Sex work should be decriminalized

[Artful Revealer]

Labour can obviously be immoral. I wouldn't necessarily call prostitution labour. It's a transaction mutually agreed upon in which the body of the prostitute is the rented commodity. No economic surplus or value is created, only wealth transfered. Labour can't be identified as such just because money is spent on one's time. Instagram models aren't labourers either.

The immorality of labour is less obvious when people see a consensual agreement, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Drug dealing has a consensual relationship between seller and buyer. Dealing drugs is immoral and it's both the seller and the buyer that are committing criminal offense.

Because this is a moral issue, of course religions should be at the forefront of this debate. The morals of a secular society are but compromises between the subjective principles of men, ie. without objective foundation, a foundation that says there's an order to nature and there's an order to morality. That means there's a natural and moral order to sexuality. Its natural purpose is to procreate and it's moral order (a dimension that belongs to humans) is to do so in true love and devotion (Christianity sanctifies both orders with marriage). Prostitution has no reproductive purpose nor is it the product of love. To legalize prostitution is to publicly endorse the depravity of sexual relations and disrupt its natural and moral order.

Now this is obviously in the idealist sense. Privately these standards are of course met by just a small minority of people and nowhere am I implying that there should be government interference in the private lives of its civilians and like an all-seeing eye penetrate everyone's darkest secrets or supervise everyone's sins. Also, in this day and age of technology and the easy access to everything, prostitution would continue to exist in discretion no matter what government policies are implemented. But any public display of prostitution should be cracked down hard. The overall point is that society has to set the ideal and not accommodate people's urge to transgress the moral order.

 

[Infinityloop]

On this part:

Labour can obviously be immoral. I wouldn't necessarily call prostitution labour. It's a transaction mutually agreed upon in which the body of the prostitute is the rented commodity. No economic surplus or value is created, only wealth transfered. Labour can't be identified as such just because money is spent on one's time.

I fail to understand how one is supply and demand yet the other somehow isn't.

As for prostitution, providing you are not speaking about scummy woman hanging around on highways picking up passers by or woman being taken hostage and forced to use their body as a product, then it most certainly is selling time. I'm not exactly sure what the definition is being used here.
I do know things about this topic because I know what there is in society. At least in the countries I am familiar with, women work for 'employers' who are the renters of properties. These 'employers' are themselves advertised to make things more professional for the clients. The woman advertise on public newspapers and online with their phone numbers. The client then books an appointment for a set time and set cost and that is basically all there is. There are aside from that certain health requirements that the woman worker has to conduct herself with or she can and would be sued for breaking the law if she was caught not adhering to them (just like with kitchens at restaurants with health inspectors etc).
That's at least the definition I'm speaking about here. Therefore apply that to what I am saying in my above two posts.

The immorality of labour is less obvious when people see a consensual agreement, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Drug dealing has a consensual relationship between seller and buyer. Dealing drugs is immoral and it's both the seller and the buyer that are committing criminal offense.

Clearly if anyone doesn't have a choice in it then it is by default immoral. Drugs is a different kind of topic, not for the issue of commodity but for the issue of how the national health regulations of a country is. Some drugs are illegal and legal in different countries for different reasons. At the same time doctors themselves administer drugs to patients for health problems, so it again depends on the type of drugs, their effects, their side-effects and the context etc.
Having sex itself is a different thing to deal with as well when it comes to the health industry and it can be dangerous between even a married couple if one of the married partners has certain skin conditions for instance. However in the case of a married couple, you can't really sue your wife/husband over something like that though can you? as for sex work though, from what I know, service cannot be sold if the worker is not in a healthy condition.

 

[DavidSon]

Labour can obviously be immoral. I wouldn't necessarily call prostitution labour. It's a transaction mutually agreed upon in which the body of the prostitute is the rented commodity. No economic surplus or value is created, only wealth transfered. Labour can't be identified as such just because money is spent on one's time. Instagram models aren't labourers either.

The immorality of labour is less obvious when people see a consensual agreement, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Drug dealing has a consensual relationship between seller and buyer. Dealing drugs is immoral and it's both the seller and the buyer that are committing criminal offense.

Because this is a moral issue, of course religions should be at the forefront of this debate. The morals of a secular society are but compromises between the subjective principles of men, ie. without objective foundation, a foundation that says there's an order to nature and there's an order to morality. That means there's a natural and moral order to sexuality. Its natural purpose is to procreate and it's moral order (a dimension that belongs to humans) is to do so in true love and devotion (Christianity sanctifies both orders with marriage). Prostitution has no reproductive purpose nor is it the product of love. To legalize prostitution is to publicly endorse the depravity of sexual relations and disrupt its natural and moral order.

