patrick.net

They are the highest carriers of STDs.
They physically harm their customers, probably most unknowingly.

Dan8267 says

Why should the state have the right to inflict suffering on prostitutes who are in no way harming anyone?

Not the point.
It will help the future health prospects of all the johns she didn't service who then gave up looking.

Dan8267 says

How is arresting, caging, and ruining the reputation and career prospects of a minor for life going to help that minor?

rando says

Underage girls are much more likely to start being prostitutes if they know there is no legal penalty for themselves for doing so.

There is a danger for this, but I think it's more like a hungry person stealing a loaf of bread. Putting them in jail is not the best solution, especially if they are a kid.

MrEd says

Not the point.

MrEd claims this comment is ad hominem:

What is the point mr ed? The truth is an ad hominem? Why don't you let patrick stand up for himself? He's the one that pimped out fake news.

Why are you so interested in the health of men so depraved they pick up children for sex? Why do you have zero concern about the welfare of the children who are victims of these scum? Don't even try to pull the adhom bullshit copout. Answer the questions.

The johns could just keep their dick in their pants and they wouldn't have any health concerns from any prostitute. But no, they get in their cars, go get cash, drive to the seediest neighbourhoods, and hunt down women to pay for sex because what the heck, they are the victims. Perfect, you can't make this shit up.

Look, there was a safe and responsible way to ensure that teenaged trafficked girls would avoid prosecution for forced prostitution. Just add an exception for women who have been victims of sex trafficking! Say, if their arrest leads to a pimp being charged, they get out of any charges.
But instead, the idiot Democrats create a market for teen prostitution.
Brilliant! You fucktards!

MrEd says

Bullshit.

A certain percentage? Yes.

Certainly not a blanket statement.

Dan8267 says

Yeah, someone who is going to engage in prostitution isn't going to be deterred by the law.

Prostitution has rarely been legal, yet has existed in every single society not only since the Stone Age but even since before our ancestors were human. You are going to say that the state can effectively fight at least ten million years of primate evolution? Yeah, good luck with that.

The burden of proof, of course, is on the person proposing to outlaw something to show that the laws against it are effective in preventing the behavior.

Even more importantly, the negative consequences and ethical ramifications of outlawing prostitution must be considered and weighed against any benefits.

[stupid comment limit]

Is it ethical to inflict considerable suffering on a good person (a prostitute) who is harming no one simply to prevent other people from engaging in a non-harmful business (prostitution, not sex trafficking)? Hell no. Is it ethical to inflict considerable suffering on people engaging in one activity (prostitution) to decrease the amount of activity by other people (pimps) in a different activity (sex trafficking)? Again, hell no. It's like arguing we should arrest anyone who drinks beer because they enable a beer industry to exist, and some minors will use fake IDs to buy beer. So we have to destroy the entire beer industry to prevent that.

There are also practical consequences to making something illegal. As soon as you make something illegal, you remove ALL protection of the law for anyone who engages in that activity. People who overdose on illegal drugs don't seek medical attention because they risk arrest. People who engage in prostitution are subjected to abuse and violence and cannot seek protection from law enforcement because their activity is illegal (and wrongfully illegal at that).

Inflicting punishment on prostitutes, especially minors, actually greatly endangers them because they have no protection of the law, no means of redress in the courts, no way of forming collective bargaining power, no way of improving their conditions. Make no mistake, making prostitution illegal harms and endangers prostitutes especially the minors you claim to want to protect.

It makes no sense to attack a person you are trying to help.

MrEd says

They are the highest carriers of STDs.

They physically harm their customers, probably most unknowingly.

Dan8267 says

Why should the state have the right to inflict suffering on prostitutes who are in no way harming anyone?

Following this philosophy, all sex should be illegal beyond having a single partner for life.

If we want the state to end all STDs there is a simple and highly effective way to do so, and it does not involve making or keeping prostitution illegal. The solution is to force everyone for the next 100 years to wear a chastity belt and to divide the population into two groups: those born before Jan 1, 2017 and those born after. No member in either group can mate with a member of the other group, ever. Anyone in either group can mate with unlimited willing partners in the same group.

