Should brothels be banned?

[OldGimletEye]

Chilly, here is my question. Is your opposition to legalized prostitution based primarily on finding the act itself repugnant, i.e. the exchange of money for sex, or is based on concerns that prostitution passes off cost to others who are not willing participants to the transactions (basically negative externalities)? Or is based on the view that women who enter the profession will lack sufficient market power in order to be able to bargain for fair wages and safe working conditions and no regulatory framework is capable of correcting any imbalance in market power.

[ChillyPolly]

Chilly, here is my question. Is your opposition to legalized prostitution based primarily on finding the act itself repugnant, i.e. the exchange of money for sex, or is based on concerns that prostitution passes off cost to others who are not willing participants to the transactions (basically negative externalities)? Or is based on the view that women who enter the profession will lack sufficient market power in order to be able to bargain for fair wages and safe working conditions and no regulatory framework is capable of correcting any imbalance in market power.

Here's my question to you. Why are you speculating? Why are you not addressing the reasons I have given in this thread?

Firstly, although I DO have an opinion that legalization is bad policy, that opinion is relatively tentative. It is based upon the (IMHO predictable) observed results in those jurisdictions that have implemented legalization. I would be willing to rethink that opinion if I observed that the results of legalization resulted in fewer harms, or really led to less abuse, and fewer exploited and trafficked women. But that is not the case.

Much of what I have said is directed at a different idea: The idea that selling, buying and pimping of sex is an activity that causes harm, and therefore should not be engaged in or participated in for the moral and humanitarian reason that humans should be more concerned about their fellow brothers and sisters than about getting their rocks off in some cheap thrill. This is a separate notion from "legality". I don't think people should cheat on their spouses either, but (in that case) I suspect it might do more harm than good if cops and judges and prosecutors were to get involved.

I have never said I personally find the idea "repugnant". I have made no arguments based on that. My opinion is women who find the idea of becoming prostitutes appealing (not too many, I would think) should resist the temptation, and that those who find the idea repugnant have no temptation to resist. My opinion is that men who find the idea of paying for sex appealing should resist the temptation, and those who find the idea repugnant have no temptation to resist.

My arguments I have made are indeed based on harms, or what you call "negative externalites". But you already know that. So why are you asking?

[OldGimletEye]

Here's my question to you. Why are you speculating? Why are you not addressing the reasons I have given in this thread?

Firstly, although I DO have an opinion that legalization is bad policy, that opinion is relatively tentative. It is based upon the (IMHO predictable) observed results in those jurisdictions that have implemented legalization. I would be willing to rethink that opinion if I observed that the results of legalization resulted in fewer harms, or really led to less abuse, and fewer exploited and trafficked women. But that is not the case.

Much of what I have said is directed at a different idea: The idea that selling, buying and pimping of sex is an activity that causes harm, and therefore should not be engaged in or participated in for the moral and humanitarian reason that humans should be more concerned about their fellow brothers and sisters than about getting their rocks off in some cheap thrill. This is a separate notion from "legality". I don't think people should cheat on their spouses either, but (in that case) I suspect it might do more harm than good if cops and judges and prosecutors were to get involved.

I have never said I personally find the idea "repugnant". I have made no arguments based on that. My opinion is women who find the idea of becoming prostitutes appealing (not too many, I would think) should resist the temptation, and that those who find the idea repugnant have no temptation to resist. My opinion is that men who find the idea of paying for sex appealing should resist the temptation, and those who find the idea repugnant have no temptation to resist.

My arguments I have made are indeed based on harms, or what you call "negative externalites". But you already know that. So why are you asking?

Number one. Fucking chill. I am not speculating. I was asking for a clarification in order to nail down your precise argument.

Now turning to the thrust of your argument. I think it's actually not that unreasonable. If you permit certain transactions and those transaction do pass off cost to others then yes, I think you need to certainly think about regulating those transactions. And if regulation of those transactions don't work, then you might have to entertain outlawing those transactions.

Also, I do appreciate that your position is "tentative" because I kind of feel the same way, although I do lean a bit towards the legalization approach, but I am not sure since the state of empirical evidence does seem to be a bit murky, yet does seem to support your view that legalization has caused increased trafficking.

