That you want to separate out sex crime as different only reinforces for me that you're using a double standard. You're excusing it by arguing that it is separate. That is just the way I see it.
The law agrees with me. Most people do. I'll ask again, why do we put people who sexually abuse others (rapists, child molesters and the like) on a list but not those who physically abuse others? Sexual abuse is different from other forms of abuse. I'll ask again, why do you say that sex crime is more despicable than similar non-sexual crimes (I know I am generalizing your statement, but that was the gist of it) if sex is not different?
This line of argument reminds me of an accusation of racism an African-American NCO made against our commander. He was late getting back from leave (which constitutes AWOL) and failed to call us to let us know (which would normally have resulted in his getting an extension and being OK). The reason he gave was that he had been arrested for DUI and was unable to call. Leaving aside the serious nature (and lame excuse) of that issue, our Commander found the "I couldn't call because I was in jail" story a little hard to believe. So he called the jurisdiction the NCO claimed he had been arrested in and found no record of it. Our commander decided to prosecute, because the lie was the last straw. The NCO insisted that other people who were white were treated differently. He mentioned me by name, because the commander had worked out flex time arrangements with me to come in late and leave late. Since I was therefore, by the NCOs reckoning "late" everyday without punishment, it was clear a double standard was in place. He gets back a day late from leave and he is prosecuted. I come in late every day and that's OK. Obviously, the only difference is that I was white and he was black. Double standard. Of course, it wasn't a double standard. They were different situations that required a different standard. That is the issue here. Sex crimes are a legally recognized different category of crime.
Seriously though, I gotta stop you right there. No one is saying that making your child wash the dishes is comparable to forcing someone to have sex.
I didn't say or imply that you were. I said that forcing someone to do housework is not inherently bad. I wasn't comparing sex to chores (though my wife sometimes does . . .) I was comparing housework to housework.
I'm talking about actual enslavement, people enslaved and forced to do work, domestic cleaning, construction, et cetera. The job in and of itself is still a legitimate action; it is the enslavement that is wrong.
Well and good, but there is more to forcing a person to have sex than there is to forcing someone to do housework. I am not saying that sex is, in itself, not a legitimate act. It's a little difficult to word this in such a way that I can make this more clear, or perhaps you are just rejecting my point outright. But to try to clarify, sex is legitimate when between two married adults, or at least two people who are attracted mutually to each other. I leave aside for this debate my own moral feelings about extramarital sex. Having sex with strangers indiscrimately, however, is different from preparing food for strangers. Working as a short order cook does not significantly differ from making dinner for your kids (though I have never cooked for a goat, myself. Curse you.). Having sex with someone to whom you are not attracted does, in fact, differ significantly from having sex with someone who at least turns you on, if not someone with whom you are in love. There are both powerful physical and emotional issues that are associated with sex as in no other activity. As such, to compare forced sex with slavery in any other form is not valid.
Sex in and of itself is a legitimate action, but forcing someone to do it is what is wrong. Consensual sex between adults is okay. Rape is not. Consensual prostitution should be okay. Coerced prostitution should not be.[/color]
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.
There is a difference between consensual prostitution and being forced into it.
Yes, but there is the main point of my argument. I have already conceded that consentual prostitution is not inherently wrong on any non-moral level. You are correct to say that nobody is having their rights violated in such a hypothetical transaction. The problem is that you ignore the other side of the coin. You keep framing the issue as one of the ideal hooker-john transaction being a matter of personal freedom and making prostitution illegal violating that freedom. This goes back to the reason I reject libertarianism. It views the world in terms of black and white. The ideal is not the norm. Far too many hookers are in the business by force, either by human trafficking or by abuses of other kinds which amount to the same thing. My father forced my mother to sell herself when he wouldn't hold a job. That's not hypothetical. She wasn't kidnapped and shipped here from a foreign country. But she was the victim of human trafficking nonetheless. Further, even those women (and men, since the situations are often the same) who are not in the business by physical force or coercion, are in the business by choice to support a drug habit, or for other dubious reasons. They DO get STDs - the high-class and street hookers alike. They DO have unwanted pregnancies, many of which are aborted, and many of which come to term to create babies who are born with AIDS or addicted to drugs. You talk about the ideal of a perfectly clean hooker and the well-groomed, sweet guy just out for a good time, both protected by indestructable condoms and otherwise able to live a perfectly normal life. Porn works that way, real life does not. I do not look at the ideal situation. I look at the whole picture. Yes, I am sure there are lots of transactions that work just fine. But I am more than willing to bet that the majority, and I don't even think it is close, of hookers are in the game because of circumstances beyond their control, whether by force or by bad circumstance. I don't believe we should legislate based on the worst-possible scenario, but I don't believe we should legislate based on the ideal situation either. I think we should weight the issue and decide what is best. The inherent ills of prostitution outweigh by far the inherent good, if any beyond straight capitalism. (Well, maybe gay capitalism if it's a guy-guy thing or . . . NO WAIT, that wasn't a pun! It was a legimate acknowlegement of alternative lifestyles! What are you, some kinda homophobe??) I don't think prostitution should be illegal because sex is bad. I think it should be illegal because the aggregate outcome of prostitution is bad. It increases misery and does not proportionately add anything positive to society or life in general.
