Home / Debates / Law and Crime / Prostitution Should Be Legal

Prostitution Should Be Legal

Table of Contents

The revelation of the true identity of high class call girl, Belle de Jour, made famous by the blog and follow-up TV series, ‘Diaries of a Call Girl’, has re-opened the debate over prostitution. Many current and former prostitutes have denounced the government’s continued refusal to legalize the world’s oldest profession and have called for reform.

All the Yes points:

  1. The law as it stands is wrong and patronising to women
  2. law fails women by its very existence
  3. Help control prostitution
  4. Safety of the parties involved
  5. Taxation
  6. The war on prostitution
  7. Making it illegal helps exploit those we should be protecting
  8. Many women who have nothing become prostitutes to survive
  9. Prevent Prostitution From Going Underground
  10. Prostitution is simply an issue of individual liberty.
  11. Prostitutes have performed a valid social function for thousands of years.
  12. Many feminists consider that prostitution reflects the independence and dominance of modern women.
  13. Prostitution is responsible for preventing some incidence of sex crime.
  14. Legalisation of prostitution would break the link between their managers or ‘pimps’.
  15. The problem of a high concentration of ‘sex tourists’ in a small number of destinations will disappear.

All the No points:

  1. The law should not condone illicit behaviour
  2. Legalised prostitution still victimises the vulnerable.
  3. Would lead to similar policy towards drugs
  4. It would not solve the violence of prostitution.
  5. Bad for Business
  6. No, can you imagine the ADS on TV?
  7. Legalisation or Decrimilisation
  8. Morality of Prostitution
  9. People Trafficking

The law as it stands is wrong and patronising to women

Yes because…

Women (and men) should be free to decide what they do with their own bodies. The state has no right to tell them they cannot make a living out of having consensual sex. If individuals are allowed to smoke, drink and even commit suicide without facing legal repercussions, then banning prostitution is simply hypocritical.

Forced prostitution ‘is’ illegal ,which means the ‘law’ does not protect women/men from being forcibly solicited.People dying to be prostitutes cannot do so alone without facing the law, and therefore have to resort to large illegal criminal underground organisations, that exploit them.

Prostitution is one of the oldest ways of making money. Making it illegal does/would not put an end to it.

No because…

The law exists to protect women, many of whom are forced in prostitution by circumstances such as drug abuse, or more directly by unscrupulous human trafficking gangs. These women, experts such as the police say, face a life of physical, sexual, and psychological abuse unless the authorities are legally empowered to shut down the establishments they work in when they are detected.

Bonded forced prostitutes are shipped or urged to come to Europe where it is legal and are then exploited there, in general.

law fails women by its very existence

Yes because…

Although the law “exists to protect women” by its very existence it completely fails to do so; with prostitution a black market trade, unregulated and practiced on street corners and behind closed doors, the women who ply this trade are far more vulnerable than they would be if they were operating from a licensed venue. Such a venue could have security, panic buttons etc. Sexual health checks could be mandatory (for customers and workers) The women would be in no danger from curb/kerb crawlers, like the Ipswich lorry driver who murdered several prostitutes after picking them up in poorly-lit back streets
Much of the abuse suffered by these women comes from the pimps who exploit them and keep them hooked on drugs so as to keep them utterly dependent. Women would be free from such servitude and would have much better access to counseling and welfare services. The industry could be taxed with revenue reinvested in improving the work environment.

One could make reference to the landmark lobbying of the U.N by Cambodian prostitutes for their trade to be decriminalised and for the right to work; [[www.rabble.ca/taxonomy/term/3138/all/feed]]

Keeping this huge and unavoidable industry illegal on nothing more than principle is a narrow minded and obviously counter-productive approach.

No because…

Prostitution is illegal but paid dating services are legal.

Prostitution is not addictive/’a drug’ and as long as it is illegal it is costly and the cost does affect demand(since demand is not inelastic).

Help control prostitution

Yes because…

If prostitution was legalised then attempts to control the business would be made. Those who prostitute themselves would be in safer environment and measures could be taken to control those who come into the business. This would also mean that there could be more steps taken when any violent acts or wrongdoings such as not paying could be controlled and then actually prosecuted if needed.