Now this is obviously in the idealist sense. Privately these standards are of course met by just a small minority of people and nowhere am I implying that there should be government interference in the private lives of its civilians and like an all-seeing eye penetrate everyone's darkest secrets or supervise everyone's sins. Also, in this day and age of technology and the easy access to everything, prostitution would continue to exist in discretion no matter what government policies are implemented. But any public display of prostitution should be cracked down hard. The overall point is that society has to set the ideal and not accommodate people's urge to transgress the moral order.

I also don't relate with the first two paragraphs. Someone's time is what's valuable, so it is basically labor. "Dealing drugs" I personally don't equate on the same level as trafficking sex. We all have our own views. Abortion is a similar difficult topic, because again socio-economic conditions usually play a part.

I agree strongly about publishing the instruction of traditional religions on these moralistic issues. Well said about the accepted order handed to us by our ancestors, from all nations. It's sad because the morals Western society want to reject are only the rudimentary precepts to advancing spiritually. That's a universal fact. There isn't a person alive who (normally) wishes their son or daughter be involved in the sex trade. People can talk about extremes and outliers but I try to stay with simple historic facts.

Yeah no one wants the government/tech industry to increase their spying. True, when the majority of a democratic populace choose their laws, as long as they don't infringe on international law (of the United Nations and ICC), they have to be accepted.

I see prostitution and all the players involved as a grave sin, that's just my opinion. In some cultures "marriage" is the physical act of consummation. What a miserable circumstance. I see it as yet another insidious side-effect of a liberal economic system that coldly values money and profit over the wellness of creation.

 

[Thunderian]

If you make a harmless (to anyone else) transaction between two consenting adults illegal on moral grounds, where do you draw the line?

I do not, and I can’t stress this enough, want to live in a theocracy where the ruler is anyone but Jesus Christ. I would rather have legal prostitution than risk the chance of some ruler deciding what private behaviour of mine may or may not be immoral.

This isn’t about promoting prostitution. It’s about the freedom to follow your own conscience. No one has the right to impose their morals on anyone else.

 

[DavidSon]

Turquoise= Decriminalization – no criminal penalties for prostitution

Green= Legalization – prostitution legal and regulated

Blue= Abolitionism – prostitution is legal, but organized activities such as brothels and pimping are illegal; prostitution is not regulated

Orange= Neo-abolitionism – illegal to buy sex and for 3rd party involvement, legal to sell sex

Red= Prohibitionism – prostitution illegal

Grey= Legality varies with local laws

 

[Lurker]

"Why should it be compulsory to work a job?" or "Why should employment be necessary for basic living necessities?

I'd say it's because we, as a whole, have moved so far away from self-sufficiency. In the past, neighbors could trade/sell the produce of their labor directly. They could further trade/sell with the mercantile. In the end, nothing is free. Now instead of laboring on our farms, we labor at companies. Both are working for basic needs, so I'm not sure what your really trying to say.

 

[Lurker]

Call this opinion "legislating morality," I don't really care

Would you care if it was someone else's morality being legislated?

In no sane, healthy culture would we encourage our daughters, sisters, mothers, etc. to share access to their private parts in exchange for cash

Where have you seen it encouraged? Not criminalizing something is not the same as encouraging.

 

[morita]

I see prostitution and all the players involved as a grave sin, that's just my opinion. In some cultures "marriage" is the physical act of consummation. What a miserable circumstance. I see it as yet another insidious side-effect of a liberal economic system that coldly values money and profit over the wellness of creation.

I'll reiterate what I said in a previous post and say that you're partly right in that women are more likely to be sex workers just as men are disproportionately more likely to be the pimps and the clients. So what does it say about how men view women?

I honestly don't think our society can have a conversation about sex work without unpacking the sexist biases that usually spill all over the topic. Religion has a lot to do with it as I said in a previous post.
Men have always reduced women to their genitals. Whether it's valuing women only for their ability to procreate, or reduced them to sex objects. But if women decide they want to make money off of their vaginas they get instantly vilified.

Abortion is a similar difficult topic, because again socio-economic conditions usually play a part.

Again legislating women's bodily autonomy.

 

[DavidSon]

Would you care if it was someone else's morality being legislated?

Where have you seen it encouraged?...

As I said this morning if a nation decides their laws by popular vote there's not much we can do. I also respect the laws of theocratic/communist governments if the choices are generally accepted by the majority. Even so we have a right to speak our minds on these complicated topics, there's no harm in that.

You're right "encouraged" was a poor choice of wording. To say there are Christians who condone prostitution is probably more accurate. Some people seem to brush off the subject lightly but to me it strikes a deep nerve of many related imbalances in society.

Not criminalizing something is not the same as encouraging.

Good point. Looking at the map of laws by nation it's interesting to see the (orange) states who've opted for neo-abolitionism. In Canada you can't be criminalized for selling sex, only paying for it. Very important distinction made to protect victims.

