Legalizing Prostitution

If you really are a white-trash soldier, why would you defend the system that exploits you?

Money is an invention similar to pottery. Humans have only just emerged from animal non-self-consciousness. We still have the ideas of beasts.

Money is an authoritarianism like this: You can't do it without the paper-work!

'As above-so below' is Medieval madness. Every action must have a fiscal ledger?

People have been doing things for a lot longer than money has existed.

Because humans dread intimacy, it is too horrifying to be with another person. An exchange of money is a cover-story. Prostitution is probably often a cover-story for human love.

Please see a discussion I had with soitgoes in the Anarchism thread if you're interested in the evolution of the monetary system, but here's a taste:

He can also exchange his labor for goods in what is called a "bartering" arrangement. Ever heard of it? It came before monetary systems

...

The point is that we are all bound by certain principles. One of these is that we all must work to live. Now, over the course of history, we have discovered that instead of EVERYBODY having to hunt and gather, we can exchange other services in exchange for a SELECT FEW doing these things for the rest of us.

Please describe to me an alternate, proven, real-world, working system that relieves us of this wonderful arrangement that we've come to; the one that has made all civil progress possible, and has allowed us to advance from nomadic tribes to functional societies.

Notice, instead of trading goods for services, we instead institute an objective, representative tool of exchange so that we don't have to go through 15 trades to secure the thing we need for the service we provide.

What's your proposed alternative to this system, and how does it adversely impact me [even back when I was a soldier, and now that I'm still white-trash]?

Notice, instead of trading goods for services, we instead institute an objective, representative tool of exchange so that we don't have to go through 15 trades to secure the thing we need for the service we provide.

What's your proposed alternative to this system, and how does it adversely impact me [even back when I was a soldier, and now that I'm still white-trash]?

This is man-think. Life is worth nothing ('priceless as they say) and all the things in life are also worth nothing. I'm not surprised that you would point to the barter system as an alternative to money, it is no such thing, it is a precursor to money, proto-money.

Why do you think that it is necessary to keep a register of debt? Why keep a negative? Because a man has no intrinsic idea of his worth and must support it by extrinsicies.

I'll quote you a bit of Valerie Solanas' brilliant SCUM Manifesto on the topic of money and prostitution,

Money, Marriage and Prostitution, Work and Prevention of an Automated Society: There is no human reason for money or for anyone to work more than two or three hours a week at the very most. All non-creative jobs (practically all jobs now being done) could have been automated long ago, and in a moneyless society everyone can have as much of the best of everything as she wants. But there are non-human, male reasons for wanting to maintain the money system:

1.*****. Despising his highly inadequate self, overcome with intense anxiety and a deep, profound loneliness when by his empty self, desperate to attach himself to any female in dim hopes of completing himself, in the mystical belief that by touching gold he'll turn to gold, the male craves the continuous companionship of women. The company of the lowest female is preferable to his own or that of other men, who serve only to remind him of his repulsiveness. But females, unless very young or very sick, must be coerced or bribed into male company.

2.Supply the non-relating male with the delusion of usefulness, and enable him to try to justify his existence by digging holes and then filling them up. Leisure time horrifies the male, who will have nothing to do but contemplate his grotesque self. Unable to relate or to love, the male must work. Females crave absorbing, emotionally satisfying, meaningful activity, but lacking the opportunity or ability for this, they prefer to idle and waste away their time in ways of their own choosing -- sleeping, shopping, bowling, shooting pool, playing cards and other games, breeding, reading, walking around, daydreaming, eating, playing with themselves, popping pills, going to the movies, getting analyzed, traveling, raising dogs and cats, lolling about on the beach, swimming, watching TV, listening to music, decorating their houses, gardening, sewing, nightclubbing, dancing, visiting, `improving their minds' (taking courses), and absorbing `culture' (lectures, plays, concerts, `arty' movies). Therefore, many females would, even assuming complete economic equality between the sexes, prefer living with males or peddling their asses on the street, thus having most of their time for themselves, to spending many hours of their days doing boring, stultifying, non-creative work for someone else, functioning as less than animals, as machines, or, at best -- if able to get a `good' job -- co-managing the ****. What will liberate women, therefore, from male control is the total elimination of the money-work system, not the attainment of economic equality with men within it.