No because…

Safety of the parties involved

Yes because…

By regulating prostitution, the safety of all parties can be monitored. Sex workers would be screened for STIs and protected from potentially harmful clients. The clients would also get the same benefits, as can be proven by the system of legalized prostitution in parts of Nevada.

The opposition say that it would lead to the more vulnerable of society getting involved but the presupposes that all prostitution is harmful to women and that prostitutes’ voices are never credible when they defend prostitution as an alternative

Furthermore the fact that prostitutes are not on the whole well educated does not mean anything. Prostitutes often are undereducated and this means that their choices are far more limited, many would prefer to work in an industry where they make relatively decent money, can work child friendly hours and don’t come home physically destroyed. The alternatives often are labour heavy, hour intensive menial work which would not necessarily leave them happy or content.

Approximately 25% of prostitutess fare better than the average woman, 50% have similar experiences and 25% have experiences that can be described as nightmareish. However, if you look at this group they are already especially vulnerable and often illegal immigrants or drug dependent i.e. the ready-made victims of exploitation.

No because…

Promoting prostitution as a career choice would lead to people from more vulnerable sectors of society getting into it more readily than they otherwise would have.

Most prostitutes take hard drugs as the result of trying to escape what they have started. They then find that they must continue selling sex in order to pay for their next fix.

The fact that prostitutes are not, on the whole, happy, content, well-educated people should be proof enough that this is not the kind of work we should look fondly on.

Anyone entering this business would, undoubtedly, require a lot of counselling to undo the emotional damage caused by selling sex to strangers.


Yes because…

By legalizing prostitution, the service can be taxed, and the money recycled into federal programs.

No because…

Other services can be taxed that don’t lead to the workers concerned spiralling into emotional turmoil.

The war on prostitution

Yes because…

Just as the war on drugs has been an abysmal failure, the war on prostitution has merely led to a giant loss of tax dollars and police time. Where there are willing buyers and sellers, a market will exist, and no amount of vice police or moral lecturing will change that.

No because…

That the war on drugs has been a failure has not led to the legalization of drugs around the world. Failure to prevent something is not an argument for legalizing it, more an incentive to examine the methods being employed to combat the problem.

Most Western countries anti-prostitution laws focus on the prostitutes themselves, as they are the most visible target for police to take actions against and secure easy convictions. Any laws against kerb crawling are poorly enforced at best as it is much more difficult to obtain convictions for kerb crawling. This style of policing only creates a revolving door system of justice where prostitutes are soon back on the streets, continuing to employ their trade as they do not have the wherewithal to obtain lawful employment.

Law reforms should decriminalize the sale of prostitution in favour of harsher sanctions on the purchase. This has a number of benefits in that there is now a disincentive in place for the clients where there was no real disincentive before, prostitutes no longer have a reason not to go to the police for fear of being arrested and it allows support services to work with prostitutes with a view to finding them a way out of the profession. This has had marked success in Sweden with no reason why it could not be employed in other countries.

Making it illegal helps exploit those we should be protecting

Yes because…

“Those who care about women’s rights, a concept that has been recently mobilised in Italy, condemn the ‘cleansing’ policy because they recognize that it not only increases the invisibility and exploitation (and forced labor) of sex workers, but it also weakens the workers’ contractual power, while strengthening the power of the rackets.”

Point being the sex trade has existed since time immemorial while measures have been taken to shame, vilify and abuse sex workers, the trade will not disappear if the cycle of punishing sex workers when demand famously creates supply, continues.

Unless avenues for safe work alternatives for unskilled workers can be opened, prostitution is here to stay. People need to eat and where and when there is nowhere to turn a murderous filthy racket/mobster/gangster or a sleazy aficionado or a curious college/university student is all there is. There should also be protection mechanisms employed to ensure that a former prostitute has not his/her life to fear before and after entering another walk of life.