With regard to legalizing prostitution, here is what I'd personally worry about:

1. Increased trafficking. Basically imposing cost on unwilling participants.

2. Increased cheating on spouses (again passing off cost to unwilling participants). However, I think this probably could best be handled by ensuring the economic equality of women, so that they would be more capable of "punishing" their offending husbands.

3. Unfair bargaining power between women who work in the sex industry and those who employ them. I'd want to be sure that the women in the industry were capable of negotiating for fair wages and safe working conditions.

[Dorian Martell]

wow, lots of prudes in these forums. Lots of prudes.

[OldGimletEye]

Oh, I am certainly not a prude. I have huge bias in favor of letting people do what they want when it comes to their own private sexual affairs.

[RedShirt47]

Banning them would not stop them. They are banned in many modern societies and that work still goes on - with dedicated police forces and law enforcement agencies.

There are many jobs which are unhealthy to work in.
Mining, tannery activities, dock workers etc all had harsh working conditions which either had long term health issues or high mortality rates.
Would you ban all these also?

The girls are probably better off than they would be out on the street.

[Dya of Oldstones]

wow, lots of prudes in these forums. Lots of prudes.

Gulity as charged, but I'm pro legalization of prostitution and drugs. I don't expect the rest of the world to be as prissy as I am.

Number one. Fucking chill. I am not speculating. I was asking for a clarification in order to nail down your precise argument.

Now turning to your the thrust of your argument. I think it's actually not that unreasonable. If you permit certain transactions and those transaction do pass off cost to others then yes, I think you need to certainly think about regulating those transactions. And if regulation of those transactions don't work, then you might have to entertain outlawing those transactions.

Also, I do appreciate that your position is "tentative" because I kind of feel the same way, although I do lean a bit towards the legalization approach, but I am not sure since the state of empirical evidence does seem to be a bit murky, yet does seem to support your view that legalization has caused increased trafficking.

With regard to legalizing prostitution, here is what I'd personally worry about:

1. Increased trafficking. Basically imposing cost on unwilling participants.

2. Increased cheating on spouses (again passing off cost to unwilling participants). However, I think this probably could best be handled by ensuring the economic equality of women, so that they would be more capable of "punishing" their offending husbands.

3. Unfair bargaining power between women who work in the sex industry and those who employ them. I'd want to be sure that the women in the industry were capable of negotiating for fair wages and safe working conditions.

:bowdown:

Agree with all the above. I don't think legalization is a panacea, but working toward better outcomes for society in general and evidence of actual progress being made would help. Bans simply keep problems hidden and harder to deal with, but it depends on how legalization is handled too.

[Dorian Martell]

Oh, I am certainly not a prude. I have huge bias in favor of letting people do what they want when it comes to their own private sexual affairs.

Gulity as charged, but I'm pro legalization of prostitution and drugs. I don't expect the rest of the world to be as prissy as I am.

Neither of you folks are prudes as you are all for people making adult choices.

[ElizabethB.]

Scapegoating prostitution for cheating is maybe the wildest thing I have read.

This must be a troll.

I don't know anything about the context of prude in this thread. Is it insult or compliment.

[Dya of Oldstones]

Scapegoating prostitution for cheating is maybe the wildest thing I have read.

This must be a troll.

I don't know anything about the context of prude in this thread. Is it insult or compliment.

The cheating spouse thing got me too, since it's never just about the sex. As for the prude thing, I may have replied somewhat tongue in cheek, but the shoe fits for me. ETA: Maybe square or party pooper would work better but idk.

[ChillyPolly]

So anyone who wants to buy sex creates the need for not only women that become victimized by selling it but for pimps who take advantage of the situation? It never works any other way? The sex is never advertised, or marketed to the buyer in any way shape or form?

I dunno Chilly - you feel like you have this super puritan view of sexual interaction to me. All decent men will only sleep with a wife and all decent women will only sleep with a husband, type of thing. Though I agree that once a couple commits to each other, often via marriage, that they should stay true to each other - I also very much believe that single people should be allowed to explore their sexuality however they choose, which includes buying and selling if they so desire - so long as they do not force themselves on another against their will, or take advantage of anyone unable to be a willing participant (of course).