3.Power and control. Unmasterful in his personal relations with women, the male attains to masterfulness by the manipulation of money and everything controlled by money, in other words, of everything and everybody.

4.Love substitute. Unable to give love or affection, the male gives money. It makes him feel motherly. The mother gives milk; he gives bread. He is the Breadwinner.

5.Provide the male with a goal. Incapable of enjoying the moment, the male needs something to look forward to, and money provides him with an eternal, never-ending goal: Just think of what you could do with 80 trillion dollars -- invest it! And in three years time you'd have 300 trillion dollars!!!

6.Provide the basis for the male's major opportunity to control and manipulate -- fatherhood.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/988728/Solanas-Valerie-SCUM-Manifesto

People do not need to work to live, we are drowning in over-production. Few very wealthy people worked for their money, they inherited it in one way or another. I would think that someone low-class like yourself would not defend these parasites. The problem: "Why do the people desire their own oppression"? Is nearly one-hundred years old now. Reich investigated it in The Mass Psychology of Fascism, Marcuse in Eros and Civilization, even the BBC had an article questioning why lower-class Americans oppose national-health insurance. Although we do not yet understand this phenomena completely, there has been a lot of progress in understanding fascism.

This thread is actually about prostitution, since you are writing about money, I will assume that you agree with me that money and prostitution are the same thing.

Yes, anarchism is a wise philosophy.

This is man-think. Life is worth nothing ('priceless as they say) and all the things in life are also worth nothing. I'm not surprised that you would point to the barter system as an alternative to money, it is no such thing, it is a precursor to money, proto-money.

Why do you think that it is necessary to keep a register of debt? Why keep a negative? Because a man has no intrinsic idea of his worth and must support it by extrinsicies.

Man's worth is an extension of the value that he creates. If man creates or contributes nothing, he deserves nothing.

Let's say that your woman, perfect, of course, lies around all day. She never moves a finger, because, of course, work isn't necessary and neither is money or any other type of labor. How does she eat? Who feeds her? Who brings her water? How does she survive?

SHE DOESN'T. Which is why her value is dependent upon her ability to contribute to her own existence.

I'll quote you a bit of Valerie Solanas' brilliant SCUM Manifesto on the topic of money and prostitution,
...
People do not need to work to live, we are drowning in over-production. Few very wealthy people worked for their money, they inherited it in one way or another. I would think that someone low-class like yourself would not defend these parasites. The problem: "Why do the people desire their own oppression"? Is nearly one-hundred years old now. Reich investigated it in The Mass Psychology of Fascism, Marcuse in Eros and Civilization, even the BBC had an article questioning why lower-class Americans oppose national-health insurance. Although we do not yet understand this phenomena completely, there has been a lot of progress in understanding fascism.

In fact, of the 500 most wealthy people in the world, over the last 20 years, only 18 remained on the list. I wouldn't consider that proof that "very few wealthy people worked for their money".

Either way, my point remains, regardless of your psuedo-feminist propaganda [which, by the way, seemed totally irrelevant to the conversation] ...

If a man does nothing, he perishes. A non-existent entity has no value. Therefore, man's value IS his contribution. His contribution to society is represented, either by the product or service he produces, or by the monetary representation of either of those things.

Not a very complex thing to understand, and I'm not quite sure how your argument circumvents reality?

This thread is actually about prostitution, since you are writing about money, I will assume that you agree with me that money and prostitution are the same thing.

Yes, anarchism is a wise philosophy.

Sure ... a woman sells sex for a living. Not a very widely-disputed concept, either, I don't think.

And Anarchism is so ill-defined that I don't think I could consider it a wise philosophy, as there is no way that a "pure" anarchistic society could theoretically exist.

