but it’s enforced better.</p>

<p>Perhaps the laxed laws against prostitution have allowed Germany to focus on human trafficking more exclusively, and that increased focued has led to increased arrests, making it appear as though trafficking increased, when in reality the perpetratiors were caught on a more visible basis.</p>

83

<p>Prostitution is not porn, tobacco, marijuana, or alcohol. It may bring up similar issues, but it’s still very different. Porn is essentially film industry - it’s just a script and there are records of what occurs in video and pictures. The police could easily get a hold of that material if it is public and contains illegal content because it’s recorded - very easily traced back to the source. </p>

<p>Tobacco, marijuana, and alcohol are all substances, not services. </p>

<p>And take note, I am not comparing prostitution to health care reform - I was using that to point out that sometimes following the European countries is not for the best, because it was implied otherwise by saying that other European countries have legalized prostitution.</p>

<p>Prostitution is in its own category entirely unrelated to the above…it’s a service, a questionable one. The employees are essentially objects being used, not just watched as in entertainment. Plus, prostitution has a gender…take a wild guess what it is, though obviously there are some exceptions. It centers around females, whereas porn, tobacco, marijuana and alcohol don’t really have a gender or discrimination…</p>

84

<p>"Porn is essentially film industry - it’s just a script and there are records of what occurs in video and pictures. "</p>

<p>Is it not sex for money?</p>

<p>Drugs are related to sex- cravings for physical desires and mental stimulation. All are personal choices of what to do with your own body. </p>

<p>The alcohol point is:</p>

<p>Alcohol is legal, despite the fact that it has increased rates of abuse from prohibition. My question is:</p>

<p>Because alcohol caused the same problem you believe prostitution will cause, should alcohol be legal?</p>

<p>"Tobacco, marijuana, and alcohol are all substances, not services. "</p>

<p>Selling all three is rendering a service that results in a bodily reaction.</p>

<p>I would venture to say you do not support universal health care because it is outside of the scope of government powers, in that it is not the governments job to protect the health of citizens (I am not disagreeing with that, because I do not support the health care bill or universal health care). But then you argue prostitution should remain illegal because it’s the government obligation to protect those women from abuse. </p>

<p>Of the articles you posted, I did not get out of them that there would be abuses caused by legalizing consensual prostitution. The one article even gave a second possible reason why trafficking crackdowns increased. </p>

<p>“The employees are essentially objects being used, not just watched as in entertainment.”</p>

<p>It sounds like you are referring to coerced and involuntary prostitution. In both instances, the people are paid to have sex. The only difference is porn is more public- as in its taped and sent to others who pay to watch people have sex. Porn actors are objects being used- their sex is as meaningless (talking about pro porn) as the sex had between a prostitute and customer. </p>

<p>Aren’t the producers acting like pimps in the porn industry? Both the male and female (or w/e combination you like) are being asked to perform meaningless sexual acts in exchange for money. </p>

<p>I am not trying to be rude, but I, personally, consider them equally morally questionable and equally potentially abusive.</p>

<p>I will say that whatever the gov is doing now, it is certainly not protecting prostitutes in any way. What we are doing is not working. I think the solution is to legalize consenting prostitution, and use the tax revenue to address human trafficking. </p>

<p>I don’t see how getting paid to have sex is okay when it’s taped, but not when it’s done privately. It seems like it should be the opposite.</p>

85

<p>"for all we know in the long run Obama might’ve made the biggest f-up in US history. "</p>

<p>He may well have, if only because this just mandates that everybody have health insurance. Real “change” or “progress” or “hope” or whatever would have been something like the British NHS or the Japanese system.</p>

86

<p>^
You don’t have to have insurance. If you don’t, you’ll just be taxed. The bill is going to price healthy people out of the market. Insurance companies can’t discriminate, meaning they charge everyone the average price of policy holders. The price will be higher than what a healthy person would pay if the market were allowed to function normally. Instead, if they want insurance, which is already expensive, they will have to pay more than their actual liability. Thus, many will choose to pay a small tax instead. Meanwhile, forcing to undercharge the sick will hurt the insurance companies, which the government admits to. </p>

<p>I agree that if a company sells a person a policy, and that person always pays, they shouldn’t be dropped. That is a reform I can live with. </p>

<p>The issue of young, healthy people being priced out of the market is actually going to get worse now. </p>

