Because you are a white male that does not need the Government to protect you from yourself and your decisions. As a white male, you are part of the dominant power structure and can be trusted to exercise your personal freedoms.

Women, on the other hand, are different. They are the "fairer sex." They are weaker and need to be protected from making bad decisions (you know, a lot of women are so irrational!).

Maybe not all of them, but most of them. So we'll go ahead and sacrifice the freedom and liberty of ALL of them to protect a few. I'm sure someone like Foxpaws is strong and capable of making her own decisions as to what to do in her bedroom, with whom and on what terms. If wimmin were like her, that would be ok. But you know, most women aren't like her and really can't be trusted to give their consent.

Yep, that's right. Because of their background and weakeness, it's impossible for them to truly consent to certain things! So we, the Govt, have to step in and deny consent for them by force of law.

It's for their own good. The Government is here to help.

^^
Classic! I love it.

Aside from the faceciousness, you are merely trading one form of Govt. intrusion for another. Regulation of legal statues vs. crime enforcement.

Glad you at least support decriminalizing male prostitution and pornography. ;) Vested interest? Not that there's anything wrong with that if you do,,,SmileWavy

There is a technical legal reason for the distinction between porn and prostitution. Porn is technically expressive activity that is protected by the First Amendment, just like any other theatrical performance, and because it is produced for the gratification of a third-party viewer, not the participants.

Prostitution is illegal because it is not expressive activity (it does not convey a thought or idea to a third party) protected by the First Amendment and is conducted solely for the gratification of the participant.

Stripping is protected by the First Amendment as expressive activity as well. It can be regulated, and public nudity can be outlawed under the state's police powers. But some level of stripping/dancing is constitutionally protected.

Ms. Paws is sincere but incorrect in her assessment that supporting legalized prostitution is a pro-feminist position and opposing prostitution is demeaning to women. The original patriarchal reaction to prostitution was patronizing to women. The patriarchal society formally outlawed prostitution, socially ostracized prostitutes, but celebrated men who patronized prostitutes and romanticized madams and bordellos.

The feminist response was to point out the hypocrisy of this patriarchal system and to insist that women be placed on the same footing as men. The assumption became that if men were allowed to engage in reckless sex and purchase prostitutes without moral or legal consequence, equality required women being allowed to engage in prostitution on their own.

And so the 1960s rolled on unabated until the post-feminists realized something. Women weren't being empowered by acting like men in engaging in an industry calling for the exchange of sex for money. The duality of thinking that she was in charge of her own body by placing it at the pleasure of men resulted in a very un-feminist objectification by engaging in the very activity they thought was placing them on equal footing as men. And the patriarchal society was getting to like this feminist duality because the patriarch got exactly what he wanted. It was even better than stage one - now men had authorization from women to treat them as objects.

The post-feminists realized this and began agitating for real equality between the sexes. Anti-prostitution laws are no longer meant to be the imposition of a patriarchal order on powerless women. They are a human rights protection that prevent a form of violence against women. Ms. Paws is simply a generation behind in her analysis of what makes humans - women - truly free and equal. The emerging new feminism that has been gathering steam since at least the 1990s agrees with my analysis.

I can go on like this for days. :) For every insult that I am not female and my opinions are demeaning to women, I can pull out an argument taught to me by a militant feminist lesbian advocate and sex industry survivor. I can even couch it in Marxist or proto-Marxist terms. But I promise I will spare everyone from my further lectures. It's been fun, and you can tell I'm passionate about the subject and human freedom and liberty in general but I've probably taken up too much bandwidth the way it is.

Mingers. That's why.

Interesting argument on why prostitution is illegal.

Time to criminalize self-abuse, too, I guess:

"Masturbation is illegal because it is not expressive activity (it does not convey a thought or idea to a third party) protected by the First Amendment and is conducted solely for the gratification of the participant."

As a side benefit, just think of the millions of kittens that will be saved!

Won't anyone think of the kittens?

And:

A man pays a woman for sex = illegal prostitution

A man pays a woman to watch her have sex with another man = protected First Amendment activity.

From the woman's perspective, what's the difference?

Like most bad laws, laws reaching into the privacy of people's bedrooms and criminalizing certain sexual activities and choices between consenting adults make no sense.

I do always love how porn and stripper attorneys call themselves '1st Amendment' jurists... are you one MRM?

Just to make sure I am getting the 'gist' of your statements - Those 1990 emerging 'new feminists' agree that pay for sex on camera needs to be highly protected because it is produced for the 'gratification' of others (even though it is pretty obvious at least one of the parties is getting some 'gratification'), while pay for sex off camera needs to be kept illegal, because it is produced for the gratification of one (or maybe both), and therefore needs to remain relegated to the realm of pimps and criminals?

I.E. these 90s feminists, which you seem to think are so superior to those of the 60s, want to protect porn while denying women a choice when it comes to their ability to earn money with sex off camera?

How are women empowered by allowing themselves to be used as sexual objects on film, which results in the exchange of sex for money? Why would thinking that she was in charge of her own body by placing it at the pleasure of viewers be different than thinking she was in charge of her body by placing it at the pleasure of an individual? Control is the issue here. Are porn actresses objectified less by their 'sex for money' being filmed than prostitutes who exchange the exact same sex for money, but on a one to one transaction?

I would really like to read more about these 'feminists' who are OK with regards to objectifying women in porn, yet balk when it comes to legalizing prostitution.

Sex and money equal power - isn't that the underlying thread to all of this? Sex for money kept illegal equates to power for men, sex for money in a legal context means power for women. Even in the porn industry the largest amount of money goes to men, there are few women producers, and even fewer investors that are women. But, that is merely an aside here.