But we could discuss that in the other thread, if you'd like ...

Man's worth is an extension of the value that he creates. If man creates or contributes nothing, he deserves nothing.

It must suck to be a man! A person has value independant of what they contribute to 'man'kind: Alison Lapper and Hellen Keller for example. If I follow your argument, what you are saying is that you are a prostitute who has no value but what you put-out for men? Is that it?

Sure ... a woman sells sex for a living. Not a very widely-disputed concept, either, I don't think.

No, a woman's worth is not how many men she sells her ass to.

I will consider discussing anarchism with you if you tell me first which anarchist authors you have read carefully, because most people who dis anarchism have never actually read the anarchist writers. If this is you, why not have a read of Colin Ward's brief and excellent Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction.

Man's worth is an extension of the value that he creates. If man creates or contributes nothing, he deserves nothing.

It must suck to be a man! A person has value independant of what they contribute to 'man'kind: Alison Lapper and Hellen Keller for example. If I follow your argument, what you are saying is that you are a prostitute who has no value but what you put-out for men? Is that it?

Billy,

I very clearly stated that a person's value is based on their contributions, not to "mankind", but to themselves and for themselves.

Man's worth is an extension of the value that he creates. If man creates or contributes nothing, he deserves nothing.

Let's say that your woman, perfect, of course, lies around all day. She never moves a finger, because, of course, work isn't necessary and neither is money or any other type of labor. How does she eat? Who feeds her? Who brings her water? How does she survive?

SHE DOESN'T. Which is why her value is dependent upon her ability to contribute to her own existence.

And I justified this very clearly for you as well ...

If a man does nothing, he perishes. A non-existent entity has no value. Therefore, man's value IS his contribution. His contribution is most often represented either by the product or service he produces, or by the monetary representation of either of those things (slightly edited for your clarification)

I don't give a crap if anything a person has ever done "contributes" to others. A person's value can be represented only through the products of their mind; these "products" can be verbal, written, physical, etc.. But they certainly need not benefit anybody other than their creator in order to matter.

Sure ... a woman sells sex for a living. Not a very widely-disputed concept, either, I don't think.

No, a woman's worth is not how many men she sells her ass to.

It is if she determines it so, isn't it? That's up for her to decide. If she has nothing else to offer to herself, if she produces nothing else, if she lies on her back all day and does nothing more than "sell her ass", then that's all she's allowing herself to be "worth", now isn't she?

I will consider discussing anarchism with you if you tell me first which anarchist authors you have read carefully, because most people who dis anarchism have never actually read the anarchist writers. If this is you, why not have a read of Colin Ward's brief and excellent Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction.

I'll read it, but take a look at discussions in the Politics forum that we've [Scott, other members, and myself] have had regarding Anarchism. From what I've determined, there is no consensus on any well-defined version of a truly pure Anarchistic society.

As I said, though, I'll read the article.

I don't give a crap if anything a person has ever done "contributes" to others. A person's value can be represented only through the products of their mind; these "products" can be verbal, written, physical, etc.. But they certainly need not benefit anybody other than their creator in order to matter.

Some people cannot contribute anything to society or to themselves, example: very old people or cripples.

Do you think international sex touism is also all good, for example when wealthy Europeans go to Africa or Asia for cheap sex? Free-trade, right!

I think you'd like anarchism if you got to know it a little better. I'll look for that discussion.

Some people cannot contribute anything to society or to themselves, example: very old people or cripples.

Do you think international sex touism is also all good, for example when wealthy Europeans go to Africa or Asia for cheap sex? Free-trade, right!

I think you'd like anarchism if you got to know it a little better. I'll look for that discussion.

Very old people and cripples can still produce. They can still possess value, if they so wish. A vegetable of a human [with no hope of recovery], on the other hand, has no value, as he contributes nothing and only consumes.

I have no problem with international sex tourism, as long as the sex is consensual [and no, children can't consent].