No because…

There are plenty of jobs for unskilled workers, janitorial positions are the most common. Most prostitutes are runaways or victims of extreme harassment (ranging from incestuous to violent and both) . If these [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfrEN8kT2ek]] people were offered a chance to believe that they are not solely made-for-sex and good for nothing else they would exit the trade or never even enter the trade. Problem is, psychological counselling and great parenthood is lacking in many homes. Prostitution may have existed long enough and during that time has proved to be no less of an ill/bane.

Many women who have nothing become prostitutes to survive

Yes because…

While this happens already in a time where prostitution is illegal, women would be much better protected and would survive more comfortably if prostitution was legal. They would not be exploited and would be able to make a living without being treated as bad as they are today.

“New laws making it a criminal offence to have sex with prostitutes controlled by pimps may be too complex to work in practice, police have warned.

The legislation, which is due to come into effect later this year, aims to protect women forced into the trade.

Gloucestershire Chief Constable Dr Tim Brain said he feared the complexity of the law may make gaining evidence hard…

The government’s planned change to the law in England and Wales aims to protect women forced into the trade by traffickers and pimps.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith launched the new legislation with an unequivocal message, saying ‘there will be no more excuses for those who pay for sex’.

At present it is not illegal to pay for sex. Under the new legislation a man will face prosecution if he pays for sex with a woman who is being ‘controlled for gain’ by someone else…
The Home Office says more than 160 victims of sex trafficking were rescued by police in a six-month period last year.

The bill also includes tougher controls on kerb crawlers.”

No because…

Exploitation continues mainly because as you’ve said ‘women who have nothing become prostitutes.’ That automatically implies that society is legally exploiting the fact that these women have nothing.

As bad as they are today? uh many countries including the UK have legal prostitution, while certain countries such as the USA have limited legality on prostitution. How people handle being prostitutes depends on them, there are all kinds of prostitutes I think it is safe to assume the high class prostitutes are doing much better than low class prostitutes irrespective of the level of legality in their country.


Prevent Prostitution From Going Underground

Yes because…

When we legalise something, it would be easier to monitor it. Making prostitution illegal will force the bussiness to go underground. This makes it harder for regulation to happen. Usually underground activities are hard to erase and their impact on the society is much worse. This bussiness would harbour women who have HIV. It would probably use teenage prostitutes. They would not have to worry about the use of condoms or other forms of protection. Human trafficking may happen because of its underground nature like what is happening in several countries. If we legalise prostitution we could actually have an eye out to prevent any of this from happening.

No because…

So we should allow murder to become legal so its easier to monitor?

Prostitution is simply an issue of individual liberty.

Yes because…

Prostitution is simply an issue of individual liberty. The control of one’s own body is the most basic of human rights. We do not impose legal penalties upon men and women who choose to be promiscuous. Why should the exchange of money suddenly make an incident of lawful and consensual sexual intercourse an illegal act?

No because…

Prostitutes do not have a genuine choice. They are often encouraged to work before they are old enough to make a reasoned decision. Many have their reasoning impaired by an unhappy family background or previous sexual abuse. They may be compelled to enter prostitution by circumstances beyond their control, such as substance addiction or the necessity to provide for a family.

Prostitutes have performed a valid social function for thousands of years.

Yes because…

Prostitutes have performed a valid social function for thousands of years. Prostitution actually helps maintain marriages and relationships. Instead of a relationship, a purely physical transaction occurs, a commercial exchange which does not jeopardize the emotional stability of a relationship. In Italy, for example, a visit to a prostitute does not violate the law against adultery.

No because…

Prostitution harms the fabric of society. Sexual intercourse outside of a relationship of love, or even marriage, shows disregard for the sanctity of the sexual act and for the other partner in a relationship. Emotional commitment is inextricably linked to physical commitment.

Many feminists consider that prostitution reflects the independence and dominance of modern women.

Yes because…

Many libertarian feminists consider that prostitution reflects the independence and dominance of modern women. The majority of prostitutes are women. Once the dangers of abuse from male clients and pimps are removed, the capacity of women to control the sexual responses of men in a financially beneficial relationship is liberating. Furthermore, many campaigners for the rights of prostitutes note that the hours are relatively short, the work well-remunerated, and the services they offer are ones that other women are compelled to provide without charge.