This will prevent the transmission of STDs. Would you be willing to let the state force you and everyone else to wear a chastity belt and follow this policy? Unless the answer is a resounding yes, your stance is pure hypocrisy.

By the way, I'm all for this solution. I'm willing to make that sacrifice. It would be the greatest gift we can give countless future generations, an end to all these STDs.

Nonetheless, making prostitution illegal actually increases STD transmission as the field cannot be regulated. Under legal prostitution, the state can enforce condom usage, prevent prostitutes from being coerced not to use condoms, regularly test prostitutes, provide needle exchange programs to prevent disease transmissions, and treat prostitutes for STDs that can be cured to prevent transmission.

If you really want to lower STD transmissions, then you most certainly should be for legalizing prostitution.

MrEd says

Not the point.

It will help the future health prospects of all the johns she didn't service who then gave up looking.

Dan8267 says

How is arresting, caging, and ruining the reputation and career prospects of a minor for life going to help that minor?

It most certainly is one of the central points of this discussion.

Furthermore, I doubt you actually care for the johns. If you did, you would be advocating legalizing their participation as well. How does arresting, caging, and ruining the reputation and career prospects of a customer for life going to help that customer?

Making prostitution illegal does not help any of the participants in the field.

YesYNot says

If a 14 year old can not consent to sex, I don't see how they can consent to sex for money.

Why would you think that a 14-year-old cannot consent to sex? I was 14 years old once, and I was not only willing to have sex, but desperate to do so.

Is it rape when a 14-year-old has sex with another 14-year-old? Both parties would have to be rapists, by definition, if 14-year-olds cannot consent to sex. This is a ridiculous conclusion that demonstrates the ludicrousness of the premise.

Are you going to argue that a person in certain groups is capable of consenting to sex with one group of persons but not another? That is arbitrary and ridiculous. It would be like saying a white woman cannot consent to sex with a black man, but can consent to sex with a white man. It's justify only by bigotry. A person is either capable of consent or not.

YesYNot says

There is a danger for this, but I think it's more like a hungry person stealing a loaf of bread. Putting them in jail is not the best solution, especially if they are a kid.

It's more than that. A person stealing a loaf of bread is doing another person harm, even if that harm is justified by preventing a far greater harm. A person engaging in prostitution, not sex trafficking, is not doing harm. Some people will have pseudo-moral or religious objections to the activity, but it is not harming others and it is not violating the rights of others. I would argue that using the state to punish such people is essentially and foremost a violation of the First Amendment by forcing religious beliefs onto people against their will.

Quigley says

Look, there was a safe and responsible way to ensure that teenaged trafficked girls would avoid prosecution for forced prostitution. Just add an exception for women who have been victims of sex trafficking! Say, if their arrest leads to a pimp being charged, they get out of any charges.

That may be appealing in principle, what it would fail miserably in practice. We have a legal system that has no problem convicting and punishing many innocent persons in order to also capture the maximum number of guilty persons. In practice there would be plenty of victims prosecuted as prosecutors will not want to risk letting a guilty person use the loophole as a defense against prostitution. So they will believe the ends justify the means and throwing some innocent victims in prison is worth cleaning up the streets.

Of course, this philosophy completely ignores the ethical objections to criminalizing prostitution. I would say those ethical objections are also damn important.

FortWayne says

If you are asking questions like that, you lack moral compass.

Only a fool would consider asking questions about ethics and morality to be indication of "lacking a moral compass". In fact the exact opposite is true. The only way to have a moral compass is to question what constitutes good morality and why. Those who don't question are the ones who are immoral.

I am struck by the similarities between the argument
We need prostitution to be criminally punished in order to discourage minors from engaging in it.
with the argument
Giving teenagers condoms or teaching them about safe sex will encourage them to have sex. We need teenagers to be in fear of getting AIDS in order to discourage them from having sex.

Both are very bad arguments and for exactly the same and plentiful reasons. The proposed solution
- is unethical
- is shortsighted
- does not work
- causes great direct and indirect harm to the persons allegedly being helped
- entails substantial risk of death

Dan8267 says

Why would you think that a 14-year-old cannot consent to sex? I was 14 years old once, and I was not only willing to have sex, but desperate to do so.