 

[Thunderian]

I also respect the laws of theocratic/communist governments if the choices are generally accepted by the majority.

I’m struggling to think of one example of a theocratic or communist country where the choices were generally accepted by the majority.

And no, condone is not a better word. I don’t condone prostitution, but I’m able to understand that in a free society I can’t outlaw everything I consider immoral.

 

[Artful Revealer]

With regards to labour I'm arguing from the labour theory of value which states that the only true value in an economy is labour because it's the only true source of wealth. Every commodity is the result of someone's labour, present or past. The "true price" of a good or service would be measured against the labour that is required to produce it. People used to know this, whether one was a Marxist or a Smithian, but it seems to have been forgotten in this day and age of supply and demand. When you have no labour, you have no wealth, no matter how much money you throw at it. But labour that doesn't produce actual wealth or surplus to the economy, such as prostitution, usury or speculation, can't be treated in the same fashion as for instance the labour of a peasant, a carpenter, a doctor or a factory worker.

There is a morality to labour since I think many among us would agree that speculation and usury are immoral, which also require time of the usurers and speculators. Would you then also hand it over to the rules of the free market because morality shouldn't be legislated? Morality is being legislated all the time, moral principles have just been reframed as "rights". Do people have the right to personal autonomy over how they express their sexuality? Sure, but out of sight out of mind. It should not infringe upon the social and moral order of society. There would be nothing wrong against banning prostitution from the public sphere, but if two people privately agree to it, so be it. There would be nothing wrong with banning usury, but if two people privately agree to a loan at compound interest, so be it. But as a society, we have every right, and possibly a duty, to make a public stance against these things.

 

[DavidSon]

I honestly don't think our society can have a conversation about sex work without unpacking the sexist biases that usually spill all over the subject. Religion has a lot to do with it as I said in a previous post.
Men have always reduced women to their genitals. Whether it's valuing women only for their ability to procreate, or reduced them to sex objects. But if women decide they want to make money off of their vaginas they get instantly vilified.

I agree bias is difficult to separate from our views. It's pretty clear that the VC forum is a slightly older crowd and that factors into the discussions here. In my 2nd post, thanks to your input, I tried to speak more inclusively about what I feel is psychological harm to both women and men. But we have to be realistic about not simply hundreds... but thousands of years of traditional human mores. I looked up male prostitution and there's very little data because the incidence is so small compared. Not to be mean or bigoted toward any minority but IMO it's helpful to speak about obvious, general statistics. This is true of many polarizing topics such as race, homosexuality, abortion, etc.

From a spiritual POV men who only view females as sex objects are brutish and carnally minded. I'd go as far to say they're a dying breed. As women are slowly gaining economic and social independence they have more freedom to choose partners who match their ideals. We're not going to erase thousands of years of conditioning in a half century but the trend towards equality is apparent.

Again legislating women's bodily autonomy.

Male and female are not separate species. We're surrounded by each other and we have to talk about these issues to make decisions. I want to state that unlike prostitution I have more understanding for a woman's right to choose to abort a child. My opinion is abortion is tragic and there needs to be economic support and education for mothers-to-be, but it's too complex an issue to just shut down every abortion clinic in America.

Edit: I forgot to say thanks for bringing this topic up for discussion.

 

[Infinityloop]

Morality is being legislated all the time, moral principles have just been reframed as "rights". Do people have the right to personal autonomy over how they express their sexuality? Sure, but out of sight out of mind. It should not infringe upon the social and moral order of society. There would be nothing wrong against banning prostitution from the public sphere, but if two people privately agree to it, so be it. There would be nothing wrong with banning usury, but if two people privately agree to a loan at compound interest, so be it. But as a society, we have every right, and possibly a duty, to make a public stance against these things.

I'm by no means a liberal in any sense of the word but I fail to see anything except for religious views informing opposition to it.
When you live in a collective society that is made up of a lot of conflicting worldviews, there is nothing you can do but find a middle way in the laws of the place. This is why somethings are universally seen to be against the law and punishable (such as murder).
I happen to be very unfavorable to secularism but it does have a point about exactly what the things are in question that we hold as the deciding factors to something being legal or illegal, what is enforced and what effort is put into promoting awareness on other things.

There was wisdom in @Thunderian's statement about "nobody has their right to impose their morals on someone else". Something like this topic, no matter how much we oppose it in our own worldviews, cannot be something made illegal on moral grounds. Even if your religion and mine was 100% verifiable, making laws like this for those who reject your religion is still simply a very bad thing to do. This is because we come back into the topic of free-will out of the interaction of conflicting belief-systems. Afterall, in the Abrahamic religions God (not man) is the ultimate judge and it is for us to follow God's law (Torah/Gospel/Sharia), not make others follow our own made-up laws influenced by our views on the aforementioned laws of God.