No because…

The overwhelming trend of feminism is against prostitution. The radical feminist school that emerged in the 1990s supports the orthodoxy that prostitution leads to the objectification of women. The use of a woman’s body solely for the purpose of sexual gratification does not treat them as a person. This lack of respect dehumanises both prostitute and client, and does not represent a victory for either sex.

Prostitution is responsible for preventing some incidence of sex crime.

Yes because…

Reports in the United States suggest that prostitution is responsible for preventing some incidence of sex crime.

No because…

There is no method of proving that some individuals who visit prostitutes would otherwise have committed violent offences. Psychological therapies that recommended the use of prostitutes have now been widely discredited. The number of violent attacks on prostitutes, including rape and murder, and the considerably greater number of such crimes which are believed to go unreported, suggests that prostitutes themselves are the victims of the most serious criminal offences. In Victoria, where prostitution is legalised, there are two rapes of prostitutes reported each week.

Legalisation of prostitution would break the link between their managers or ‘pimps’.

Yes because…

Legalisation of prostitution would break the link between their managers or ‘pimps’. These individuals subject prostitutes to physical abuse and threats of violence, retain a portion of their earnings, and often encourage them to become addicted to drugs. The provision of a secure environment in which to work would allow men and women to be independent of these individuals.

No because…

The legalisation of the ‘Bunny Ranch’ in Nevada did not prevent the majority of prostitutes from continuing to work outside of the licensed brothel, and remain dependent on pimps. This is because brothels are more expensive environments for prostitutes to work and clients to visit. Rent, health checks, and security, are some of the costs which make it uneconomic for some prostitutes to be employed in brothels. In Britain, where prostitution is virtually prohibited, some prostitutes use private apartments, whilst others work on the street. Legalisation of prostitution does not remove the street market, or the dangers associated with it. The dangerous street environment is generated by simple economics, not legal controls.

The problem of a high concentration of ‘sex tourists’ in a small number of destinations will disappear.

Yes because…

The problem of a high concentration of ‘sex tourists’ in a small number of destinations will disappear once a larger number of countries legalise prostitution. Supporting this motion, therefore, will reduce the problem of sex tourism.

No because…

The legalisation of prostitution would render the country in question a destination for sex tourism. Relaxed legal controls on prostitution in Thailand, the Philippines and Amsterdam have made these countries attractive for individuals, many of whom the local population would not regard as desirable visitors to a country or city.

The law should not condone illicit behaviour

No because…

The law should never be changed so as to make provisions for the most morally blameworthy of behaviour. The girls may have some sympathy among the public, however, how can it be legal for men to pry around women and pick and choose who they wish to take to bed that night? How can a Christian society be seen to condone such behaviour? We may have a secular society, but the morals that run through our fibres are that of Christian teachings. The law should not be able to go against such moral fibre of its society for any amount of benefit; seen as the detriment to society’s moral balance would always be a far greater factor to weigh.

Yes because…

It is a key principle of the Common Law system that the law is not there to act as an instructive manual for public morality. It exists to regulate the basics of conduct necessary to ensure the functioning of society. This is in contrast to other jurisdictions such as France, where the law is used quite openly to impose moral duties on citizens, for example by criminalising failure to assist strangers. The position is supported by a large amount of statutory and case law, and is the established position within English law. To say what the law “should” be doing in this case is either to ignore the jurisprudence as it currently stands, or to propose a radical overhaul of some fundamental assumptions.

To go beyond this position raises a number of issues:

1. Whose morality?

The most obvious point is that in a pluralist society this cannot be an obvious answer. We have multiple value systems operating at any given time, and the state proclaims no business in determining which of these value systems is correct. The state starts to go down a shaky path if it starts to endorse one of these value systems over another on grounds greater than the maintenance of public order.