I think we already had this conversation. Marcus brought up some good points regarding mental development. I don't have much of an interest in rehashing. I did want to make the point that IF you think a 14 yr old cannot consent to sex and define an 18 yr old having sex with a 14 yr old as rape, then it hardly makes sense to punish the 14 yr old for it, just because there was money passed along.

As for the example of two 14 yr olds having sex with each other, by definition, it is rape, but the punishment would be dismissed. We already have examples of moderating punishment based on age, even for murder.

Dan8267 says

A person stealing a loaf of bread is doing another person harm, even if that harm is justified by preventing a far greater harm. A person engaging in prostitution, not sex trafficking, is not doing harm.

There is an argument that prostitution harms society in some ways. For example, it increases the amount of disease and the prevalence of an activity increases the number of other people doing said activity. It also increases health care costs to some degree, and it can increase the amount of disease in society, which can harm people who were not taking part in prostitution. While I believe that this societal harm argument has some merit, and I don't think prostitution is a healthy behavior to take part in, I think that prostitution ought to be legal. There are other things that can harm society at large, and we tend to be pretty lax about legislating around those. Vaccinations would be an example.

Dan8267 says

Of course, this philosophy completely ignores the ethical objections to criminalizing prostitution. I would say those ethical objections are also damn important.

Legalizing all prostitution would be a vastly more salubrious policy than only legalizing teenage prostitution. I'm sure that most thinking people can figure out why.

Obligatory Anthony Weiner comment.

Because I don't want to see you perish at an early age.

bob2356 says

Why are you so interested in the health of men so depraved they pick up children for sex?

I'm the one against the california law...remember?

bob2356 says

Why do you have zero concern about the welfare of the children who are victims of these scum?

See above.

bob2356 says

Don't even try to pull the adhom bullshit copout. Answer the questions.

You just did.

bob2356 says

The johns could just keep their dick in their pants and they wouldn't have any health concerns from any prostitute. But no, they get in their cars, go get cash, drive to the seediest neighbourhoods, and hunt down women to pay for sex because what the heck, they are the victims. Perfect, you can't make this shit up.

What comment?

bob2356 says

MrEd says

Not the point.

MrEd claims this comment is ad hominem:

What is the point mr ed? The truth is an ad hominem?

Dan8267 says

If we want the state to end all STDs there is a simple and highly effective way to do so, and it does not involve making or keeping prostitution illegal. The solution is to force everyone for the next 100 years to wear a chastity belt and to divide the population into two groups: those born before Jan 1, 2017 and those born after. No member in either group can mate with a member of the other group, ever. Anyone in either group can mate with unlimited willing partners in the same group.

This will prevent the transmission of STDs. Would you be willing to let the state force you and everyone else to wear a chastity belt and follow this policy? Unless the answer is a resounding yes, your stance is pure hypocrisy.

By the way, I'm all for this solution

Wow, policy is a bit more complicated than that.

First, if you want to end all STDs, the best and simplest solution would be to invest in medical research, which could end all of them in less than a third of the timeline you've described, and at lower cost than what we're currently spending to monetize them via Obamneycare. Both major parties use STDs, which is why they continue to exist. Democrats monetize them via mandatory subsidized insurance to capture constituencies and centralize power. Republicans use them to scare their base into following their preachers, thus consolidating power. Neither major faction wants to invest in ending STDs, because then they would have less power.

The chastity belt policy would not work because the same diseases spread other ways. HSV spreads via kissing, HIV via needles, hepatitis via not washing hands after using the bathroom, etc. People would still get disease, plus maybe injuries or even infections from all those belts.

@patrick
Do you know what is horrible? The fact that Patrick seems to think that decriminalizing an unfortunate social problem is the same as legalizing prostitution. Does it seem fair to you that these minors must have a permanent criminal file because of the life circumstances that led them into prostitution ??
Nice way to dramatize facts and lead people into believing your point by playing with words and facts.

