|
Post by littlepea on Mar 22, 2006 15:58:13 GMT -5
If both parties are not married then it is not adultry. Unless you have some definition of adultry that I do not know about. Matt 5:27-29 27 " You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Adultery is not limited to the married, nor to the physical. polytheist has already addressed this point - that is not the legal definition, and even with the legal definition it is not a crime to commit adultery. risk of adultery is not reason enough to make prostitution a crime, and the closer analogy is merely to having sex with a stranger. i'm sure most people would not feel comfortable with doing that but nevertheless it is not illegal, so why is it illegal to do it for money? the point is why do we want to punish people with the criminal law just because they want to make money by having sex with strangers, which is not in itself a crime? Ericsson addresses the point of "morality" in his article and he says that the idea that the moralist can just "see" the immorality is dubious at best and definitely not a sound basis for public policy. any thoughts on that? it is not illegal to have sex with a stranger no matter how immoral some people think it is, so why is it illegal to have sex with a stranger for money? Selling oneself (or buying another person) is beyond immoral. It reduces a human being to a commodity. This is a violation of the civil rights of a human being. this is the argument put forth by one of the articles i cited earlier, specifically the carole pateman article. she argues from the feminist point of view that it is not just sex that is sold, it is the prositute's body itself, therefore the prostitute herself, amounting to a form of slavery. this argument could be applied to any form of manual labour, however, and is no more of a basis for criminalising prostitution than any other contract for the sale of services. marxism would support pateman, but we live in capitalist societies and this is simply not how the sale of services is viewed (Ericsson and Schwarzenbach make these points). I am not in favour of prostitution. However, littlepea prostitution is legal in Amsterdam. I've been to Amsterdam twice and all I can say is that you would have to be blind not to find a hooker and some ganja. If a man wants a little bit of action why not let him? Likewise if a woman want abit of action why not let her? (Theres an increasing number of male prostitutes) - As long as it is properly regulated and within certain "red light" districts and the local residents are happy with it and the government can charge these prostitutes taxes and these prostitutes are tested so they dont carry diseases regularly. Then I dont see much of a problem with it. At the end of the day if a man wants to have sex then he will do just that. If he doesn't go to a prostitute he will have to 'court' a female in a bar or club and that has a higher chance of leading to adultery and getting caught than going to a prostitute. This is a violation of the civil rights of a human being. What about the many women who volunteer (and are not forced) to sell their body? Are they violating their own civil rights? Can someone violate their own rights? what cenk seems to be in favour of here is what Ericsson describes as "sound prostitution" and it is the conclusion that McLeod comes to in her article (above) - basically that where the prostitution is fully informed and consensual then it doesn't harm anyone. the result is that this form of prostitution could be achieved quite easily, just by scrapping all the laws that are specific only to prostitution (ie. soliciting, living off immoral earnings, laws that forbid landlords to let property to prostitutes etc.) and just leave the whole business to sort itself out, the criminal law only getting involved where it is infringed on other grounds (eg. rape, coercion, under-age sex, indecent exposure, indecent advertising, etc.). the point is, what are you trying to achieve by making prostitution illegal? do you mean to eradicate it? history has proven that it does not work like that. prostitution is always going to be around, and making it legal does not mean that it will therefore be encouraged. the illegality of prostitution causes so much suffering that could be avoided if only the criminal restrictions were lifted.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Mar 22, 2006 20:30:27 GMT -5
polytheist has already addressed this point - that is not the legal definition, and even with the legal definition it is not a crime to commit adultery. I had a federal judge explain it as thus: Marriage is a legal contract. Adultry is a breach of that legal contract. Nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Mar 22, 2006 23:14:27 GMT -5
that is it precisely, and it is also the same in the UK.