One may counter this by arguing that this is a country of Christian heritage and institutions, and that the common good is thus defined by the intellectual underpinnings and legacy of the Christian faith. This only raises further problems. “Whose morality?” becomes “whose Christianity?” Is it the Anglican Church, which has never been in the majority of this country? Is it that of the evangelical or liberal wing? I may find as easily find one churchman vehemently opposed to the legality of prostitution as I may find one in favour of its legalisation. To effectively determine public policy on this basis of a fundamental Christian morality would require the active involvement of the state in church politics and the endorsement of a particular theology. The arrangement would be beneficial to neither the state, nor society, nor Christianity itself. The basis of secularism is that the church and state are separate. The law and general morality operate in separate spheres accordingly.

2. Where do we draw the line?

This question is present in many legislative issues, but raises particular problems when it comes to the imposition of civic duties. Who owes the duty? At what point is it owed? Trying to adequately define the boundaries of acceptable moral behaviour is ultimately futile as human behaviour is fractal in nature. The result will always be that some people end up on the wrong side of the line. Legislating in fields better suited for public opprobrium simply risks criminalising people unfairly. One need look no further than the opposing argument on this topic: the writer’s words could easily be interpreted as arguing in favour of the criminalisation of speed-dating. To suggest that a professional draftsman would be able to draw the line more easily than the (I assume) layman who wrote this is disingenuous.

(For a more detailed discussion, see Smith and Hogan’s “Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, 10th Edn., Chapter 4: Omissions”).

3. Law and morality are never in lockstep.

This is where I have to disagree with the person who wrote what is below, for two reasons. First, legislation does not drive a change in social attitudes. Think about it for a moment: if people’s minds were only ever changed by changes in the law, then there would never be any changes in the law in the first place. Changes in general moral understanding have to occur first, otherwise there is no impetus to alter legislation. A reforming spirit is required before the act of reform occurs. Where legislative reform appears to change general attitudes, one is actually seeing simply a greater communication of a change in the general morality. The law is far more dependent on what people’s sense of morality is than vice-versa, as can be seen in any purposive judicial interpretation. To suggest otherwise is, logically speaking, to put the horse before the cart.

Second, the process of legislation is fundamentally slower than that of the individual or public opinion. As soon as a law is passed it is, in effect, out of date. Think of an Act like a newspaper: it does not tell you what the news is _now_, simply what the news was at any given time prior to the publishing deadline. So it is with legislation. Statutes and cases are snapshots. They may well be out of step with public opinion and morality. Even if there was a universal consensus in favour of changing a piece of legislation, it would still take time for the legislative process to give effect to that will. The law is thus out of step with general morality at any given time.

One need look no further than Blasphemy laws: they are at odds with the general public opinion that such behaviour should not be subject to criminal (or possibly even moral) sanction, yet they remain on the statute book. Is it true to say that this is synchronous with public morality, let alone to say that that morality is influenced by the letter of the law?

The law is not there to serve the whims of those who would impose their particular view of morality upon us. To do so is only to invite disaster.
This would have been an argument made by those who were not in favour of legalising homosexuality in the 1950’s. What needs to be realised is that people’s moral views are dependant on what the law states. Homosexuality was made legal when people still did not agree with it but a few people were beginning to change their opinion. The change of the law resulted in people being a lot more open to homosexuals. If we were to legalise prostitution much the same thing would happen. People are beginning to see the sense of legalising prostitution for protection and if the law was changed this view would consequently become more widespread. Our ‘moral fibres’ are mere sheep that follow what is written.

Legalised prostitution still victimises the vulnerable.

No because…

Whether prostitution is legal or illegal, the women who become subject to the trade are weak ones. Whilst only 1 in 300 women in London is a prostitute, 1 in 35 are prostitutes where such a profession is legal. Of that number, 75% are from Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia. [[Karina Schaapman, The Times, December 2008]]. Women come from these poor countries expecting wealth and all they get is paying customers waiting at their door. This would be a particular problem in London whereby it is known to those in the Eastern hemisphere as the place where you will be able to make a good living for yourself. With this high expectation, many will turn to prostitution to meet their financial aims. Legalised prostitution would be nothing more than exploitation of the vulnerable for tax purposes.

Yes because…

Extortion is wrong and illegal but that is not what Schaapman talks about here.

While the idea that women in prostitution are the ‘Weak ones’ not only comes from a very moral perspective but also a very subjective value system, Karina Schaapman has fallen into the trap of pigeon holing and casting a vast generalisation over a large segment of society.