And I would love anarchism as most people define it, because it's essentially libertarianism [but in some special world where people just happen to never violate other people's freedom]. It's too bad reality could never facilitate such a thing.

I don`t want to add much on this one because whitetrshseklier has already made most of my points, I agree with all that he says, and for much the same reasons. For the individual morality need not necessarily be a compromise, but when steering a whole society there is no other choice - Without the sexual emotional outlet of paid sex, can you honestly say in the U.S., that sexual attacks on women would not increase? Even without all of Scotts very valid moral concerns within the industry, I`d argue that the moral balance, and therefore justification, may well be in the decriminalizing of prostitution.
Like Scott, I am also deeply concerned for the welfare of these girls, and rather than them being considered immoral, I genuinely feel that they deserve our respect for doing such a worthwhile and appallingly tough job. Behind closed doors, why not?

Okay, I wasn't able to sift through the russian novel that this thread has become, so if my post revisits ideas already dealt with, I ask that you pardon me. That said, my thoughts are as follows:

1. Legalizing prostitution would seem to have the effect of legitimizing it, which would further the degree to which women are thought of and treated as objects in our culture. This mindset has been shown to contribute to violence against women, a serious problem in our society.

2. Legalizing prostitution would do little to reduce illegal prostitution short of obviating the need for those of means and otherwise lawful proclivities to seek out extralegal entertainment, and it would provide cover for illegal activities. Consider the following:

a. A legal brothel could save lots of money in payroll expenses by buying women from snakeheads and hiding them in plain sight; all they would need to do is falsify some key documents. Meanwhile, the management would maintain plausible deniability regarding the source of their workforce.

b. A legal brothel could bring in more money than its honest competitors by maintaining a stable of child prostitutes--the older-looking ones could have falsified documentation on file and the obviously prepubescent ones could be held off the books. As above, those in charge could insulate themselves from criminal liability by placing all responsibility, and thus all blame, on their employees.

3. While pornography also demonstrably objectifies women, my argument could not be extended to outlawing it, for two reasons.

a. First, my working hypothesis is that change requires justification in a way that stasis does not. As things stand, pornography is legal and prostitution is illegal. If we propose to change that state of affairs, we ought to have a good reason for doing so; whereas if we wish to accept the status quo we are entitled to do so unless presented with compelling reasons to change it.

b. Second, it's hard to ban something you can't adequately define, and I know of no objective distinction between pornography and other forms of art; the courts have been singularly unable to promulgate one. Until and unless an objective standard can be formulated that allows Lady Chatterly's Lover and excludes "Debbie Does Dallas," some hard and fast rule that separates "Syphilitic Super Sluts Volume 17" from "9 1/2 Weeks," (and God knows where we'd put those horrendous "Girls Gone Wild" DVDs on that scale) we can't pass laws banning pornography that make any sense.

I believe that legalizing the world's oldest profession would benefit society. Actually, it's already legal in the state of Nevada. Legalization would mean requiring those who practice that occupation would be required to be licensed. A stipulation of receiving a license could be (and, most assuredly would be) regular examinations for STD's.

To kindly correct the founder of this thread - not all prostitutes are slaves. Many are independent contractors (i.e., they keep the profits for themselves. Though, morally, I may not believe in paying somebody for sex, prostitution is a reality. Studies indicate that it is (legally or not) practiced everywhere ( even your so-called "decent suburban communities.

Also, if licensed, prostitutes would be required to pay income tax. As for treatment, they would be considered deserving of police protection, and, could press charges against any customer who harmed them. So...in my mind, legalization of prostitution would be win-win-win. Society would win by receiving economic benefit from the licensed operators' taxes. The customers would be assured clean healthy service. The prostitutes would have legal recourse against physically abusive customers.