Counterarguments from prostitutes are lies? That is awfully convenient.
Counterarguments from organizations representing any profit-making ventures are suspect. One could equally argue "Counterarguments from tobacco companies are lies? That's awfully convenient." Yet they were. I don't know if the people you quoted are "lying" and I never said they were. I simply don't accept the view of someone interested in making money on a venture as unbiased. NORML isn't likely to play up studies that indicate medical problems with marijuana, and would very likely hide such findings if their own studies found this to be true. NARAL (IIRC) deliberately misrepresented the amount of third trimester abortions and got caught at it years ago when the issue was being discussed. Democrats trumped up issues about Bush being AWOL and then doctored documentation to "prove" the point. People lie, usually to get gain or avoid trouble. In the case of sex-workers, both motivations are there. So forgive me if I am skeptical about their claims.
Then I'm not sure what your point is here. I guess you're trying to say something about me pointing out that there is a difference between consensual sex and coerced sex, but I don't at all see how your example applies.
Yeah, that's fair enough. I took the metaphor a bit out to left field. Let me try to state it more clearly. [This will end badly, I just know it . . .] I do not dispute that women should have control of their own bodies. But I think that in certain cases, protecting the rights of one person may involve restricting the rights of others. I brought up gun control as an issue where this argument might be used to support the gun control side. It is better to keep the law-abiding citizen from having a gun, they say, than to let all of these terrible murderers have them. That statement, without further examination, makes sense. I mean, no guns - no gun-deaths. However, once you bring up the simple point that this leaves honest people without defense against bad guys (since it doesn't really limit access to bad guys, just makes it harder to get them) the argument falls apart. Reality overrules the ideal. We have an actual need - often a literal matter of life and death - for access to arms. So when we look at the potential good of controlling guns and weigh it against the potential bad, I think the right to bear arms supercedes the potential reduction in gun-related violence. On this issue (hookers) though, I look at restricting the inherent right of a woman to screw whomever she chooses to be outweighed by the very real potential of women LOSING their right to choose through coercion or force. But that is not the only issue I brought up, it is just the one that I think tips the scales. There are many other ills associated with prostitution - like broken familes, STDs, child neglect, etc. - that are also good reasons to keep such activity illegal. And, unlike gun control where there is a very real NEED for access to weapons, there is no ACTUAL NEED for prostitution. Nobody is going to break into our home in the middle of the night and be deterred by the fact that we have a prostitute in our nightstand. Nobody is going to lose their life because a prostitute isn't available. No government will be able to oppress us because there are enough hookers distributed among the population. So while I think that the evils of gun access are outweighed by the benefits - thereby legitimizing the continued legality of guns even in the face of horrible gun-related deaths - I think the ills of prostitution outweigh the potential benefits - thereby legitimizing the continued illegality of the business even in the face of curtailed rights to boink for bucks. Nobody disputes that bad guys shouldn't have guns. Nobody disputes that a person should have ultimate control over their own body. It's just that these arguments are outweighed, in the minds of gun-rights advocates and anti-prostitution advocates respectively, by the ultimate cost/benefit ratio. It looks like a double standard (not to bring up another point already covered, but there ya go). The "whole" issue of gun control has to include the horrible cost of guns - and some would argue that such a cost is a clear reason for restricting our rights to guns. Since I argue that the "whole" issue of prostitution justifies keeping it illegal, how can I reconcile my opposition to gun control? But they are different issues, the ultimate cost/benefit ratio plays out differently. There is no contradiction or double standard. They are different issues. Clear as mud, huh?
Obviously people own their own bodies, but when someone is forced into sexual slavery that ownership is violated.
No one is contradicting that.[/quote]
I know, but you are discounting it by separating it from the act of sex itself. You are perfectly justified in doing that, at first glance, but the issue is NOT sex. It is prostitution. Prostitution is a larger issue than JUST sex - in a similar way that rape is not really about sex. There is no basic difference between a rapist and a person who physically abuses someone. The idea is the same - control. It's just that the weapon chosen is different - in one case fists or weapons and in the other sex. Yet so many physical abusers vow that they would kill a rapist or child-molester if given the chance - even though they are basically the same sort of person. The crime of rape is different not because it is ABOUT sex but because it USES sex - which is a far more intimate sort of abuse - with inherent physical and emotional trauma - than just smacking someone. Similarly, forcing a woman into prostitution is NOT the same crime as forcing a woman into domestic work. It has a lot of the same elements, but it does not equate in terms of the damage.
