why is prostitution illegal?

Another question to toss in the pot... Why then do we all become so "righteous" when it comes to buying/selling sex? Sex education is being taught in grade school and high school. I heard on the news that a grade school (and I don't know what state this school is in) was handing out condoms to their students. I also don't know the outcome because there was such an uproar about it. High schools are now handing out condoms to their students.

The idea behind all of this is "safe" sex.. We don't want our kids to get a disease or our daughters to get pregnant. But then what is it telling out kids. Ok, well chances are you are "going to have sex" so it is much better to be safe than sorry. Which in the long run, if your are going to be sexually active, practicing safe sex is a good idea.

Ok, so we are now teaching our minors "safe sex" and "sex education". On one hand we are saying sex is ok just be safe. The other hand we are saying don't have sex but hand out condoms for free, just in case. SO where are all those "morals" now? What happened to "waiting till married" to have sex?

So the question is why then if "free sex" is in the name of "exploring" or "love" OK? And to buy/sell sex is wrong? What is the difference?

Is it the exchange of money that displeases people and not the act?? Since sex is acceptable in most cases... And this by all means does not include minors being abused or forced in any kind of sexual act....

I think it is because sex is a very private and personal thing. I have no problem with sex education being taught in the school systems because long before the school ever thought of bringing it up to my children I had been talking about it with them for years.

I don't know how effective "sex education" is in school. Children are not very likely to ask important questions when subjected to this information in front of the entire class, even if they do seperate by gender. I truly feel bad for the kids that don't have parents that talk to them. And I'd like to say that I respected those parents wishes with the friends of my own kids, but when they asked (and in some cases even when they didn't) I educated them. Not on the morality, I did give my base line opinion which is that if you are too embarrassed to talk to your partner about what feels good, birth control (and what you would do in the event of a failure), previous experience etc, then you ought not be having sex with them; but more on things like diseases and birth control failure.

It was truly amazing that they didn't know if Susie or Johnny was walking around with a big ole cold sore on their mouth that could be transmitted through oral sex. Then you're stuck with a STD the rest of your life. Or that men can transmit genital warts without even know that they're carrying it, or that you CAN get pregnant the first time, or that single time you don't use protection.

I've been thinking about another topic a great deal, and perhaps the two are related. My youngest son is in a very serious relationship. He is the first of my children to entertain the thought of marriage. His father and I did get married when I was his age.

So here's what I'm pondering: what makes a person decide to get married, and perhaps more importantly what makes them remain committed to that relationship for the rest of their life in spite of the hard times? Mentally speaking men and women are entirely different species, we often times do not even speak the same language. So when my son asked how we knew that this was the person that I wanted to spend my life with, my husband and I have the same response "I just knew" but it's not a very good one, how do you qualify that statement? Sure I can list all of my husband good qualities, but how do I explain how I knew? How do I explain what made him different then the ones before him?

Perhaps one of the reasons we are so anti prostitution as a society is because we are afraid somehow it will make that delicate relationship between a man and a woman more fragile. We still seem have this archaic belief that men marry for sex and woman marry for security. If we offer men sex for mere money, are we afraid that they will not take the plunge into marriage? We also don't seem to be comfortable with women having sex with whomever they wish, even if they don't charge for it. If men have many partners that's normal, if women do then there is something wrong with them mentally or morally.

I'm guilty of this myself to a degree. I have a niece that isn't very selective about the men she sleeps with. When her grandmother made comment about it I read her the riot act, why the hell is she held to a different standard than the grandsons? If she's doing this because it's what she wants and she's taking the necessary precautions, the more power to her! Outwardly... But deep down in my soul I want her to find a nice man to settle down with.

I agree that sex is a very personal and private. I also don't have a problem with sex education in the schools. In my day, we were taught nothing about sex. I am not sure exactly at this time how I feel about condoms being handed out in the schools. On one hand it is good to practice safe sex on the other hand aren't we saying it is ok to go ahead and have sex? Safe sex is being responsible to a degree. But isn't sex a deeper issue "no pun here" Commitment and emotions and partners wanting to please each other. Sex should never be a "woman's" duty. How cold is that! I personally feel/think that women's feelings are being stepped on when they are sexually active with many partners. They are being used in my humble opinion. So why do "we" as women do it before marriage?