Despite the fact that women (by definition) are more than just their career choice and also (by definition of being human) are abjectly incapable of making the ‘strong’ choice every time in every period of their lives,Schaapman has tared them all with the same brush.

Having been forced and chosen to associate with people from ‘all walks of life’ it has been harder to hold my intellectual prejudices which were fostered and supported in public school . Because of this it became much harder to view the parade of prostitutes marching through Soho in defence of the expression of their life choice to be a symbol of ignorance, weakness and low intellect.

While the definition of weak and strong is still highly debated across cultures, philosophies and religions its actual existance is strongly questioned in many psychological fields.

I do wonder how Schaapman can work for a news paper who hasn’t once questioned (and has even supported) the surge in recruits to the British Military in recent years despite the highly dubious reasons for the deaths we are causing in the ME( you would have to be strong to publicly pick that one though!!!). From all the past articles Schaapman has never targeted these trained killers as subjects of weakness.

I’m not a hippie but (whether I agree totally with the life choice or not) I lean towards chosing to make love not war while exploring God’s Green Earth.

Would lead to similar policy towards drugs

No because…

The Netherlands legalised prostitution in the 20th Century as part of a gedoogbeleid (policy of tolerance). This policy was adopted in the belief that it would reduce harm to those involved and others. The Government believed that outlawing prostitution was counter productive and therefore should be regulated. This reasoning equally applied to drugs. If Britain were to legalise prostitution, the legalization of drugs would be a logical necessity. As the reasoning behind the two systems is the same; “they may be morally undesirable but we are to regulate them to reduce harm”. We cannot pick up one side of the stick without the other. Therefore, keeping both illegal would be desirable as too many people would be morally offended by these two morally wrong acts being made legal.

Yes because…

In response to the ‘No’;

Surely the only reason prostitution is illegal, is that the House has needed the votes of those who claim to ‘morally object’ to prostitution (and drug users). Are there any other reasons?

Only a brave and radical House would legalise both. It would put and end to the damaging state of denial the nation wallows in. Both could be dealt with – rationally. The difficult part would be dealing with the moral objectors outrage and the inevitable booting out of the House at the next election. So be it! Legalise it!

It would not solve the violence of prostitution.

No because…

The reasoning behind legalising prostitution is to prevent harm to prostitutes themselves. However, there is no actual evidence that this would occur. In fact, Amsterdam, our closest case study into what legalising prostitution can do, violent crime and killings have been on the increase and the Mayor of Amsterdam is now seeking to clean the Red Light District up. With so many Eastern European women entering the country in order to become prostitutes, Eastern European gangs have followed and the results can be seen in Amsterdam’s gang crime statistics. The illegal trafficking of women is still rife, as are other crimes which these gangs use the prostitution to fund. In truth, the prostitutes are no more protected when prostitution is legalised, and the public are not safer under such a rule.

[[Marlise Simons, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/world/europe/24amsterdam.html?_r=1, February 2008]]

Yes because…

Bad for Business

No because…

Although prostitution, as an act, is not legalised. The girls who are forced to, and those who are not would lose money. Prostitution is illegal due to its sometime violent outbursts and the danger that it can put people in. However, legalising prostitution would mean that it is no longer a taboo and would somewhat decrease the desire to hire a prostitute.

Amsterdam has its legalised prostitution and it works fine, yet it is mainly a tourist attraction and the men that do use prostitutes in Amsterdam do it as it is a form of souvenir, something to cross off the list. Because of the way that the girls are advertised and portrayed they can charge large amounts of money. This would not be the case in the UK. The UK would not embrace ideas of sexuality like Holland and this advertising and promotion of the girls would not be the same if legalised in the UK. With this in mind prostitutes would not have the same ability to charge as they do.

Also, would leglising prostitution mean that people could manage prostitutes in a harsher sense than pimps or madames? Charging as they wish and possibly giving a wage rather than commission based pay? These would all need to be taken into account and if so the reason that people go into prostitution is usually because they are forced into due to lack of money. If it was a wage based system there is nothing then stopping people from getting another job that puts them at less risk. Legalising prostitution should not happen, not due the fact that it would make prostitution seem morally acceptable but that it would not help the people involved in the industry as well.