BTW, it occurs to me that there is one other point I have not considered because I have tried to leave out the moral and religious aspects, but it is nonetheless perfectly legitimate even in a secular society. Women who are forced into sexual slavery can, in many cases, become outcasts - even be stoned to death - in their societies even after rescue. At the very best, they are forced to participate in something inherently evil in their own minds, religions or cultures. Nobody forced into domestic work, construction or other such ventures will carry that kind of stigma. You may argue that THAT issue is also separate, since such religious views are silly and prejudiced. I agree, but that does not negate the horrible effect it would have on those women. The loss of religious liberty is yet another aspect of this crime. Whether or not we find their religious or cultural views ridiculous, the impact on their lives of sex crimes is worse than it is in our culture. Being outcast from your family, religion and culture - maybe even from your belief in an eternal reward - is the worst possible outcome. It may well make many who are caught in such circumstances see no reason to resist. Someone forced into construction or domestic slavery can return home with honor, and at worst may have picked up some housekeeping or building skills. Not the same crime, not even close.
While I am refusing to conflate slavery with prostitution, I am not failing to consider the realities of the trade. In point of fact, considering the realities of the trade is exactly what I am doing.
You are doing so selectively. But for the sake of accuracy, let me say you are not considering the full issue, since you do not associate one aspect of that issue with another. You separate the issue of human trafficking, which I consider to be an inherent part of the issue. As such, I think you are viewing only part of the issue and calling it the whole.
People often mistake support for individual rights for support for lawless behavior. (Not saying you would, just saying it happens.) I prefer to cut off such dumb arguments before they start.[/color]
That is pretty convenient, because you get to - once again - separate the consequences of an action from the action itself. To characterize arguments as "dumb" just because you do not agree with them is to reject rational debate - even if they are, in fact, dumb. Obviously, supporting gun ownership is not the same as supporting gun crime. But few who advocate gun control say that. Most simply say that the CONSEQUENCE of a lack of gun control are horrible gun crimes. I am certainly not saying (and you qualified your statement, so I know you are not suggesting I am) that because you support legal prostitution you must, therefore, support human trafficking. You are very clear on that issue and it went without saying anyway. But I will say that I am willing, however horrible it is, to support gun rights even though part of the consequence may be gun crimes because removing those rights would exacerbate gun crimes and make us vulberable to much worse. I am further saying that I am NOT willing to support legal prostitution because it will encourage the many ills of prostitution WITHOUT significant benefit.
And you think I'm ignoring the reality of the situation?
I think you ignored the qualification of that point that followed what you quoted. "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." I'm ignoring nothing. I know its a real world.
Not quite the same situation. The abused wife has no reason to fear retribution from the police. The prostitute does.
Exactly. There is a difference between two situations that might appear similar. The first person may have to fear retribution from the police, the second from her husband. In one case, she goes to jail, in the other, she may be killed. Seems to me that the second is worse than the first. So maybe we should legalize prostitution and make marriage illegal. Obviously, I'm carrying it to absurdity to illustrate my point. Forced sexual crimes are NOT the same as forced labor - so your equating slavery to SEX slavery is not valid.
I maintain that authority over one's body is [an essential element of freedom].
I didn't say it wasn't. I said that boinking for pay isn't. This is nothing more than two ways of looking at an issue. I say it is OK to restrict the right of a person to control their body IN THIS PARTICULAR case. I also think it is OK to restrict a women's right to control over her body in the case of abortion. I would reject completely any attempt to restrict a woman's right to have a boob job or a gastric bypass - even though I find both to be a bad idea. I would reject any attempt to make tatoos illegal, though I find them repugnant. I am opposed to anti-sodomy laws, though I find homosexual behavior (at which any such remaining laws are aimed) to be morally reprehensible. I am, I confess, ambivalent on the issue of physician-assisted suicide, though morally quite clear that it is wrong. I do NOT reject the premise that a person ought to have control over their own bodies. I just believe that there are issues that outweigh and supercede that right and that among those issues is human trafficking. You look at it as a case of individual rights superceding any other issue, or that other issues are unrelated. I get that. I view it as a matter where the consequences make legalizing the act wrong. In my view, prostitution directly causes many instances of such problems (such as STD spread, abortion, broken families, and human trafficking). That is sufficient reason, IMO, for keeping the activity illegal.
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.
If prostitution were legal, the prostitute probably wouldn't have to deal with that either.
Why? Do you think that only attractive, friendly, well-groomed people will frequent legal hookers? I gotta tell ya, I would bet that most of those kinds of people can get it without paying if so inclined. I can't imagine any reason why legalizing prostitution would do away with that.
The problem here is that you're comparing prostitution as a whole with enslavement. The implication being that there is no such thing as voluntary and consensual prostitution, but that implication is, of course, wrong.
No, that's not my implication, though it is fair to think it may be. It is unfortunate that the issue I chose is so very closely related to the issue we are discussing, and BION I didn't make that connection. (The older I get the smarter I ain't.) I was suggesting that slaves in the pre-civil war era were, in some instances, happy. That is because they had adapted to a bad situation - it is one of the wonderful characterisrics of human nature. I think that many hookers have adapted as well, and would describe themselves as happy. But that does not mean that prostitutes who make that claim are any more happy than slaves who made that claim - and many southern apologists use the "happy slave" argument to justify slavery.
I have to come back to this - I am about to miss a very important deadline. More later.