SCOTT wrote:
"prohibition of prostitution does not stop prostitution form occurring; prohibition makes prostitution more dangerous and disables us from regulating it"

I agree 100%. it is so obvious.look at Germany, Holland, Thailand or other hot spots of legal prostitution.they have valid ID, health certificate, they pay tax, there are many many benefits from legalizing prostitition and marijuana however, drug dealers, smuglers, pimps, politicians and whoever benefits from prohibation on those activities (especially religious organizations) ban them.also the wives or girlfriends of men who have sex with prostitutes are among the opposition against legalizing prostitution. another benefit is it reduces human illigal traffiking to provide cheap prostitutes because it creates a competition from the local community.
the problem with all comments who wrote against scott's idea is they take this issue personal.ok, if you don't want your daugter become a prostitute, raise her proper and make sure she won't be one, however some other people may have no problem with that.have you ever been in Las Vegas? the whole city is deep in prostitution.they are all over the place but underground and do not pay tax, neither have health certificate.even if any crime happens against those prostitutes by their clients, can they call 911 easily and explain that they had sex with a man and got raiped and press charges against the attacker? of course not.trust me, there are many many benefits on this idea besides they can start in some zones and hubs in each state until people get used to it and in a long term program, it will be standard every where.this takes a few generation to be accepted by American society but it is a brilliant idea.also there are some active male prostitutes who have female customers for sex.despite being a limited group than female prostitutes, we can consider them as a part of this industry.in fact it is a good idea to evolve prostitution from a crime to an industry with standards and rules, laws, oversight and just collect money like a legitimate industry.(e.g. tourism)

BubbaD0g wrote:

Legalizing prostitution would seem to have the effect of legitimizing it, which would further the degree to which women are thought of and treated as objects in our culture.

ok, there are many other activities which turns women to a sex objects like:"R" rated movies, TV commercials, using sexy and beautiful women in advertisments, cheer leaders, and why you do not try to stop those for abusing women as sex object? so there is a double standard.prostitution gets a different deal than all of those sexist activities.when selling alcohol was legalized, did it legitimize consuming that? no.what about selling fire arms? still it is not wise to have gun even for self defense but 400 million fire arms are out there among people so there is no link between legalizing something and consider that to be legitimize as the result of being legal.
now I can feel why Scott is the admin of this philosophy site.
good job man.[quote][/quote]

BubbaD0g wrote:

Legalizing prostitution would seem to have the effect of legitimizing it, which would further the degree to which women are thought of and treated as objects in our culture.

ok, there are many other activities which turns women to a sex objects like:"R" rated movies, TV commercials, using sexy and beautiful women in advertisments, cheer leaders, and why you do not try to stop those for abusing women as sex object? so there is a double standard.prostitution gets a different deal than all of those sexist activities.when selling alcohol was legalized, did it legitimize consuming that? no.what about selling fire arms? still it is not wise to have gun even for self defense but 400 million fire arms are out there among people so there is no link between legalizing something and consider that to be legitimize as the result of being legal.
now I can feel why Scott is the admin of this philosophy site.
good job man.

If you read my post, you know why I don't advocate criminalizing presently lawful, albeit harmful, activities; whenever a massive social change is proposed, my position is that the onus is on proponents of that change to demonstrate that it is a change, on balance, for the better. I agree that many lawful activities serve to denigrate women, and mayhaps a case can be made for eliminating them, but that's where the argument must be made--we assume what is, and argue from it what ought to be.

As to the examples you cited, I find myself wondering if you're being altogether serious. Granted, I know next to nothing about the flesh trade in Holland, but both Germany and Thailand are rife with human trafficking, sexual slavery, and especially underage prostitution. And of course, these things happen elsewhere as well, but in these places the legal sex trade provides cover for these illegal activities. Why should we believe that things will be any different should we try it here?

Maybe you and Scott are right. Maybe our society's attitude towards women is so distorted and evil that the state placing its imprimatur on the sex trade can't really make things that much worse. And maybe the benefits of an open, legalized sex trade (worker protection, regulation, tax revenue and the like) outweigh the almost certain increase in human trafficking and the exploitation of children. Maybe that's a trade we should be willing to make, maybe it's worth it in the long run. For my part, I remain unconvinced; I suppose the only thing that would sway me would be real world data. Does anybody know where such might be found?