(1) WANTING to buy sex has no effect at all. It is only the actual buying of sex that causes problems.

(2) I explicitly mentioned advertising in the post you are responding to. Those advertising dollars come from johns (who probably stole those dollars from their wives). Demand does indeed increase, when advertising occurs. Demand does indeed increase when legalization occurs. The result is that more money flows into the coffers of the pimps (who now have the status of businessmen and lobbyists), who engage in more trafficking and more abuse (and more bribery and more corruption) and more advertising, in an increased number of increasingly legitimate venues. And of course the more jaded and experienced a john becomes, the more demanding (and degrading) his demands become. It's a vicious cycle.

(3) I do not "seem" to have a superpuritan view of things. That is simply a dishonest statement by one desperate to make ad-hominem attacks. All my arguments have been based on identifiable harms, or the unacceptable risk of such harm.

(4) The reason I mentioned that most johns are married is because this is a readily-obtainable statistic. Obviously, if we included men who are cheating on their girlfriends, the proportions of johns who are traitors to the women in their lives would be even higher. Of course, then there are other situations, such as the young men who squander money entrusted to them by their parents for some more worthy purpose. They are traitors too, in a way.

[ElizabethB.]

The cheating spouse thing got me too, since it's never just about the sex. As for the prude thing, I may have replied somewhat tongue in cheek, but the shoe fits for me. ETA: Maybe square or party pooper would work better but idk.

You know, I am all for tongue in cheek.

[DraculaAD1972]

(1) WANTING to buy sex has no effect at all. It is only the actual buying of sex that causes problems.

(2) I explicitly mentioned advertising in the post you are responding to. Those advertising dollars come from johns (who probably stole those dollars from their wives). Demand does indeed increase, when advertising occurs. Demand does indeed increase when legalization occurs. The result is that more money flows into the coffers of the pimps (who now have the status of businessmen and lobbyists), who engage in more trafficking and more abuse (and more bribery and more corruption) and more advertising, in an increased number of increasingly legitimate venues. And of course the more jaded and experienced a john becomes, the more demanding (and degrading) his demands become. It's a vicious cycle.

(3) I do not "seem" to have a superpuritan view of things. That is simply a dishonest statement by one desperate to make ad-hominem attacks. All my arguments have been based on identifiable harms, or the unacceptable risk of such harm.

(4) The reason I mentioned that most johns are married is because this is a readily-obtainable statistic. Obviously, if we included men who are cheating on their girlfriends, the proportions of johns who are traitors to the women in their lives would be even higher. Of course, then there are other situations, such as the young men who squander money entrusted to them by their parents for some more worthy purpose. They are traitors too, in a way.

Chilly, you're good, I'll give you that. Your parody of moral concern is epic. Cleary you are a stealth libertarian, devoted to promoting sexual freedom via lampooning the opposite stance.

[ChillyPolly]

Chilly, you're good, I'll give you that. Your parody of moral concern is epic. Cleary you are a stealth libertarian, devoted to promoting sexual freedom via lampooning the opposite stance.

This is an attempt by "King of the Slums" to pretend that any person who pretends to be concerned that prostitution promotes the equivalent of sexual slavery cannot possibly be serious. Nice try, King Of The Slums. But you're the one ignoring hard and harsh realities. The vicious cycle I mentioned has indeed occurred in those jurisdictions that practice legalization.

[James Arryn]

(1) WANTING to buy sex has no effect at all. It is only the actual buying of sex that causes problems.

(2) I explicitly mentioned advertising in the post you are responding to. Those advertising dollars come from johns (who probably stole those dollars from their wives). Demand does indeed increase, when advertising occurs. Demand does indeed increase when legalization occurs. The result is that more money flows into the coffers of the pimps (who now have the status of businessmen and lobbyists), who engage in more trafficking and more abuse (and more bribery and more corruption) and more advertising, in an increased number of increasingly legitimate venues. And of course the more jaded and experienced a john becomes, the more demanding (and degrading) his demands become. It's a vicious cycle.