Yes because…

The evidence doesn’t bear this out. Notwithstanding the Netherlands, one may look further afield at Germany and Nevada to see that this just isn’t the case. The opposing argument appears to be more based off prejudice than knowledge.

No, can you imagine the ADS on TV?

No because…

Im fed up of alcohol ads, gambling ads and now maybe ads for whoring?

The big global multi conglomerate supermarket chains would get in on the act.

I don’t want to go into Walmart for a loaf of bread and be harangued by desperate females eager to know if I needed ‘a bit of company’ or be offered Buy One Get One Free, or double loyalty points if I go for a threesome….

Yes because…

For the younger generations, it would act as a kind of education and by the time they are ready for sex themselves, they know what they’re doing. LOL

Don’t take that seriously. Anything that happens in a decent country takes into consideration everyone, not just companies wanting to get into the act for a bit of $$$

Unless if it could take on the form of cigarette advertising. The closest thing to an advertisement is the logo on the packet behind the counter. There’s not even a picture of what a cigarette looks like. And that’s how it should be. B)

Legalisation or Decrimilisation

No because…

It is important to define whether you mean legalisation or decriminalization; these are very different concepts and worldwide have led to different results. Furthermore how exactly would you legalise, do you propose a system such as Holland where there are parks which you go to for Sex or a system more like Queensland in Australia?

Decriminalisation has recently (2004) occured in New Zealand and also occured in New South Wales; however there are still substantial regulatory differences and these regulations give substantial differences in outcome

Yes because…

Morality of Prostitution

No because…

Within society today the words ‘whore’ and ‘slut’ are still the most powerful insults that can be leveled against a woman. The power behind these words derive from the belief that to consent to selling your body in such a fashion as prostitution, is to degrade yourself as a person and your essential humanity as it is tantamount to a form of sexual slavery.

Yes because…

First and foremost, prostitution is not in any form slavery. Women/men are not selling THEMSELVES… they are providing a service in exchange for money. It is a CHOICE that these women/men provide what they do, a choice that they should be FREE to make. Within society the words ‘gay’, ‘fag’, ‘whore’, ‘slut’, ‘bitch’, ‘fat’, ‘ugly’,.. (I believe you get the point…) are still the most powerful insults to any of the following they insult. That is discrimination… that is of course offensive but not directly related to prostitution. That is the weakness of our country lowering the esteem of each other opposed to working together to be stronger and more unified. Regardless, ones morals are not and do not relate to anothers. We live in a free world, therefore are entitled to our own opinions, beliefs, and choices. Additionally, if you attempt to “legislate morality”, whose morals are to be used? Consensus?

People Trafficking

No because…

People trafficking is still a huge problem despite the abolition of the slave trade 200 years ago. More than one person is trafficked across their borders every minute.

Most of the people trafficked into the country are girls who are sold into prostitution. Can you imagine how many more innocent girls will be promised a better life, taken from their homes and then sold into a profession like prostitution in developed countries across the world?
By legalising prostitution, traffickers will have a get-out clause with the law and the people they traffick will suffer. Surely we can’t allow this?!

Yes because…

Human trafficking in relation to prostitution coincides so greatly in America at this time because we allow these men and women who CHOOSE to partake in this workforce to be vulnerable. In America today, prostitution is the MOST DANGEROUS job and unsurprisingly enough police are less than willing to provide aid to prostitutes who have been raped, beaten or harassed. We are turning our backs on human beings that rely on the same protection as any other person. Also with brothels being legitimate businesses, the number of girls that are under 18, or not of age of consent who willingly prostitute themselves, will greatly diminish.By legalizing prostitution America we will be able to provide security to these people. America will be able to provide stability and protection for these people. Overall America will be able to prevent things like sex trafficking happening to defenseless prostitutes, and providing more government money to attack, find, arrest, and prosecute the ring leaders of sex trafficking.

Notify of
1 Comment
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Verified by MonsterInsights