I'm not saying you can't argue that it is not a double standard, but I think you're completely wrong to call it a strawman argument.
This is a fundamental disagreement we won't solve. You are confusing a "double" standard with a "different" standard. I have a different SORT of standard concerning sex crimes because they are a different SORT of crime. So to compare being forced to do work that is - even when forced - a legitimate type of work, it differs from being forced to have sex, which is rape. Try it this way. Suppose I force my kid to do the dishes. She hates it. She isn't getting paid for it, and it is clearly against her will. There is absolutely no crime in this whatsoever. In that sense, the work is legitimate. There is nothing inherently wrong with housework, even if it is forced on you. There is, however, a difference between consentual sex and sex that is forced on you. The law sees it that way. Most people see it that way. Quoting sex workers who view sex as nothing more than a business isn't going to do much to prove your point. Frankly, I give it the same credence I do tobacco companies claiming that tobacco is not addictive.
Making a person do work against his or her will is slavery. Slavery, I gotta say, seems plenty bad to me. And frankly your implication that sex is not an "otherwise perfectly legitimate activity" is ridiculous.
No it isn't. But we will not agree on this. Rape is a worse crime than forced labor in another field. In the same way that raping a child is worse than beating a child. The former includes and exacerbates the latter. That's why we put child molesters on a list but not those who hit their children.
I don't see why. The crime is more despicable, yes, but not more serious.[/color]
How is it more despicable? Since you are making the argument that the acts are equal, why is the sex crime more despicable than the, umm, toilet-cleaning crime?
Possibly, but that does not provide any reason why prostitution, in and of itself, should be a crime.
I know you don't think it does but I do. Like I said, we will simply not agree on this.
Well, I suppose that could be a valid argument of some sort, but frankly I think it one of the weakest arguments for gun control laws, because, and you'll love this, it ignores the reality of the nature of the problem.
Exactly my point. Yes, the argument IS quite weak. But if we view it apart from the essential right to bear arms, it has merit. That's why I said I had an ulterior motive and I was playing "devil's advocate." They seem at first glace to be the same argument, but they are not.
In the case of criminalizing prostitution, it is true that some guys who want to have sex with some girls who are perfectly happy to have sex with them for pay lose that ability.
Yes, but those people are not really the people about whose rights I'm concerned. I'm more concerned with the right of the individual as owner of his/her body. Does a person own his/her body, yes or no?
I fail to see how the individual having the right to control their body isn't covered by the two types of people I mentioned in this issue. But your question goes, once again, to an idealistic argument. Obviously people own their own bodies, but when someone is forced into sexual slavery that ownership is violated. As long as you fail to consider the realities of the trade, or to "conflate the issues" you can easily dismiss the problems associated with this crime by making the noble appeal to freedom. I see it differently.
And yet, we haven't outlawed premarital sex or adultery. Huh.
I know. That's why I brought it up. I don't think acknowledging a reality which may run counter to my main point negates that point. I do not see issues of individual rights as black and white. Extramarital sex involves no financial gain (as a general rule) so is not subject to the risk associated with human trafficking. You quoted the portion of my argument that supported your point, but omitted the portion immediately following which added in this factor. Once again, if you separate the issues, you can ignore the total reality of the situation.
But considering the cost in STD's, unwanted pregnancies, broken homes and other ills that come as a natural result of any infidelity, and then factoring in the worldwide traffic in slaves for the sex trade, the risks of outlawing this activity do NOT outweigh the benefits. While there are inherent rights to free trade and control over one's actions, in this particular case abridging such rights is not the loss of an essential freedom.
Sure it is. The individual has a fundamental right to decide what to do with his/her time and effort. (No, not to kill people or do nothing at work or any other wild worst possible extreme scenarios.) And yes, actually the risks of outlawing the activity do outweigh supposed benefits. It not only leaves prostitution a wholly black market business (obviously prostitution hasn't stopped happening at all), it leaves people in the business, for whatever reason, without recourse to the law. If they are raped, if they are abused, if they are robbed, they cannot turn to the police for help. That is not a benefit to society. That only reinforces the underground nature of the business.