Good question you asked "How do I explain how I knew?" Unfortunately, I don't have any answers. I can say you you have set a good example by staying married for 24 years. There is an answer here, I just don't have it.

If we offer men sex for money would that make the men not want to get married. Interesting thought. Guess the key is not every woman would ask for money. And maybe those who would ask for money would less likely get married? I don't know. Is a double standard whereas men can be "horn dogs" (don't ask me where I got that expression, because I don't know) and women are expected to be "virtuous".

I just don't understand why paying for sex is wrong. There have been many reasons in this thread as to why it isn't ok.. Just none of the answers yet have turned on that light, as to awwwwwwwww that makes sense.....

Maybe this "topic" is confusing and harder for me to grasp because of my background. Something "important" might have been damaged and not worked through. Maybe it is that childhood stuff.

The whole "sex before marriage" thing stems from religious beliefs. That's not to say non-religious people don't believe in it, but most of that kind of thinking does. I don't think people should be ashamed of enjoying sex inside or outside of marriage. I don't think society should condemn people who have sex outside of marriage; but if you belong to a religion or set of beliefs that it's wrong, the fact that there are many others like you makes it more likely people will be condemned, when they should be accepted, even if not condoned.

I am not saying sex before marriage is wrong. I am asking why prostitution isn't legal. I am saying if we give it away for free then there is no point of saving it for marriage. Then why can't women who want money for sex be granted that privilege and legal? Also am not suggesting people be ashamed for enjoying sex outside of marriage. I am saying since this is a very "sexual" generation, why then is prostitution illegal. Don't ya think a few ladies could make a few dollars during this rampant sexual age? And it be legal......

People like me?? hmmmm...... no comment at this time.. proud of myself right now for no reason ..

I just wanted to add, I am not condemning anyone. If I am coming across that way, I am sorry. I am just asking why isn't prostitution legal? No intention to offend anyone......

And, one wants one's sons to find a nice girl to settle down with and, for me, presumably they won't have been with every tom, ****, and harry to begin with.

I guess I do have some issue with the number of partners one has because, to me, it doesn't show much discrimination, and I mean discrimination in a "good" way. It's like the difference between someone who will eat "anything" and someone who appreciates a good meal.

If a man just wants "sex" and pays for it, if a man or woman is just having "fun" then how can I judge their serious intent as mate material? I shake my head at the Hollywood types that are married 4, 5, 6, 7, 8+ times; I can't figure out how someone decides to marry someone else who has already shown they weren't serious over 2+ times? I can see "a" marriage that ends (my husband was married previously) or even a couple under certain circumstances (my oldest brother is happily married and he and my sister-in-law are each other's 4th spouses) but I wouldn't be able to continue dating a man who had been divorced 2-3 times, nevermind being their 5th or 6th spouse?

I think partners can be like that; if we're dating and getting serious and decide to share how many sexual partners we've had and you tell me, wait a minute, I have to consult my little black book :-) I'm going to be a little concerned about whether I want to be in that little black book, another notch on the belt, etc. That's not what I want.

As a mother of three sons I agree with you Perna. But then again, I taught them all to ask themselves "is this the person that I want to be the mother/father of my children?" I certainly know that sex is not only for procreation; I have four children, each and every one of them was concieved while I was on birth control. The twins were after my husband had a vasectomy.

It makes me very angry that men and women go around having kids and not pay attention to the person they're having kids with. That they're actually surprised when someone ends up pregnant.

AAAA:
I so so agree with all of this! Our society has held the belief that it's a given that men will seek "the release" and that women will not/are not allowed-- as it is considered "dirty" for them to do so. It's about control-- and deep deep ingrained social brainwashing/conditioning.