<p>My personal belief is that people who use insurance more than others deserve to pay more, since they use the services more. That is how the auto insurance industry works. </p>

<p>It will be interesting to see if the bill is ruled constitution. I don’t see how punishing people for choosing to spend their money on something other than healthcare isn’t restricting a persons property or liberty.</p>

<p>But I suppose that is another issue entirely.</p>

87

<p>Eh, my own belief is nobody should go bankrupt getting medical care. My mother’s a great example of this; she has bipolar disorder. While she was married to my dad she was on his company’s health plan, and she wasn’t diagnosed with it until after she was on the plan. Once they divorced, she eventually lost the coverage and couldn’t afford anything besides a terrible state insurance plan that covers nowhere near as much as my dad’s plan did.</p>

<p>Now this isn’t some **** like obesity where most of the time it’s the person’s fault that they are the way that they are. This is a condition a person does not choose to have, and it is a condition that can be completely debilitating if it is not treated properly. Thankfully my mother isn’t in the poor house from this new insurance plan, but others are not so lucky. That’s why I’m a huge fan of the NHS; yes the taxes are higher in Britain but nobody goes broke getting what IMO is a basic right.</p>

88

<p>I think health CARE is a basic right, but not affordable insurance. It’s not fair, but I would imagine she needs to see a pyschiatrist on a regular basis, is on probably at least two mood stabilizers, and may see a therapist at least once a month. </p>

<p>People who use doctor’s the most should pay the most, because they gain the most. Luckily my father has excellent insurance, and he is in chronic pain. He still has to pay a higher percentage per visit than people on Medicaid or in group programs. If someone is unhealthy, choice or not, it is not fair that they pay the same amount as someone who is healthy and rarely uses insurance. </p>

<p>I am not saying it’s okay for people to go broke paying for health care, but I am saying that there should be a scale based on how much you use insurance. It is that way in the auto insurance industry. </p>

<p>Looking at the VA system, I shudder at the thought of gov run healthcare. The level of care in the US is higher than anywhere in the world, the best doctor’s want to practice here, and the medical schools are top notch. </p>

<p>Like I said, the issue is the COST of health insurance. The health care bill does not address that issue. Hospitals overcharge for their services. That needs to be addressed.</p>

<p>The issue with cost is that it is very costly to buy an individual policy outside of a group rate. </p>

<p>What I think would be fair is a tax rebate, that could only be used to pay for insurance. Or expanding Medicaid and CHIP coverage. </p>

<p>Ron Paul has an interesting view on insurance, especially since he was a doctor before health insurance became a huge industry. I read a book on the history of health insurance, Dead on Arrival, and essentially there used to be no insurance system. Basically, a doctor would charge a patient based on what they could pay. Ron Paul also explains this system. Health insurance is a 20th century phenomena. It used to only be used for really bad health issues- accidents, serious conditions. It evolved to be used for everything. </p>

<p>Regardless, I would not support any system that would lower the overall quality, result in higher taxes or any limitations on what type of insurance you can have. If the gov wants to come out with insurance, that’s fine. People could then choose between cheap, low level care or better care. </p>

<p>I think the big misconception is that there is an epidemic of health care abuses. Yes, they happen, but people like to cite individual exceptions to the norm. No system is perfect. The actual estimation for those who are uninsured that 1) don’t qualify for free insurance and 2) can not afford insurance is roughly 5million. Now, I don’t have an issue helping those people afford insurance, I would support a tax rebate for that segment. </p>

<p>I don’t see the benefit of a complete overall when 90% of people have insurance, and the vast majority are happy with that insurance. There is a chunk of people who do not want to pay for insurance, I think it would be morally wrong to force those who choose to have insurance to pay more money for those that don’t want it. </p>

<p>Overall, the issue that needs to be addressed is cost. Michael Cannon has written some excellent material on the subject, and has come up with some interesting proposals to reform health care. I saw him speak, and, as a non party affiliated scholar, he was very knowledgable and gave a great explanation of the health care bill. I would suggest reading his proposals, they make a lot of sense.</p>

89

<p>The Japanese, Taiwanese and German systems all negotiate prices for health care. They’ll set the price of an MRI and then when the next review comes around it’ll either go up or down. I believe the Taiwanese have one of the cheapest systems in the world, but unfortunately the government has to borrow from banks to make up for deficits. So that may not be viable. Japan’s system is also a bit too inexpensive, but not as bad as Taiwan’s.</p>

