Should prostitution be legal?

I'll simply say, ether way people are going to do it, Legal or not, and fact wise when it comes to certain areas and age groups laws work like reverse-psychology.

Places were its legal to carry a gun - have lower crime rates
USA having the highest drinking age - Teens wanting to go out and drink more over other country's.
Smoking- Teens do it cause its cool and illegal for them to get any of it.

If you tell someone to not do something, chances are you probably just made them want to do it more. Its common knowledge to anyone with common understanding.

First off, the statistics that kuro5shin.org uses are hugely skewed. They give you the percentage coefficients but they don't provide a confidence or significance level needed for it to be a viable statistic. Seriously? if I said "30% of all males are prostitutes," what kind of sample size am I talking about? A city, a certain demographic, or the whole population? Where's the sample data?

But beyond that, I am thoroughly against prostitution. Morally, I am unaware of any religious affiliation which justifies the action of prostitution. There is a reason why people (or God? however please you) incorporated prostitution as a vice instead of a virtue. For example, the Jewish faith prohibits the ingestion of certain unclean foods, but that is not because of the fact that they did it just because. They did it because those unclean foods were unsafe to eat. It was a practical matter which was incorporated into religious text. So juxtapose that with prostitution. I can hardly think of a fully functioning world that would ingrain prostitution into it for a number of reasons. All I can say is thank god for penicillin.

Philosophically, it is reprehensible and vile because of the normative framework it implies. Besides the denigration of women as well as men (it is in a sense a form of slavery), it is in virtue of itself just plain counter civilized. Look at what prostitution means etymologically. It is essentially the "means of indiscriminate sex." The means of profit is not incorporated into the word... that's a modern convenience people use to make it sound better. Someone else usually profits from a prostitute? hence the pimp?. and ironically pornography, which essentially means "the purchase and use of a prostitute." On that note, think of the flood gate that would open in regards to pimps and sex trade abuse.

Leagally, prostitution should be legal. What can I say? plebeians like sex? in any form it comes in. Nothing good has come from a government opposing the majority of the people. If there are citizens of a country that willingly choose to become prostitutes, then they should be provided a venue for that occupation to exist in. But there should be more than a sufficient check and balance system in place to make sure the trade is not used for malign purposes, like sex trafficking.

Prostitution should be legal: the statistics prove it || kuro5hin.org

As far as I'm concerned prostitution is morally subjective. I would not do it, but I don't think that it's morally wrong for someone else. I just prefer not to do it; it's just not for me. I do not believe that it denigrates women or men, anymore than manual labor for small wages denigrates the worker. There is nothing inhumane about casual sex, and I bet you that most legal prostitutes will tell you that they enjoy their job, while most labor workers say that they hate their jobs.

As far as practical matters being incorporated into a religious text, this has little or nothing to do with practicality, than it has to do with self-righteousness. Celibates who attempt to dehumanize, or even demonize casual sex are being tyrannical and self-righteous; it's that misery loves company thing. For example, Saint Augustus got around before he devoted himself to the church, but when he became celibate, he didn't like the idea that everyone else was enjoying physical pleasures, while guilt free; and so he wanted to make them feel guilty. Contrarily, Epicurus, though he was celibate, did not demand that his followers be celibate.

Also, in terms of religious practicality, what about homosexuals? It is a biblical, and therefore Christian tradition to dehumanize and demonize homosexuality, to the point that the Old Testament calls for the stoning of homosexuals. What's ethical, or practical about that?

While I don't believe that legalized prostitution (regulated) is unethical, I do believe that illegal prostitution is very unethical and denigrating, but it is only illegal because the government makes it so. Illegal prostitution is like a form of slavery, not legal prostitution. I believe that regardless of our personal values, we should not standardize values that are completely subjective, and we should not be self-righteous towards people who do not have the same moral subjectives that we do. Like you, I believe that it should be legalized, and regulated to make sure that it is done ethically.

I agree with you that prostitution is morally subjective. It can be judged on individual moral biases. I don't particularly have a moral view on prostitution besides the practical reasons for implementing them in canonical law. For me, if anything made it into religious law, it had to be important for some reason or another. As for prostitution for me? well, it is not really my ideal occupation either.

As for the point about you not viewing prostitution as a denigration to men and women, I disagree. You underline the point about it being no more demeaning than manual labor. That may be, and the same could be said from lawyers and doctors to the guy at McDonalds. Anything that earns a wage in exchange for a service can in essence be considered prostitution. But then that wouldn't be prostitution? that would be work. There is, in my opinion, a clear delineation between the action of prostitution and the action of work. But this may all be a breakdown in definition? which if anything is essential to the practice of law. However, is it right to parallel prostitution with casual sex? Prostitution is above all "for a price" whereas casual sex is "casual" which is essentially non-profit.