Radioflyer-- I s'pose there could be as many answers to why prostitution is illegal as there are colors to the rainbow. but when it comes down to it-- to me-- it seems to be about the value of the relationship between a man and woman-- and how equal/fair it is in all aspects-- emotional, physical and monitarily.
Prostitution may "cheapen"-- "lessen" that value of the relationship. It makes it so it's not equal for both genders. when things aren't equal(balanced) there will, sooner or later, be a revolt -- by one or the other that is being treated unfair. There needs to be respect to keep the balance(IMO).... and for this society-- Prostitution doesn't come with respect. So in order to- hopefully keep the respect(deter men to use and women to be used) prostitution is made illegal for the most part. this is part of my take on it anyway...

fins

I tried to post this yesterday or the day before, but my computer closed the tab and I lost everything, so I'll try again

The state that was referred to early about the condom problem was in Massachusetts. What happened was the school board passed decree that, I believe, stated that any student that asked someone at the school, like the nurse, for a condom, they would be given it, no questions asked. Unfortunately, parents got outraged by this, believing that meant elementary school kids would have access to condoms, would use them, and would go on rampant sex raids before they hit puberty. The school board admitted they hadn't even though about elementary kids when they passed the new rule (honestly, I'm not sure many people would think about elementary kids having sex...). But there was a huge backlash, and the school board got pretty fried for it. They were really just trying to keep high schoolers safe if they needed it.

I completely understand the whole not paying attention to who you're having kids with.. My boyfriend's sister got pregnant at the end of her college career. She kept the baby and the boyfriend. They got married about a year after her first child was born, and she had her second only a year ago (she had two kids under the age of two). Now, she's admitted to family members that she's afraid to leave her kids with her husband because she doesn't feel he's responsible enough. I totally agree that if you can't talk to you partner about having sex, what you like and don't like, birth control, STDs, and the possibility of birth control failing, you shouldn't be having sex with them. Really, they should teach that in schools.

Lastly, while I think that perhaps the "fragile relationship between man and woman" does play a part in keep prostitution illegal, I don't think it's the full reason. We all know that not all men and women are the same. (Perhaps it is just the stereotype that promotes it more?) While there are some men out there who would perhaps start leaning away from marriage if prostitution was legal, there are plenty who would not. There are still men and women out there who want to wait until they find the right person to have sex with (not necessarily wait until marriage, but to make sure they're truly in love). It takes all kinds to make the world. I still think the strongest proponent in stopping legalizing prostitution is the nation's religious background, morals, and our "righteous" beliefs. Blue laws are still very much in effect. In Massachusetts, they only just started letting people buy alcohol on Sundays and you can only ever buy it liquor stores.

Just my thoughts

Silly people, the quickest way to make something alluring is by making it taboo! I am referring to the condoms in schools.

This sort of steers away from the topic, but one thought I have about the future is sex robots. These are already being invented, and will become more "lively" and "real" over time. I've wondered if men will go for these dolls instead of real relationships, when they can have sex without all the psychological and other benefits and troubles that come with a real relationship?

There are men who are living much this way right now. There are these realistic dolls men can buy (one source charges about $5,000 each) and I recently saw a documentary about one such guy. I don't know what he does for a living, but he literally has over 20, maybe over 30, of these dolls. He puts them all in pajamas before bed (and so, I guess he dresses them all in the morning), and he picks one each night to take to bed for sex. Clearly, there's something wrong with guys like this. (Yes, I'm being judgmental, but c'mon! This ain't normal, no matter how you slice it!)

There are also those men who seek mail order brides from other countries, and all I've seen and read about these men, shows that most of them are looking for submissive wives who serve their men, because (my opinion) they can't handle a relationship based on equality with a strong woman.

Some men, however, simply aren't attractive to the opposite sex, and I feel bad for them, so I understand why such men should have access to prostitutes. I don't think badly of men who seek prostitutes out of loneliness.

women is a sensetive creature ,she can t do this without love or for money !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reine, are you saying no woman can have sex without feeling affection for, or bonding with, her partner? Because that's simply not true. Not all women are so sensitive.

ok i'll tell you prostituting is illegal because for one woman dont need to show off there body's for money there basically giving there self's away, this is america women can find decent jobs to provide. a women's body nor man's is suppose to be sold on A STREET CORNOR for money and sex another reason this is why dieases are being spread a street walker (as i call them) could have sex with sum 1 wit herpes and they spread it through sex. another thing the human body is too be respected not thrown awy like that. thank you
smiley's sister bri

I so wish prostitution were legal, so wish for it...