to approach this issue from another angle, think of it like this: throughout history there have always been people who have had sex before marriage, and in this current age it doesn't even seem immoral in any sense. making it a criminal offence to have sex before marriage would not stop it from happening, it would just make tonnes of people criminals in the eyes of the law - is this what we want to achieve? of course not. same thing with prostitution.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 23, 2006 10:48:58 GMT -5
so I cannot violate my own civil rights? I know thousands of dead American troops who would argue differently. Dying in defense of country or of what is right is hardly comparable to selling oneself to fulfill someone else's lustful desires. Do you also compare worship to rolling in the mud?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 23, 2006 10:52:12 GMT -5
This is not a definition of adultry. It is merely a perception of what adultry is. It is your opinion that even thinking is a sin. It is my opinion that thinking is not the sin. It is the doing that is the sin. Once again, you mistake the words of Our Lord as a trifling opinion of mine. If you're interested in my opinion on this matter, it's that people should have more self respect and respect for others. If they did, there would be no need for laws.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 23, 2006 10:53:24 GMT -5
Have you been under the impression that sin is only against God?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 23, 2006 11:06:51 GMT -5
polytheist has already addressed this point - that is not the legal definition, I never claimed that it was. Look back at my initial question to you. Maybe not where you live. There are many laws relating to this still on the books. Why do we remove children from the abusive parents they love? People view abuse of sexuality as harmless. Statistics say otherwise. It's written like a true amoralist. Not true. There is an old phrase: "making an honest living". Any method of employment in which one profits at the expense of others (including the overall morality of mankind) is not "an honest living". Honest employment is about an equal and equitable exchange, profitable to both parties. Those ignorant of the implications argue that prostitution fits this bill: the prostitute makes money; the john gets pleasure. The truth of the matter is that in prostitution between a man and a woman (other varieties raise other issues), a woman not only exposes her body to the risks of disease or physical abuse, but in misusing her womb she also damages her soul and spirit. The man abuses the woman in the sense of misusing her womb, and therefore damages his own soul in the sense of carrying the guilt for that. If the man is married (or ever will be married), he also does untold damage to his marriage (or future marriage). The price is not an exchange of money -- it is far greater. Are you saying that capitalism opens us up to such amoral practices? With that I would agree. Though I am no Marxist, I certainly believe that the experiment of capitalism thus far shows a need for greater checks and balances. It tends to feed greed and a sense of unchecked power in individuals, such that they lose the sense of responsibility to the greater good.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Mar 23, 2006 12:09:59 GMT -5
so I cannot violate my own civil rights? I know thousands of dead American troops who would argue differently. Dying in defense of country or of what is right is hardly comparable to selling oneself to fulfill someone else's lustful desires. Do you also compare worship to rolling in the mud? You are saying that I am not free to violate my own civil rights. I say that those service men and women who have died to protect our freedom would disagree with you. And I see just as much benefit from rolling in the mud as I do with worship.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Mar 23, 2006 12:16:04 GMT -5
What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like, and immorality is what they dislike. ~Alfred North Whitehead, Dialogues, 30 August 1941
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 23, 2006 12:24:34 GMT -5
And I see just as much benefit from rolling in the mud as I do with worship. At least you're consistent.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Mar 23, 2006 17:14:13 GMT -5
polytheist has already addressed this point - that is not the legal definition, I never claimed that it was. Look back at my initial question to you. yes i know, it was merely an introduction to my point. children are different, people have a duty to protect children and not expose them to abuse. when the state assumes a duty to protect its citizens this is known as paternalism, something which cannot be imposed too readily, and this is why i'm looking for a proper justification for using the criminal law to control prostitution. so far the only argument in favour of this is that it is "immoral", but in the past it was seen as prostitution for an opera singer to take money for performing, so how exactly is taking money for sex with strangers any different? i'm sure he has morals, but whether someone's undefinable, abstract notion of morality should be a basis for public policy is another question. what is dishonest about freely informed, fully consensual, sound prostitution (like what cenk talked about earlier - thogh "sound prostitution" is the term used by ericsson and schwarzenbach in their articles)? but there are other jobs that we don't consider appropriate for the criminal law to regulate that involve danger (eg. a soldier) and risk of disease (eg. a worker in a chiken factory who plucks feathers from nearly-frozen chickens - he runs a high risk of nerve damage to his hands). this alone cannot be the justification for criminality. the rest of your argument seems like more morality, which i have already addressed, and the prostitute's guily, if she has any, can be attributed to the stigma which comes with prostitution in our current society - something which could change over time (like the opera singer). and what about the prostitute who enjoys what she does, does it freely and fully informed and feels no guilt? should she also be considered a criminal in the eyes of the law? why can't you understand that prostitution is not adultery? the johns are not all married - if they are then it's their problem, not the prostitute's. capitalism is imperfect in just the ways that you describe, but it works, and that is another issue altogether. i only mentioned it because it leaves the marxist argument inapplicable since the same could be said about any form of manual labour. the problem with the moralist argument is that morals are different all over the world. the moralist talks as if morals are a sound basis for public policy, but they are so uncertain that this simply cannot be the case. in some parts of the world there are certain practices which to us seem absolutely repulsive (eg. "penis feeding" for children ... i don't really want to go into it unless you really want to hear it) but the societies function perfectly well in other respects. morality would have to be a certain, normative concept to serve as a sound basis for the criminal law, but it's not, so it can't.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 23, 2006 19:47:37 GMT -5
As I see it, it is certain and should be normative. As for the rest, asking me "why can't you understand" something that I not only understand, but used to believe is pointless. I've already given the answers that correspond with my current understanding, and I'm afraid no about of discussion will convince me to regress on matters like these.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 23, 2006 22:15:34 GMT -5
and I'm afraid no about of discussion will convince me to regress on matters like these. heehee... soubds like I habd a colbd ;D That should be "amount", not "about".