Is it self-righteous to prohibit the ingestion of unsafe foods, or is it out of concern for bodily health? If concern for health immediately entails some form of self-righteousness because it is written in a religious text, we are incorporating a form of religious bias with the overall message that text may be alluding to? regardless of whether or not that health caveat is viable. There are sects of Hinduism for example that exemplify the health of the body as a moral priority. Are they self-righteous? Maybe? but in that example, the penumbra is especially grey.

That celibates try to dehumanize (or demonize) casual sex and that doing so is self-righteous? I completely agree. Casual sex is by its very nature private and non-profit? for the benefit of the person and the person alone with no type of contract or exchange in the action. It makes no sense for someone without (or with) to force their ideal on the other. But when you mention Saint Augustus and Epicurus, you are mentioning people that fall into a different category than the typical "celibate." Augustus in a sense forfeited his casual sex rights so to speak and signed in a sense a religious contract absconding religious orders (including celibacy). As for Epicurus? if he was a follower of Platonists, he was probably not celibate all his life (i.e. Phaedrus).


I'm not really sure how religious practicality enters this particular realm of the discussion. What can say if we deviate from the discussion is that your first sentence underlines the problem. Though there is certainly nothing wrong with homosexuality and everyone is entitled to their own particular life choice, is homosexuality practical? There is love and bonding shared between partners, but is that intangible love practical in terms of a tangible species? Legally, it is a very problematic issue. Many people attribute the resistance of homosexual unions by the state because of "Christian" ethics. But the state is less concerned with Christian ethics more than it is concerned with issues "burdened to the state." To a point, it is actually a violation of the social contract between the individual and the state in that homosexuality does not allow for progeny of the lessor. Can you imagine the future of a country where 50% of the population does not reproduce? I'm not particularly religious more than I am practical and utilitarian? and it does not seem to be in the best interest of the majority to see this issue as viable.


I think we all suffer from the subjective mind frame. If we instead focused on the objective points, we would all be utilitarian's and there would probably be a lot less problems in the world. But, especially in regards to the law, everything is relative to itself. But there really should be some venue for legalized prostitution? although it should be heavily regulated.

I'll simply say, ether way people are going to do it, Legal or not, and fact wise when it comes to certain areas and age groups laws work like reverse-psychology.

PIf you tell someone to not do something, chances are you probably just made them want to do it more. Its common knowledge to anyone with common understanding.

Well this tells me that you are a religious person, which means that you don't really question that book, because you think it's either the word of God or the word of "holy men". Of course there is a reason for religious law - there's a reason for everything, but that doesn't mean the reason is right or just. The commands to kill homosexuals are not just. It was written into the bible for homophobic reasons. Commands to kill a man who works on the Sabbath are also not just. Commands to execute a person who worships a statue are not just. All of these laws reflect superstition, prejudice, and intolerance.

It is self-righteous to constantly bad mouth people who do have bad eating habits. It is, however, unethical for the state to prohibit the ingestion of unsafe foods, because it violates citizen's rights, and it is a non-coercive act. Some vices are bad enough that they should be outlawed because of the detrimental effect they can have on a society, but the state and society should use persuasion instead of coercion to discourage most vices.

St. Augustine's attitude towards sex has become the attitude of Christianity towards sex. He was promiscuous before he dedicated his life to the church, and many scholars think he was bitter for not being able to enjoy casual sex, or sex at all for that matter. Epicurus was taught by a Platonic teacher, but he was not a Platonist. He developed his own philosophy that was so distinct that it started the movement known as Epicureanism. He was celibate.

The state is concerned with the Christian values of the majority, because they need them to be elected. That is why American politicians kiss Christian ass all of the time. Also, in California the state did not vote on same sex marriage, the Christian, and homophobic majority did; and I agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said that the majority should never be able to vote on the rights of the minority.

The theory that anywhere near 50% of the population will become homosexual and stop procreating with the opposite sex if we legalize homosexual marriage, or at least grant homosexuals equal rights and benefits from the state in cases of civil unions is just homophobic non-sense.

We shouldn't be utilitarian (there are many problems with universal utilitarianism), but instead we should be extropian.

Laws that regulate morality fail miserably.

Laws at the simplest level basically dictate a minimum moral standard of living to the citizens. They do not work perfectly, but that is no reason to abandon the law entirely.

Laws at the simplest level basically dictate a minimum moral standard of living to the citizens. They do not work perfectly, but that is no reason to abandon the law entirely.