@ddshutlz Should it be legal in California for children to go into prostitution?

The abomination is that this was even considered as a law.

Children are very impressionable and need to know for a fact that they are not allowed to go into prostitution, and if the do, then they have done something wrong.

If you're worried about their criminal file, simply seal their records. Why is that not a sufficient law? Why actually legalize children sucking dicks for money? It's sick.

So do you really think that by marking them as criminals and jailing them they are suddenly going realize that they had it wrong all along?
They would only be treated worse by a criminal justice system that does not care for them. These kids have most likely already been through what you and I have never experienced and you think they deserve to be locked up?
Instead of making illogical laws aimed at punishing and creating fear, why not use our resources to improve the society that creates these kids??

MrEd says

What comment?

The one you flagged as ad hom.

MrEd says

I'm the one against the california law...remember?

Hey Mr Ed, placing your response in front of the quote is considered bad form. Please add your reply AFTER the quote. What you are doing is akin to putting you cart before your horse, if you catch my drift.

ddshutlz says

So do you really think that by marking them as criminals and jailing them they are suddenly going realize that they had it wrong all along?

So do you really think that by telling them that they have done nothing wrong they are suddenly going to realize they have done something wrong?

They need to know that:

1. it's illegal for them to do it, and their pimp is lying to them if he says it's legal (sadly, the pimps are currently telling the truth)
2. there will be some consequence that they do not like, not necessarily juvie

Without those, you're aiding and abetting child prostitution.

ddshutlz says

why not use our resources to improve the society

Who ever argued against improving society? Not I.

rando says

@ddshutlz Should it be legal in California for children to go into prostitution?

The abomination is that this was even considered as a law.

Children are very impressionable and need to know for a fact that they are not allowed to go into prostitution, and if the do, then they have done something wrong.

If you're worried about their criminal file, simply seal their records. Why is that not a sufficient law? Why actually legalize children sucking dicks for money? It's sick.

WTF? The cops don't drive by, say oh that one's under 18 let's wave and say have a nice night. They take them in. The change in the law takes them out of the criminal court system and puts them in the social court system. Which is a lot more appropriate place for a kid that has gotten so screwed up they are involved in prostitution. What don't you get about that?

What is your obsession with a criminal record? The goal, at least most peoples goal you may be an exception, is to help them get out of trouble.

rando says

So do you really think that by telling them that they have done nothing wrong they are suddenly going to realize they have done something wrong?

A teenager turning tricks on the street damn well knows they have done something wrong. What they don't know is what to do about it and how to get out of it.

bob2356 says

A teenager turning tricks on the street damn well knows they have done something wrong.

Nope. Especially not if their pimp (correctly) tells them it's legal.

Being teens, they think they're just smart.

YesYNot says

Dan8267 says

Why would you think that a 14-year-old cannot consent to sex? I was 14 years old once, and I was not only willing to have sex, but desperate to do so.

I think we already had this conversation. Marcus brought up some good points regarding mental development.

The mental development of a person doesn't suddenly change when you replace one potential sex partner with another one of a different age. If a 14-year-old cannot consent to sex with an 18-year-old, then that 14-year-old cannot consent to sex with another 14-year-old, and thus both 14-year-olds would be rapists if they have sex.

This is a direct consequence of the nonsensical notion that 14-year-olds are mentally incapable of having consensual sex. You only have three choices.
1. Reject the baseless premise that a 14-year-old cannot consent to sex.
2. Accept that two teenagers having sex are both rapists even if they are in love, enjoying the sex, and end up happily married afterwards.
3. Accept a position that is inherently self-contradictory, in which case you are, by mathematical necessity, absolutely wrong. There is no way to accept the premise and reject the inescapable conclusion of that premise.

I have no respect for anyone who takes option 3. If your position is not self-consistent, then it is wrong and you are a fool for not realizing this. I can respect vastly different opinions and judgement calls, but not direct and obvious self-contradiction, and neither should anyone else.

YesYNot says

There is an argument that prostitution harms society in some ways.

Well, let's go over the arguments...

