Decriminalizing indoor prostitution leads to fewer rapes and STDs

[csuguy]

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20281#fromrss

If you support keeping prostitution a crime then you are creating more rape victims. You are part of the problem and not the solution.

I think you should watch the Purge: Anarchy - it demonstrates the problem with this line of thinking.

Just because something has positive outcomes does not therefore make it OK.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I think you should watch the Purge: Anarchy - it demonstrates the problem with this line of thinking.

Just because something has positive outcomes does not therefore make it OK.

I agree with your statement, but WRT The Purge fear-mongering, see this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE9_NsjbE-E

 

[Lighthouse]

Adultery is a victimless crime in the strictest sense, in that it is not an aggressive act and thus should not be handled violently.

"spreading disease", I can assume you are talking about STDs, which would be a risk one chooses to take when engaging in prostitution.

"Aiding in" drug addiction? What does that entail? Selling drugs to willful customers? Again, its a victimless crime in the strictest sense because it isn't an aggressive act.

That's not to say that any of the above is desirable or should be encouraged, just that they aren't violent acts and shouldn't be handled violently.

Kidnap and rape, of course, are violent acts.

Absence of violence does not equate to absence of victim. I know you have a brain; use it.

 

[Balerion the Black]

Catholic Crusader is a Roman Catholic. His informative years were spent listening to Roman Catholic propaganda. He probably needs another ten years to unlearn the ridiculous things he believes.
You'll see after you have been here a while.

Doesn't feel good, does it? =)



Prostitution has victims though. There are dozens of studies done on the victimization of prostitutes. It is not one woman who decides to sell herself for money to men. It is far more complex than that.

A search pulls up lots of stats, are these not accepted to be valid for people to be saying it is victimless?

o78 percent of 55 women who sought help from the Council for Prostitution Alternatives in 1991 reported being raped an average of 16 times a year by pimps, and were raped 33 times a year by johns.

o 62 percent reported having been raped in prostitution.

o 73 percent reported having experienced physical assault in prostitution.

o 83 percent of prostitutes are victims of assault with a weapon.

o 75 percent of women in escort prostitution had attempted suicide.



Prostitution should be illegal for everyone, regardless of wealth or class.

The fact that prostitution is illegal means that prostitutes can't go to the police and therefore are at the mercy of pimps and johns.

Of course we have such "good Christians" like Nick and resurrected darwinsm who it wouldn't surprise me at all if they believed that some poor prostitute who got murdered and dismembered and stuffed in a dumpster somehow deserved her fate for her "sinful" lifestyle.

 

[Balerion the Black]

Absence of violence does not equate to absence of victim. I know you have a brain; use it.

So then produce one.

Who is the victim when someone who is freely working in that profession*, freely enters into a business transaction with another individual, to engage in sexual activity for a previously agreed upon sum of money?

*and legalizing prostitution would greatly reduce the instances where this isn't the case as prostitutes would have actual legal protections.

Trying to outlaw vice has never worked and only ends up causing more problems. We tried it with alcohol once and it was a complete and total failure. So has trying to outlaw drugs and prostitution, yet we continue to waste trillions of dollars and years of people's lives in prison on these failures.

 

[Lighthouse]

So then produce one.

Who is the victim when someone who is freely working in that profession*, freely enters into a business transaction with another individual, to engage in sexual activity for a previously agreed upon sum of money?

*and legalizing prostitution would greatly reduce the instances where this isn't the case as prostitutes would have actual legal protections.

Trying to outlaw vice has never worked and only ends up causing more problems. We tried it with alcohol once and it was a complete and total failure. So has trying to outlaw drugs and prostitution, yet we continue to waste trillions of dollars and years of people's lives in prison on these failures.

In the case of adultery whom do you think are the victims?

 

[resurrected]

Of course we have such "good Christians" like Nick and resurrected darwinsm who it wouldn't surprise me at all if they believed that some poor prostitute who got murdered and dismembered and stuffed in a dumpster somehow deserved her fate for her "sinful" lifestyle.

 

[Balerion the Black]

In the case of adultery whom do you think are the victims?

Adultery is grounds for divorce, if the cuckolded spouse wishes to terminate the marriage over it. Aside from that there is no reason for the state to get involved.

 

[moparguy]

Larken Rose said this in response to "The Purge" movie preview (from youtube comments):

The porc fest is not anarchistic, even though it might have a few anarchists in it. They know good and well there is a government around them that will respond if they start doing whatever the heck they want.

Be careful, you May do that and actually institute things like honor, and loyalty.. We don't want that

In a few people, maybe. There are a few moralists in most crowds.

There are also those who would thieve, steal, rape, pull con-game frauds, and those who would organize gangs to do the above.

 

[Rusha]

Adultery is a victimless crime in the strictest sense, in that it is not an aggressive act and thus should not be handled violently.

No, there is ALWAYS a victim, however, each case has different consequences.