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Mar 25, 2006 0:17:06 GMT -5
ok - i'm not trying to convince you that prostitution isn't wrong (if my daughter were a prostitute i'd feel terrible), but why punish the prostitute for doing something wouldn't even be considered immoral if she didn't take money for it? (some people don't want to have sex with strangers, but if you've ever been to a night club you'll know that many of the girls there are unashamedly "up for it")
the real problems with prostitution are that the prostitute gets exploited by pimps (who usually aren't very nice people and sometimes beats her up, forces her to take drugs and have sex with people she doesn't want to have sex etc.) since the law does not provide her the protection that she needs. to use a place in which to work she will be charged extortionate rents (since it's illegal to let property to a prostitute, she can only let from people who are willing to break the law, and they will charge over-the-top rates because she can't complain - since she is a prostitute - and also to make up for the fact that he might get caught). she will be afraid to seek help when she is abused (due to the stigma - if not the illegality - that goes with being a prostitute) and she will be afraid to visit a gaenacologist often enough to guard against the spread of disease (also due to the stigma).
this is the lower end of the market, however. what about the middle-class prostitute - possibly a housewife, she makes a bit of extra income for herself by letting people that she knows come round and have sex with her for money (like that character in desperate housewives who the ginger woman's husband used to shag). there is nothing like the same kind of deprivity in her life, no risk of abuse (due to the protection of her husband, if the worst came to worst and she had to tell him) or exploitation (due to unscrupulous landlords). she is not forced into it, she chooses to do it in the most informed way and it does not adversley affect her life or the lives of her clients, and she feels no guilt for what she does. the only thing that is really bad about this is the adultery (in that she's cheating on her husband), but assuming this is not a criminal offence, then why should it be a criminal offence to do it for money?
the USA is one of the few western countries where actually being a prostiute is illegal (other than some districts in nevada), but most western countries who don't want to tolerate prostitution impose laws making it illegal to let to a prostitute and illegal to live of the earnings of a prostitute (which also affects the prostitute herself) - laws which make the prostitute's life much more miserable than it needs to be at the lower end of the scale, yet they are the ones who are in most need of protection. in fact brothels are probably the safest places for prostitutes to work (they don't bring it into their own home and they are not exploited as badly as by pimps and landlords) yet they are illegal too.
i'm not proposing that prostitution should be encouraged, but there is so much suffering that could be avoided simply by not punishing the prostitute for what she is. the law can still discourage prostitution in ways other than the criminal law - it can refuse to honour prostitution contracts (like it does with gambling contracts in the UK at least). this has the effect of putting the whole system outside the scope of the law, but it should be outside the scope of the criminal law too. in that case the market would regulate itself - word would get around about where the best brothels are (so it would be in the interests of the brothels themselves to make the place as attractive as possible and keep employee morale high), and if a prostitute is known as unreliable (from the employer's point of view) then word will get around through references and co-operation between the institutions. prostitutes could also choose to work from home, or at least a premises where she is not charged extortionate rents, in a respectable area of town etc.
what do you have to fear from making prostitution legal? i've already addressed the comparisons with other jobs - there's no reason to make it illegal because of the risk of violence or disease etc. is it just that you don't like the idea of the law tolerating prostitution? if this is the only worry, then that is not good enough to justify all the suffering that goes on because of the current laws. or are you afraid that if it is tolerated then we'd see a boom in the number of prostitutes and men wanting to use them? that is not backed by evidence - if someone wants or needs to become a prostitute, the criminal law will not deter them. prostitution will still be really dirty and sleazy (like strip bars are seen as pretty sleazy these days, prostitution is on a whole different level from that), and if a man desperately needs to go to a prostitute, he's probably already seeing one at the moment.
certain regulations could be imposed on the brothels and self-employed prostitutes - they could be made to register as a prostitute so that they can be kept an eye on for disease and abuse etc. obviously some prostitutes won't want to do this and will continue to work illegally, but at least they would have an option available to them that would relieve much of the suffering. i'm not going to go into the details of a fully thought-out system with no problems or loopholes, but things like this could be imposed where there is an obvious need - the criminal law is not the appropriate mechanism for dealing with prositution.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 25, 2006 12:23:10 GMT -5
ok - i'm not trying to convince you that prostitution isn't wrong (if my daughter were a prostitute i'd feel terrible), Basically, if you think it would be terrible for your daughter, that's a pretty good clue that it's terrible... period.
|
|