 

[DavidSon]

I’m struggling to think of one example of a theocratic or communist country where the choices were generally accepted by the majority.

And no, condone is not a better word. I don’t condone prostitution, but I’m able to understand that in a free society I can’t outlaw everything I consider immoral.

You think the PR of China or IS of Iran are suppressing the majorities will? Contrary to the propaganda of liberal democracies this is unbelievable (at least in the case of prostitution). It's interesting I searched "prostitution in Iran" and it's also a problem there. Still, not every country desires liberalism and the corresponding diseases of wealth inequality, imprisonment, homelessness, addiction, obesity, divorce, etc.

No one is saying YOU or I will outlaw anything. But we have a voice and voting power. After everything I've said, if the measure comes up to a ballot or something I will vote no for legalized prostitution. How would you vote?

This isn't a Libertarian website. VC's writing focuses mainly on subversive elements underlying society. I think the sex trade is evil and ties into many of the other issues we're educating ourselves, discussing, and FIGHTING AGAINST.

 

[Artful Revealer]

There was wisdom in @Thunderian's statement about "nobody has their right to impose their morals on someone else".

I strongly disagree. (Not saying Thunderian isn't capable of posting wise things )

This statement is only valid in a world that denies objective moral principles. If objective moral principles exist (which they do) society or even an individual has every right to denounce immoral acts by others. Else there are no boundaries to immorality, no justified judgment against immoral acts, whether it be theft, animal sacrifice, paedophilia, you name it.

If one believes in a moral order, then you have two choices: either you conform your acts to the moral order, or you adjust the moral order to your acts. Same goes for a society. If you do the latter, morality becomes relative and subjective and personal and there's no way to legislate morality other than by compromises of the members of the legislative body of government. That's when you have to find a middle way in a collective of conflicting views, something which can be avoided, and was avoided in the days of old, by the institution that safeguards objective moral principles from the corruption of men's desires and flawed rationality, ie. the Church.

 

[Thunderian]

You think the PR of China or IS of Iran are suppressing the majorities will?

I know for a fact that they are. Any government that has to violently suppress their populace — as both Iran and China are literally doing right now — does not enjoy the support of the majority.

Still, not every country desires liberalism and the corresponding diseases of wealth inequality, imprisonment, homelessness, addiction, obesity, divorce, etc.

Learn more about the countries we are speaking of. Those things are also serious problems in China and Iran.

How would you vote?

Kidnap, r*pe, coercion, and slavery are already illegal. The only objection to a person willingly selling their body is then a moral one, and while I am morally against it, I won’t impose my morals on other free adults.

I think the sex trade is evil

So do I, but prosecuting prostitutes isn’t the answer.

 

[morita]

I agree bias is difficult to separate from our views. It's pretty clear that the VC forum is a slightly older crowd and that factors into the discussions here. In my 2nd post, thanks to your input, I tried to speak more inclusively about what I feel is psychological harm to both women and men. But we have to be realistic about not simply hundreds... but thousands of years of traditional human mores.

From a spiritual POV men who only view females as sex objects are brutish and carnally minded. I'd go as far to say they're a dying breed.

I'd argue that men have 2 sets of rules: one for the "proper ladies", the ones who dress modestly, stay at home, reserve their bodies for intimate partners. And one for the whores, the sluts, the loose women, the prostitutes. To them, women who fall into the latter category aren't deserving of any respect.

Male and female are not separate species. We're surrounded by each other and we have to talk about these issues to make decisions. I want to state that unlike prostitution I have more understanding for a woman's right to choose to abort a child.

I do take issue with the fact that it's a room full of men making laws about women uteruses.

 

[TempestOfTempo]

I'll reiterate what I said in a previous post and say that you're partly right in that women are more likely to be sex workers just as men are disproportionately more likely to be the pimps and the clients. So what does it say about how men view women?

I honestly don't think our society can have a conversation about sex work without unpacking the sexist biases that usually spill all over the topic. Religion has a lot to do with it as I said in a previous post.
Men have always reduced women to their genitals. Whether it's valuing women only for their ability to procreate, or reduced them to sex objects. But if women decide they want to make money off of their vaginas they get instantly vilified.


Again legislating women's bodily autonomy.

"Men have always reduced women to their genitals."
I understand your sentiment, but the usage of absolutes serves to potentially further isolate you from males whom are willing to stand for your cause.

 

[morita]

Virginie Despentes, a french author has an interesting perpective on it:

 

[Artful Revealer]

Virginie Despentes, a french author has an interesting perpective on it:
View attachment 29243

All the more proof that ideology is often but a projection of one’s own attempt to rationalise and morally justify their own immoral and decadent lives, Despentes being a former prostitute, lesbian and promoter of pornography, alcoholic and drug addict, almost 50 without a husband or kids.

If any woman wants to live a miserable life, make sure to follow her example and philosophy.