1. it increases the amount of disease and the prevalence of an activity increases the number of other people doing said activity.

Prostitution does not transmit STDs. Sex does. The act of paying for sex does not. It is the act of paying for the sex that is illegal, not the sex itself. Therefore, if the goal is to prevent STDs, then sex, not commerce, should be illegal.

Furthermore, keeping prostitution illegal greatly increases STD infection. Legalizing and regulating prostitution would greatly decrease the spread of STDs. So if the people making this argument were doing so sincerely, then they would be advocating the legalization and regulation of prostitution immediately upon hearing this. However, they don't change their minds, indicating that this is a false argument meant to justify laws that they cannot justify with the real reasons behind the laws.

2. It also increases health care costs to some degree, and it can increase the amount of disease in society, which can harm people who were not taking part in prostitution.

Again, legalizing and regulating would decrease health care costs. Also, taxing prostitution with existing sales taxes would more than pay for any socialized costs of prostitution and then some many times over.

Furthermore, there are a great number of things that greatly increase general costs of society, the greatest of which is having children. If this argument were sincere, there would be laws limiting the number of children people can have, and requiring financial and mental health standards to be met by parents before having children.

[stupid comment limit]

Feel free to present any more arguments about general social harm. I doubt there are any you or anyone else can think of that will hold water simply because such arguments are not genuine. They are attempts to grasp at any straw because the real reasons people want prostitution to be illegal are so blatantly unjustifiable that admitting what those real reasons are would cause any rational person to demand that prostitution be legal.

So what are the real reasons behind anti-prostitution laws? What are the honest reasons why people advocate locking up prostitutes and their clients?

1. Religion - America is a sexually repressed, religious society. Religion hates pleasurable sex. It motivates people in a way that the clerics cannot control. This is the same reason that government hates the Internet and does it damnest to control it.

2. Decreasing value of pussy - The more prostitution, porn, and/or sex robots / virtual sex there is in a society, the less men, especially young men, are forced to submit to any demand in order to get sex. You can make men work themselves to death in coal mines if it's the only way to get pussy. You can use them as cannon fodder in unjust wars if "serving your country" gets you pussy. But if pussy in any form, even artificial substitutes, is freely available, men start to behave in their own financial, social, and political self-interests (think red pill) rather than giving into any demands for a piece of pussy. This means less control over men and less ability to economically and militarily exploit them by both the government and by women.

3. Restricting liberty - By outlawing certain victimless and harmless activities like pot usage and prostitution, political parties can stop people from voting, and thus they can maintain their power even though the vast majority of people want them out of office. Those more likely to want them out of office, i.e. those who love liberty, are least likely to be allowed to vote.

4. Pseudo-morality - Morality is built on the pillars of cooperation and reciprocity and fundamentally deals with issues of not harming others and helping others in need. However, a lot of people have very perverse ideas of morality that have nothing to do with these things and everything to do with cultural taboos. These people consider prostitution to be immoral -- it isn't in any way -- and want to see it outlawed as such.

Patrick, we are not trying to fix 5-year-old kids.....
This problem can be better dealt with sensible laws and programs and not by putting these kids in the hands of the police.

curious2 says

Wow, policy is a bit more complicated than that.

I was illustrating a principle to demonstrate that an argument made by an opponent was neither a sincere representation of their position nor a practical way of solving the problem they claim to be trying to solve with their advocated policy. Consider it a thought experiment. It won't ever be run in real life, but it still illustrates a principle.

curious2 says

The chastity belt policy would not work because the same diseases spread other ways. HSV spreads via kissing, HIV via needles, hepatitis via not washing hands after using the bathroom, etc. People would still get disease, plus maybe injuries or even infections from all those belts.

It is true that not all STDs will be 100% stopped by that mechanism. However, many will and the ones that won't will be diminished so much that wiping them outright will become possible. So as a pragmatic solution, it would still work. Of course, it will never be implemented due to political opposition by most people, but that demonstrates the insincerity of the argument that we should throw people in prison, strip search them, body cavity search them, and make them suffer terribly in order to slow down the spread of STDs in a manner that is so small that it has never even been measured.