People who have sexual "needs" should not be allowed in the world of normal human relationships unmediated by money. In the world of normal human relationships not mediated by money, we can deal with people who have desires, passions, and hopes, and who can deal with rejections and subsequent disappointment. People who cannot deal with rejections and who have "needs" should be routed into legalized prostitution that would "meet their needs". There should be two streams of men - those who can deal with rejections and the whole wide world of women who cannot be bought and those who cannot deal with rejections.

Surely it can be regulated. Sex is very much like food - many people need it and it can transmit disease. So just as grocery stores and food service businesses are legal but regulated, so should be prostitution.

It is simply unfair to so many of us that people who cannot deal with rejections are allowed in the community. Prostitutes charge not just for the service, time, and skill, and a premium for risk, but also for the obligation to serve clients. They do not have the right to reject service and there is a fee associated with that. It makes so much sense.

This is what prompted this rant:

http://forums.psychcentral.com/relat...dibly-mad.html

Hamster, I had not a clue what you were talking about until I read your link (and responded). Thank you for that. Makes much more sense now.

I don't personally support the legalization of prostitution, but that's based in my own moral code and my views on sex (which I've been told are a little on the "old fashioned" side, but they're mine, so... ) than any real legal background. That being said, I can't really argue them from a legal perspective. But morally, I don't like the notion of a woman selling herself (or a man, for that matter, but I suppose being an older brother and my weird paternal instincts drive the feminine image closer to home) simply to make a buck. It just feels...wrong, and degrading to her. In so many words, she deserves better (as perhaps do other professions, but that's another topic).

Really not much of a compelling argument, being based off my own objective morality, but that's me on the matter.

I thought prostitution is as old-fashioned as it gets - no?

why "herself"? why not "her services"? she sells time/skill/risk-taking/willingness to deal with crap, etc.

I think RomanSunburn has compared the services of prostitutes with those of plumbers. It is not a bad comparison because being a plumber also involves dealing with crap... very similar.

Harley, on another note, not every man is a young bright tall lawyer-to-be...

So, some men just cannot get unpaid sex and masturbation/sex toys etc. still do not quite do that for them - why should they be left out? It is discrimination based on a number of factors.

Well, true...not going to attempt to argue the "oldest profession in the world" maxim. lol Once you've seen the "menu" for the sex shop in Pompeii etched into the wall, it kinda kills any argument in that regard.

I suppose the "herself" vs "her services" is best differentiated between how one views sex itself. I'm not as easily able to compartmentalize, ergo I have difficulty separating sex as the loving expression I tend to think of it as (or prefer, I suppose is more apt) and sex as a "no strings attached" activity. Granted, I do see and fully comprehend how it can be/is done...it's not like that truly baffles me or anything. But given that I do view sex in generally the former light, the notion of selling it to anyone who can produce a twenty dollar bill (not that I really know pricing, so bear with me there) is in seedy deals is a significant perversion to my ideal. lol As I said, my post is purely based off my own objective morality.

I should note that I'm not trying to say general sex without love is some "perversion" or anything like that, and I'm certainly not judging on the basis of one having a casual fling. That's, again in my own eyes, entirely different. It just seems...callous, the way the "business" is conducted.

As far as the people who aren't able to get sex the "normal" way (lol in which, based on your introductory clause, you're giving me way too much credit as far as implied capability with the opposite sex, but thank you ), I suppose that is a point, but as I view it, why should another person (the girl) have to something she, in what I imagine is all likelihood, do something she probably has no interest in doing (as an "at best" scenario) with this guy simply because he has some spare change? Granted, that applies to a lot of professions...I really couldn't give two (your word here) if the irate customer at my drive through gets his ice cream with his meal, to give an example. But again, going back to my own view, it's...different, giving the nature of the "good" in question.

Why are we talking about a thread that started three years ago?

I really don't know why prostitution is illegal yet porn is not. I think there would be a lot of uproar if high school seniors and college kids all started paying for sex. It would damage there ability to maintain genuine relationships if given the opportunity to pay for something meaningless when sex should be meaningful.

With my luck I once went on a date with a guy from a dating site who was... you guessed it, a p-doc in SF. He caught my attention being a p-doc.