The Labour government de-criminalized prostitution in NZ a few years ago before losing out in the following election to National.

I can honestly say that nothing much has changed. The girls who were working the streets beforehand tend to be the ones working the streets today. They still have their drug addictions or baggage, call it what you will.

There are a few more brothels than their were before, but other than that, same old same old.

I suppose it has lightened the workload of the police as well!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostituti ... ew_Zealand

On occassions I cant distinguish between marriage and prostitution, just different contracts. Funny how the rich ugly guys manage to pull the dolly birds. Its more than looks they tell me but just try pulling one of them in your tatty motor. Sex is an exchange , the value is the charge it makes. O its love you tell me, sure but love is an illusion we create to fulfill our needs. Nothing is for nothing and sex is no different.

[Scott]

PaulNZ, according to the link you provided prostitution in New Zealand was already legal before 2003. The law change in 2003 simply abolished some of the restrictions on the prostitution they were officially already allowing, such as by allowing the advertising of prostitution.

***

BubbaD0g, I enjoy reading your posts and think are written clearly and well. Excuse me for only responding to the following two points of yours:

I don't advocate criminalizing presently lawful, albeit harmful, activities; whenever a massive social change is proposed, my position is that the onus is on proponents of that change to demonstrate that it is a change

I understand. Nonetheless, prostitution is currently legal in some places and illegal in others. Are you saying that you support keeping it legal in the places in which it is already legal and illegal in places in which is it is already legal? What if we were all in a plane together and landed on an unknown previously uninhabited cliche island and we were writing the laws from scratch? Would you support or oppose the prohibition of prostitution?

Maybe you and Scott are right. Maybe our society's attitude towards women is so distorted and evil that the state placing its imprimatur on the sex trade can't really make things that much worse.

I think the above is a mis-paraphrasing me. Firstly, I do not think the word 'imprimatur' is correct as it implies approval to me. I'm not suggesting states approve of or encourage prostitution just as they do not approve of binge drinking, cigarette smoking, pornography or morbid obesity where those things are legal. In contrast, I would suggest that some of the funds currently being put towards the criminal investigation, prosecution and incarceration of prostitution where it is currently illegal but put towards a public campaign against prostitution in parallel to the funds spent on reducing cigarette smoking and pregnant-women-drinking in places where those are legal. Moreover, my argument is not the legalization would 'not really make things much worse' but rather that criminalization exacerbates the problems of prostitution and that semi-restricted legalization would actually make things better by such ways as reducing STDs and allowing for more efficient use of government funds. I also think it would help reduce child prostitution and the trafficking of women (i.e. literal slavery).

***

Xris, I do think there is a blurry line between prostitution and gold digging. Indeed, many stand up comics have addressed the similarities between taking a woman out for a nice meal in hopes of sleeping with her to a prostitute using the money you just paid her to buy herself a nice meal, for instance. However, to essentially equate marriage to prostitution is way off in my opinion. If you excuse me being anecdotal, My wife and I for instance each make about equal money and are together because we love each other and we both enjoy being with each other, not to trade money for sex.

***

I agree with most if not all of the points made in the posts supporting the decriminalization and/or legalization of prostitution, so I apologize for not having individual responses for those. Anyway here is yet another statistic that I feel supports legalization:

Christopher Fairley, PhD, Director of the Melbourne Sexual Health Center, wrote in the Nov. 18, 2000 The Lancet article "Prostitution, Public Health, and Human-Rights Law" that:

"In one Australian study carried out in 1998, the prevalence of sexually transmitted bacterial infections was 80 times greater in 63 illegal street prostitutes than in 753 of their legal brothel counterparts... Legally sanctioned encouragement of prostitutes to use condoms or access screening services, both major determinants of the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases, is impossible because of their illegal status. Occupational health and safety law is applied to prostitutes in lawful brothels but not to their counterparts on the street."

Thanks!
Scott