For example, IF the cheating spouse brings home a STD that would cause the death of an unborn baby, the death of the spouse OR cause the spouse to have to live with disease that could end up costing him/her their life, they should be prosecuted. IF their adultery leads to death via a disease, they should be tried for voluntary manslaughter or second-degree murder.

In most cases, neither spouse has agreed to put themselves at risk via their partner's adultery which is why they need to be held accountable.

In cases where no physical harm is caused, they should at the very least receive a substantial fine which would go to the victimized spouse (and any children from their union).

 

[Granite]

No, there is ALWAYS a victim, however, each case has different consequences.

For example, IF the cheating spouse brings home a STD that would cause the death of an unborn baby, the death of the spouse OR cause the spouse to have to live with disease that could end up costing him/her their life, they should be prosecuted. IF their adultery leads to death via a disease, they should be tried for attempted murder.

In most cases, neither spouse has agreed to put themselves at risk via their partner's adultery. They need to be held criminally accountable should they cause health issues or death.

In cases where no physical harm is caused, they should at the very least receive a substantial fine which would go to the victimized spouse (and any children from their union).

The state has zero business whatsoever butting into this kind of family matter.

 

[Rusha]

The state has zero business whatsoever butting into this kind of family matter.

You are entitled to your opinion even though you are wrong. ANYONE who knowingly has a disease and spreads it to their spouse without their consent deserves time behind bars and even a possible death sentence. Causing intentional harm to another human being should always be a criminal act. Marriage shouldn't make a difference.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The porc fest is not anarchistic, even though it might have a few anarchists in it. They know good and well there is a government around them that will respond if they start doing whatever the heck they want.

"anarchy" is really a term that needs to be defined. I try not to use it because the definitions vary so much.

Actual anarchists (anarcho-capitalists) believe in privately funded and competetive government being provided on the marketplace like any other service.

People who aren't anarachists say that anarchists believe in chaos and no laws. Nobody actually believes in the latter (or not many people anyway.)

Either way though, most people wouldn't suddenly start murdering if they could.

No, there is ALWAYS a victim, however, each case has different consequences.

For example, IF the cheating spouse brings home a STD that would cause the death of an unborn baby, the death of the spouse OR cause the spouse to have to live with disease that could end up costing him/her their life, they should be prosecuted. IF their adultery leads to death via a disease, they should be tried for voluntary manslaughter or second-degree murder.

In most cases, neither spouse has agreed to put themselves at risk via their partner's adultery which is why they need to be held accountable.

In cases where no physical harm is caused, they should at the very least receive a substantial fine which would go to the victimized spouse (and any children from their union).

If the adulterous spouse never tells the other spouse that they have a disease, I could see that possibly being manslaughter or attempted murder, but that has nothing to do with adultery itself.


If no physical harm is caused, there should be no legal penalty.

Absence of violence does not equate to absence of victim. I know you have a brain; use it.

I think the problem is that libertarians are using terms differently than you are.

"Victim" does not simply mean that an action somehow causes unpleasant consequences, it means that someone's rights were violated. Which means their right to self-ownership or the ownership of their property was breeched. Which isn't the case in adultery.

Now, I understand that you are a theonomist and so you think adultery should be criminal because it was in the Old Testament. But I'm operating on a different axiom here.

 

[Granite]

You are entitled to your opinion even though you are wrong. ANYONE who knowingly has a disease and spreads it to their spouse without their consent deserves time behind bars and even a possible death sentence. Causing intentional harm to another human being should always be a criminal act. Marriage shouldn't make a difference.

That's a very specific example. I was speaking to adultery in general. That's not really anyone else's business beyond the individuals involved.

 

[resurrected]

That's a very specific example. I was speaking to adultery in general. That's not really anyone else's business beyond the individuals involved.

then i challenge you to make an argument for any role for the state regarding marriage

 

[moparguy]

"anarchy" is really a term that needs to be defined. I try not to use it because the definitions vary so much.

Everyone doing what they want with no reference to any other authority than themselves.

That's what I mean when I use the word "anarchy." If I use it with some other meaning, I'll indicate that I am.

 

[Rusha]

If the adulterous spouse never tells the other spouse that they have a disease, I could see that possibly being manslaughter or attempted murder, but that has nothing to do with adultery itself.

Which is why I stated in the case where no physical harm is caused, the adulterous spouse should be penalized by paying a large amount of compensation to the spouse who was cheated on due to the financial hardship of the victimized spouse (not alimony or child support).

And ... it should be enforced.

 

[resurrected]

i have to laugh at you foolish God-rejecting retards trying to improve on what God has given us :chuckle:

 

[Rusha]

That's a very specific example. I was speaking to adultery in general. That's not really anyone else's business beyond the individuals involved.

To be clear, I am not stating that IF the couple decides to work through it, the state should still involve themselves. It would be assumed in that case that what happened might have been an isolated incident.

 

[Granite]

To be clear, I am not stating that IF the couple decides to work through it, the state should still involve themselves. It would be assumed in that case that what happened might have been an isolated incident.

I don't understand how you think the mechanism of fining people for infidelity would work, or why it's even necessary.