Now here you requote the same statement, but add in the qualification I made. This sets up a different response. You claim that people have fundamental rights, but then acknowledge that there are circumstances where those rights should be reasonably restricted. That's my argument. I always hear the "black market" argument when talking about abortion, drugs, or other issues of so-called "moral" crimes. Well, in fact, a hooker who is beaten, robbed, or raped CAN call the police. If she is really worried about prosecution, she can simply say she has been robbed and plead the fifth concerning anything else. Granted, most cops are going to be less than sympathetic in such circumstances - and in a lot of cases the hooker just won't take the chance. But THAT is a personal choice on the part of the hoooker, and if she gets the help, the cops would have no more sympathy for the john than the hooker. Further, to use you "double standard" argument, many women are in perfectly legal marriages and are beaten and raped continuously. Yet they cannot contact police because of fear of retribution from the perpetrator. We wouldn't, however, outlaw marriage (though I wouldn't want a lot of feminists to read this, 'cause they might get the idea). That's because, once again, in spite of the inherent risks of marriage, the right to marry and raise a family is an essential element of freedom. And I maintain that boinking for pay is not. The restriction on the right to control one's own body is justified because of the nature of the restriction, just as it should be (but sadly is not) in the abortion issue.
I see. So, and by all means correct me if I'm wrong, your position is apparently then that no prostitute could ever be happy as a prostitute, and even if some prostitutes say they are happy, they really aren't happy because... they just can't be?
Yes, that was my point, but of course it is far too general. I'm sure there are some happy hookers. Many more, I would think, are just like most of us, viewing their job as just a job and dealing. But I gotta tell you, a bad day on the job fixing copiers beats the hell out of a bad day having sex with strangers for money. If my customer is unhygenic, physically abusive or just plain ugly, I don't have to worry about that as a copier tech. They don't get that close. Even the hookers who are simply ecstatic about the opportunity for "gettin' paid for bein' laid" very likely have days like that. Still, I'm sure there are some who don't mind such things. There are all kinds in the world. But most, I would be perfectly willing to bet, hate their jobs in a way those of us with irate customers or dirty jobs couldn't begin to approach. Like I said, a lot of slaves were happy - because people can adapt to and cope with the worst of circumstances. If you were fortunate to have a reasonably decent master and overseers with a sense of decency, the work aspect of slavery was probably no worse than the average free white farmhand or domestic worker. But of course, even when it was accepted with the serenity of one who could not control it, it was the overriding issue. I think most hookers probably have that same basic mindset: "Hey, it's just a job like any other job." But it isn't.
It is? 'Cause I coulda sworn your position in this conversation was against allowing people to decide that for themselves. You are arguing that prostitution should be illegal, are you not?
Yes, because among other issues, the right to control one's own body is often TAKEN AWAY from the hooker. As such, freedom of choice IS my issue. But you keep dismissing that by insisting it is a side issue. It isn't.
OW! I think I just got hit in the head with hammer.. oh wait, no, it was just that pun. Give me a minute. There is a sort of throbbing pain in my temples, and I'm seeing little white points of light... I'll be okay... just give me a minute...
I am SO sorry. Once again I failed to properly post a warning. I have to get better at that. I suggest Advil. It works quite well.
Yay! I win! Oops, sorry. You were saying?
Be careful, Mister. I'm liable to pull an undocumented pun on you!
That is sort of like saying the spectrum goes from red at one end to orange at the other end. You've left out a whole lot of the spectrum here. Yes, forcible rape and degradation of women is at one end, but at the same time, healthy women choosing of their own free will to do something they enjoy and find it neither rape nor degrading is also part of the spectrum. This too is a reality.