He was a fat and unpleasant 40++ year old man.

He was complaining that he was getting tired of online dating since he would treat women to meals and then not get sex and was seriously considering hiring prostitutes. He said that he was desperate for at least some sex, e.g. just being naked together in one room, with nothing else. Could not get that, either.

I only had one date with him, not because I discriminated based on appearance but because ... because ... because.... speechless but this is the story in a nutshell:

- he told me that he had major depression and was getting fat from drugs and I sympathized; he said he needed drugs to combat suicidality

- I was very open with him as well, including about the suicide attempt.

After the date, I, being a polite appreciative person, called him next day to say "thank you". The date itself was not that bad, the bad part was what followed.

He was on the phone with his mother (I will omit his ethnic origin but let those who are into guessing guess...) when I called and he did not switch the line to me - he continued talking to his mother and later called me. I was nonplussed - I thought that 40++ year old psychiatrists knew how to gently apologize to their moms and promise to call them a bit later because they need to talk to a woman they are interested in.

I do not remember what exactly followed but at some point I expressed my surprise. He told me: "You know, for someone with your history, you probably shouldn't talk about other people's psychological problems."

He also wrote that he was ambivalently considering dating me... almost as if making a concession.

So, that was it with him.

Do you think he will have better luck with other women? I doubt that.

But he does have real, valid sexual needs. It is just that neither I nor most women I can think of would be interested in fulfilling them.

Or this guy who prompted my rant (the "raincoat" relict LOL!). Somehow when he was young he managed to marry a woman and had a daughter with her. He later complained that his wife never wanted to have sex with him. At the same time when she told him that she wanted a divorce, he was unprepared - there were no warning signs. He won the custody of their daughter, raised the daughter who is a lawyer herself now, in SF, and lives with a bf. And he lives alone and complains that women are not interested in him because he is not virile enough for them. That is wrong - his virility is within normal limits and the reasons women do not want to deal with him are: 1) he talks too much - he needs to say 10-20 times fewer words per conversation to be like a normal person in his verbal output, but he does not know it; 2) he is arrogant; 3) he laughs at his own jokes repeatedly; 4) etc.

He divorced when his daughter was little and she is now 27, so I think it is fairly safe to say that he won't remarry (per him, he thought that I was the right woman for him to be with for the rest of his days, but I turned out to be "asocial, narcissistic, cruel, not fearing God, a conman, a liar, a debased manipulator without a soul", etc. - his LSAT was in the 99th percentile and, to give credit where credit is due, he does know a lot of words, so he uses the words he knows...).

So he is just not the most endearing person.

But he does have real, valid sexual needs.

So where should he go with them?

To give you an analogy with food.

Suppose that we all decide that we only want to eat organic, locally grown, fair trade produced, seasonal foods for they are virtuous, tasty, good for the environment, etc. and we will treat growers well by paying fair trade prices.

So we will go to farmers' markets to buy those splendid foods. And on the farmers' markets we will also buy artisan chocolate cakes and handmade lavender soaps and (a divine though very expensive treat) seasonal sheep's milk cheese (some of the true offerings of the farmers' market next to me).

And those who can afford those goodies will live happily ever after.

And those who cannot afford the good stuff will simply die out (as we will outlaw conventional grocery stores selling mass-produced waxed tasteless genetically modified produce and cheap American processed cheese) and that is OK because it is their fault that they cannot afford farmers' market prices.

People in general prefer meaningful experiences to meaningless experiences, so there is no need to outlaw meaningless experiences - the preferences would play out naturally.

It applies to 99% of professions, most of the time, at least partly.

Why should an illegal immigrant stay with someone else's children for less than the legal minimal wage?.. Why should a street leaf blower kill his hearing forever? Do you think that having sex, even when you are not interested in it, is worse than leaf blowing?? I do not think so - at least you are mostly horizontal, so there is some kind of rest for you, and you are not subjected to harmful noise pollution.

Etc. etc.

In other words, the question should not be phrased "Why is prostitution illegal?" but "what is the reason that market economy applies to most things but sex is somehow exempt?". What is it about sex that makes it so damn special that we disallow the market economy with respect to sex??? No rhyme or reason.