(3) I do not "seem" to have a superpuritan view of things. That is simply a dishonest statement by one desperate to make ad-hominem attacks. All my arguments have been based on identifiable harms, or the unacceptable risk of such harm.

(4) The reason I mentioned that most johns are married is because this is a readily-obtainable statistic. Obviously, if we included men who are cheating on their girlfriends, the proportions of johns who are traitors to the women in their lives would be even higher. Of course, then there are other situations, such as the young men who squander money entrusted to them by their parents for some more worthy purpose. They are traitors too, in a way.

ooooh, the dovetail back into Stannis at the end there was fucking brilliant.

[DraculaAD1972]

This is an attempt by "King of the Slums" to pretend that any person who pretends to be concerned that prostitution promotes the equivalent of sexual slavery cannot possibly be serious. Nice try, King Of The Slums. But you're the one ignoring hard and harsh realities.

I think you're best argument has been the 'irresponsible john' one. Because the john could commit rape in error, by having sex with a trafficked girl he thought was legit. This is a logical risk. I would cast that moral net to include johns who have sex with girls in poor economies where the alternative for the girls is poverty.

The 'hard and harsh' reality for those girls is sexual slavery through economic powerlessness. Who causes that economic powerlessness? Not the johns. It's the global system, the one we all are a part of.

In a modern economy, prostitution is a choice some women make as an alternative to conventional work. That isn't sexual slavery.

[XSarellaX]

I would never become a sex worker (well, I don't really know what I would do if I lived in poverty, had no prospects of getting a decent education and had no food, but I'm talking about my life as it is now), and I can't imagine how someone could enjoy the profession, but if women out there say they're happy, who am I to say they aren't?

If a girl has access to education and social support, lives in a safe environment, and decides, out of her own volition, to become a prostitute, then I'm okay with it. I'm not okay with people being forced into it, either by poverty, or by somebody else.

In Westeros though, I'd bet most sex workers enter the businness because of poverty. But banning brothels won't improve the situation. I think the people who talk about banning prostitution are moralists who think prostitutes are as evil as their profession, and therefore don't deserve any consideration. Who cares if they starve to death, have STD, are beaten and abused? They're just whores.

I'm not well informed about how much of prostitution consists of sex slavery. One should be aware that some places might claim the workers are there because they want to, when the girls are actually being forced. But we shouldn't assume it's like this everywhere...

[Hrafntýr]

Lol, I'm not sure that I'll ever really understand the idea that sex is something that should be confined to within the boundaries of a committed monogamous relationship. But then I guess I also don't think that sex has to be some sort of quasi-mystical affirmation of love or possession or something either. I could certainly see taking a sort of workmanlike satisfaction in my ability to provide erotic satisfaction; can't it be just another form of artisanship?

As Redshirt47 said above, lots of jobs come with attendant risks and negative consequences, yet we don't ban the jobs altogether. Why is this one so different?

[ElizabethB.]

I would never become a sex worker (well, I don't really know what I would do if I lived in poverty, had no prospects of getting a decent education and had no food, but I'm talking about my life as it is now), and I can't imagine how someone could enjoy the profession, but if women out there say they're happy, who am I to say they aren't?

If a girl has access to education and social support, lives in a safe environment, and decides, out of her own volition, to become a prostitute, then I'm okay with it. I'm not okay with people being forced into it, either by poverty, or by somebody else.

In Westeros though, I'd bet most sex workers enter the businness because of poverty. But banning brothels won't improve the situation. I think the people who talk about banning prostitution are moralists who think prostitutes are as evil as their profession, and therefore don't deserve any consideration. Who cares if they starve to death, have STD, are beaten and abused? They're just whores.

I'm not well informed about how much of prostitution consists of sex slavery. One should be aware that some places might claim the workers are there because they want to, when the girls are actually being forced. But we shouldn't assume it's like this everywhere...

XSarellaX is a good girl. It is known.

[ChillyPolly]

Lol, I'm not sure that I'll ever really understand the idea that sex is something that should be confined to within the boundaries of a committed monogamous relationship.

Nobody raised that issue. It is a complete straw man.