You are correct to say that I narrowed the spectrum by ignoring the "happy hookers" but only slightly. Transactions with even the happiest of hookers still are subject to all of the "lesser" offenses I mentioned. And sometimes even the happy ones get raped or beaten. Of course, when the hooker has chosen of her own free will to enter the life, she assumes some degree of risk. But even then rape is rape. The difference is, only some transactions with a "willing" hooker involve rape. Every transaction with a kidnap victim is a rape. No exceptions. I may not be acknowlegding the full spectrum, but I would put the far end of the scale in my argument closer to Indigo than Orange.
I do not agree that freedom to exercise ownership of one's body is dubious. It should be the default position. (Can I use the word "position" in this discussion without it seeming like a... oh crap, I've just called attention to it. Nevermind, forget I said anything about it.)
HAH! You are caught! Leaving aside, however, your obviously dirty mind, I am not saying that freedom to exercise ownership of one's body is dubious. By making that a "default" position you oversimplify by generalization. I am calling dubious one particular exercise of that freedom, which is contracted sexual activity. I do consider that to be dubious. (STUPID PUN ALERT: You are certainly not being a DO-BEE when participating in such activities. Though certainly a doobie or two might be involved. So it is, indeed, doobie-us.) See, I'm getting better. Of course, ownership of one's body, in a general sense, is an essential right. But restricting the right to one particular, rather doobi - no, I can't do that - dubious activity is not the same as abolishing the right - anymore than restricting the ability to shout "fire" in a crowded theater abolishes free speech.
I don't believe that is at all an assumption that we can accurately make.
Fair enough. I believe it to be the case, but it does beg the question and I would be willing to bet we could both find and quote statistics to support both cases.
Um, I'm gonna have to say here that I am fairly certain that of the two of us, I'm not the one imposing a narrow view of a broader world. In point of fact, I'd say I'm the one arguing that the issue of prostitution is broader than your, imo, apparently narrow view of it.
As I am fairly certain the opposite is the case.
I don't think it has to be all that pure to be correct. No pun intended. Really. Anyway, frankly I think the scenario I presented is generally more prevalent that you seem willing to admit and would certainly be more prevalent were prostitution legal.
Possibly, but I believe that most hooker transactions involve far more than just sex and money.
Going back to the examples of domestic work and construction, using the labor of someone forced into the work against their will is slavery whether the employer knows it or not. And again, we're not outlawing those professions.
I agree that it is slavery, but I disagree that the nature of the crime is the same. Sex is far more intimate than construction work. Forcing a person to clean your house DOES violate their freedom, but forced sex DIRECTLY violates the body. The nature of sex is not just "mystically" different. In fact, I believe that sex is a sacred issue, and an awful lot of people agree with that general view. But even without that view which some choose to label "puritan," sex is physically more intimate than any other activity. The direct penetration of one human being by another is, without further qualification, as intimate an activity as is possible. It is just not the same as being forced to do anything else.
I cannot honestly say how I would react. Not saying I'd be happy and cordial with the "john", but, to be honest, I hope I would keep in mind that the "john" was not responsible for the kidnapping and enslavement of my daughter. I'm not big on punishing people for things they didn't do.
I disagree. I think that creating a demand for a product engenders some responsibility for the consequence. That's why I dropped Prudential insurance years ago when there were allegations of discrimination, and why I do not use Citgo products today. Sober reflection, of course, would make me likely to follow your logic if I were, in fact, afforded the opportunity to confront a john in this situation. I am not, by nature, inclined to extreme violence. Even if I had the actual kidnapper in my power, I would likely acquiesce to reason and decency and simply allow the law to take its course. (Rest assured, however, that I would not hesitate to use any form of violence necessary to rescue my child if she were still missing.) But the fact is, ignoring the rest of the story and simply transacting your business without regard for the person you may well be raping doesn't absolve you of guilt in the transaction. I suggested the law hypothetically, of course. It wouldn't pass constitutional muster and I do agree that there is a difference between intentionally kidnapping a woman and inadvertantly abusing her. But I insist that the person who is having sex with a victim of human trafficking is at least morally guilty of rape.
Societal norms are always the norms for a reason. That doesn't mean the reason(s) is(are) always good or correct.[/color]
Sometimes they are. I think this is one of those cases.