- because the body is sacred? Well, it is great, so people who think that the body is a temple should treat their bodies and the bodies of their friends, lovers, etc. as sacred. People who do not like the idea of prostitution should neither become prostitutes nor patronize prostitutes - that is it, easy.

I very much welcome the idea of prostitution, because affordable, relatively safe, legal prostitution would prune the ranks of men who are in the dating world. The way it is, after those two encounters, one with a p-doc in SF and the other with this lawyer in SF, I am no longer sure what is going on. I do not know anymore when I am contacted by someone on a dating site (I haven't been on OkCupid since Dec, but I plan to check the inbox), whether the person is desperate for sex or has a genuine interest in me. Not that legal prostitution would fully solve this problem, but it would contribute to removing people who are desperate for sex away from the pool of people who find me special in some way and want my company.

As for married men... I think, the way it was explained to me, that people want to be preferred. I fully understand that. That is the only part of monogamy that I understand. Yes, people want to feel special, unique, chosen, and preferred. There is some limit to how much they want to My late grandmother told me a story about one of Hemingway's four wives; the wive invited her girlfriend to live in their house and eventually Hemingway started an affair with the wife's girlfriend and left the wife and married the wife's girlfriend. I am looking at Wikipedia and it appears that this was about his first and second wives:

Elizabeth Hadley Richardson
(1921–1927)
Pauline Pfeiffer
(1927–1940)

OK, so, per my grandmother, Hemingway said that women should not invite their girlfriends to stay in the same house with their husbands because the created temptation might just be irresistible...

So between the two extremes - the world where sex outside of marriage is punishable by corporate punishment and the world of Hemingway and his first and to-be-second wife, people want to stay somewhere in the middle, for the most part, as far as I can understand.

Why? Because of what is fun.

Is it fun to have sex with your husband knowing that the only reason he is having sex with you is because he does not have other options for he would be shot to death if he has sex outside of marriage?

No, there is no fun in that.

The fun part is to feel special, chosen, preferred, and unique. The best. For that, the other party should be doing what he is doing out of his free will, and not because of vows, a court order, fear of capital punishment, fear of God, sense of obligation/duty, fear of societal disapproval, or anything of that kind.

So to the extent that prostitution will make sex outside of marriage more easily available (I doubt there would be that much of a difference, though, these days), the wives whose husbands do have conjugal sex with them would rest assured knowing that the husbands have sex with the wives because they choose to do so and not because they have no other options.

In general, though, prostitution throughout history supported and bolstered lifetime monogamy (meaning, marriage that lasts until death and not actual sexual monogamy) because of compartmentalization. Now people marry, then meet somebody else, remarry, etc. Well, like Hemingway with his four wives, Picasso with only two wives but many mistresses, etc. This is all fairly modern - in the past, it was different - the men of nobility would have one lifetime marriage to an equal (equal based on class) with various sex partners from among the lower class women and prostitutes.

I do not think that in reality legalized prostitution would have any effect on marriage statistics these days, but it least it would serve to pre-screen men on the dating sites, and that would be such a big help!

Did someone already mention Nevada? It is legal there.

Oh yeah, several years ago I saw a lovely website of a Nevada brothel (not all but only some counties in Nevada have legal prostitution).

It was made the way high quality small business web sites are made, with care and attention.

They boasted how the girls do not have to live on the premises, unlike in other brothels. In other words, they have more freedom (an analogy with food - this is how free range eggs are advertised).

Each woman had a portfolio of perfectly tasteful photos. For the most part, they looked sweet, the "girl next door" type, probably because of the kind of rugged clientele they were targeting. I imagine that if you were to open a brothel on Manhattan, that kind of sweetness and innocence would not be called for - you would need dominatrix-type women with whips on Manhattan, ha!

They boasted having repeat clients and the site had customer testimonials.

In other words, it was just like a normal website of a normal small business.

I doubt that people would review brothels on Yelp - but likewise people tend not to review p-docs. Yelp is full of restaurant reviews, but not of psychiatry/psychology practitioner reviews. Why? Privacy and stigma. The same would apply to brothels.

I actually did type "escorts" into the search box of Yelp SF, and... the top 1 result is Wells Fargo bank where customer service reps escort clients to the door.