<p>The best systems IMO are the English NHS, the German system and the Swiss system. The Swiss system actually costs quite a bit, but it’s not as bad as the US. And all these countries have great health care, and in fact have higher life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates than in the US. For a country that spends so much on health care you’d think we’d be higher up in the rankings.</p>

90

<p>I’m naturally distrustful of the gov. I’ve seen what they’ve done when we have given them power the past couple of years, and it backfired. We have a fairly unique situation, as well. I don’t think we need a gov run, universal system to fix things. I don’t trust the politicians to have that type of leverage over health care.</p>

91

<p>

</p>

<p>You’re talking about of both sides of your mouth. If people can’t afford insurance/treatment then they won’t be getting “health CARE.”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Socialist.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Replace “insurance” with “care” and the sentence remains mostly true.</p>

92

<p>

This has to do with the fact that in America we have a huge gap between rich/poor, a bigger gap than in any other 1st world country I believe. We have excellent health care here, as well as some of the best medical schools in the world, our physicians and surgeons are highly trained (more so than in most countries), much of the cutting-edge med/science research happens in America, etc…</p>

<p>But the fact remains is we have far more poor people in America than in western European nations which have more socialist policies (I’m not a fan of socialism, but obviously it reduces the poor/rich gap divide). People in countries like Switzerland have a higher quality of life, national health insurance, work less than we do, there is a much smaller economic divide, people eat a lot healthier than we do (they can afford to), people exercise regularly, it’s a part of their culture. In American we tend to work much longer hours and for more years, and have the unhealthiest eating habits and worst exercise habits of most countries in the world (this is for a multitude of reasons, some which are and aren’t our fault).</p>

93

<p>Hmm… your post just made socialism sound more appealing :P</p>

94

<p>The only reason I brought up social health care reform in the first place was to point out that the United States followed the example of many European countries but we still do not know, in the long run, if it was a good decision. It has nothing to do with how I think the government ought to act in regards to prostitution… I brought it up because it was mentioned that many European countries have legalized prostitution, implying that the United States should follow the trend and do it too. </p>

<p>I did clarify this in an earlier post…</p>

95

<p>Government cannot fully enforce current prostitution laws, might as well as legalize it and tax the hell out of it.</p>

96

<p>Another great idea- exactly what the young college men need.</p>

<p>Instead of watching pornography you can just go and get the the real thing and thumbs up because this is legal.</p>

<p>Since we absolutely need more young people humping each other.</p>

97

<p>If they are both using adequate protection, then what is the foul in that?</p>

98

<p>Technically speaking there is no biological need to have sex unless you need to produce more babies.</p>

<p>Legalizing prostitution is what many young men would want but I definitely don’t see it as a necessity.</p>

<p>As I stated before- Do we really need more young people humping each other? If you think we do, please state why.</p>

99

<p>We don’t “need” it any more than we do “need” it. Many of the things we own we don’t need in a basic hunter-gatherer survival sense. </p>

<p>Since you’re the one saying we don’t need more young people having sex, you ought to at least say why you think that is.</p>

100

<p>Are you suggesting comparing prostitution to cable television, automobiles, and other luxuries?</p>

<p>Oh, I’d like this. I can go and sit on the couch and watch television. Then I would go outside and turn the key on my car to go and buy groceries. At last I would come back and use my credit card to order someone special for the night.</p>

<p>Here are some articles that I found(I don’t necessary agree or disagree with them, I just found them):</p>

<p>[Gene</a> Expression: Intercourse and Intelligence](<a href=“http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php]Gene”>Gene Expression: Intercourse and Intelligence)
[Average</a> Age to Lose Virginity](<a href=“http://www.buzzle.com/articles/average-age-to-lose-virginity.html]Average”>http://www.buzzle.com/articles/average-age-to-lose-virginity.html)
[Legalize</a> Prostitution](<a href=“Humanism by Joe – Just another WordPress site”>Humanism by Joe – Just another WordPress site)</p>

<p>Personally, I think it is unnecessary for young people to have sex without being inside a relationship. In that case sex doesn’t fulfill any purpose besides a very primitive impulse(gratification). Similarly many things that young people do are acting on impulse rather than acting on logic. </p>

<p>I know a lot of people who I have met in college who seemed absorbed into doing the types of activities which would lead into the humping. So, they probably won’t agree.</p>

<p>But of course my opinion is biased because after all I am a virgin.</p>