Just as McLovin pointed out - those little wimmen, they can't be trusted to make those great big decisions, well, unless it is of course doing exactly the same thing on film - then they can make those decisions just fine.... I guess sex for money is violence against women only when the cameras are off.

Women can easily make the decision on whether or not they want to provide sex for money on or off camera, and to pretend that protecting one while persecuting the other equates to 'free and equal' is ludicrous - talk about 'duality'. If women want to objectify their sexuality or not - that decision should be left to them. They are smart, independent and strong. Your 'so-called feminists' who fear sexuality and the freedom that allows women the power to sell or not, are a step backwards in equality - hardly the step forward you profess.

Yeah, I'm one if those First amendment lawyers, if you mean by that I spent years of my life prosecuting strip club owners, johns and prostitutes who were represented by lawyers who tried to defend what they were doing using the First Amendment. Yeah, a lot of the money spent on their defense came from organized crime. Yeah, if I could keep a prostitute in jail long enough that she kicked her habit and got away from her pimp, she had a pretty good chance of never going back to that profession. I spent a lot of time at the sharp end of the spear with women who disagree with you. The decision of whether to allow themselves to be objectified is not in the control of the women who are being objectified. That is my point. Andwhen you see the Inside of the sex industry the way I did, you see the lack of free will to make that decision. The new patriarchy agrees with you because it likes having cheap and easy access to female sex toys. That should concern you as a human and a woman.

As for McLoving, you know better than that. Kittens are good. They make a tasty soup but they don't have much meat and it's all stringy. Masturbation in public is already illegal because it is not protected by the First Amendment. Masturbation in private is protected by the Fourth Amendment, and has been since at least Griswold v Connecticut. Consensual sex between men and women who are married but not to each other is protected and gay sex is protected by the Fourth Amendment. There isn't much government in the bedroom these days.

MRM presents a fine case that tugs at our emotions and paints a narrow picture only of the effects of ILLEGAL prostitution. We already know illegal prostitution puts women at risk. Actual data and studies suggest he is at least partly wrong about the effects of legalization.

Legalized, regulated, educated, prostitution in NV offers greater protection to women than illegal street prostitution run by organized crime. It also reduces human trafficking, disease and violence among those who work legally in the trade in NV. Studies show that the regulatory model in Nevada offers the highest level of protection for women who work in the sex trade. These successes are not universal however and in some countries with more lax regulation or corruption, results of legalization are mixed.

Nevada's Legal Brothels Make Workers Feel Safer - NYTimes.com

http://esplerp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Violence-and-Legalized-Brothel-Prostitution-in-Nevada.pdf

http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=student_schol arship

http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4482&context=etd

Again - your examples deal with illegal prostitution, you saw the inside of illegal sex trade - women who are kept zoned out on drugs, beaten and used by criminals, who never wanted to be prostitutes in the first place - coerced and then kept in 'bondage' by criminals who use the fact that prostitution is illegal as a 'guarantee' that the women won't go to the officials to complain. You see lack of free will in prostitution because it is illegal. Go to somewhere where it is legal and regulated, women enter into legal prostitution for many reasons, but lack of free will isn't often one of them. As far as violence - you should know that illegal goods markets are almost always characterized by increases in violence. There is no redress for the victims, they can't take the pimps to court for wrongs done to their persons, they can't even report the crime.

You seem to think that women are unable to make good decisions regarding sex for pay - that women are weak and 'need protection' from their own bad decisions. That women are 'less' than men with regards to deciding what they want to do with their own bodies. Women are not less than men with regards to their ability to make good and bad decisions, they can and should be allowed to make those decisions based on their needs and goals, not on your or some '90s 'feminists' projection of what decision they believe would be right for them.

The fact that you believe that women cannot, and should not be in 'control' is because you wish to leave prostitution under the control of men, criminals and pimps. Again, prostitution isn't going away - you should know this - did all those cases that you prosecuted result in prostitution going away - of course not. Yet, by insisting that prostitution remain illegal you are continuing to sentence woman after woman to the exact same treatment from those criminals. It will not go away - you can legalize it or you can keep women trapped as victims in what otherwise should be merely a transaction between consenting adults. Keeping it illegal is what removes women's control of their bodies - not legalizing it. "The decision of whether to allow themselves to be objectified is not in the control of the women who are being objectified" (your quote), because you want to keep it illegal. As soon as it is legalized, women have a choice, yes or no, walk or continue.

Allow women the right to choose what they want to do, they will surprise you. Women's suffrage should go far beyond the right to vote, it should encompass the right to choose our own destiny - good or bad, let us chose. If you remove what you believe is a 'bad' choice, you have left us with no choice.

If women want to be 'cheap and easy sex toys for money' isn't that their decision to make - why are you so determined to make that decision for them? Are they children, unable to discern your 'right' and 'wrong' declarations from on high? If they don't want to be a sex toy - then they won't, if they see it as a means to an end, why remove their choice? Let us fall down and get up - let us fail and succeed, none of which can happen if you remove our choices.

You are now spending time with a woman who believes that women are strong enough, smart enough and 'good' enough to make their own decisions regarding sex for pay. And those 'sticks' wielded by women who believe other women are weak, ignorant, and apparently unable to make good decisions regarding their own bodies may be sharp - but brittle and misfigured with malice.

Edit - I want to thank some really amazing people (men and women) who have actually been reading this thread this evening. I have carefully edited some their thoughts, however, since a couple of them are currently dressed in full Klingon battle dress, and their pointy sticks look more like bat'leths and would probably do some real damage, I didn't think it prudent to let them type... ;)

Not sure if any of you have met, talked to or know a prostitute. I have had the opportunity to meet several for a ghost writing project. I did have the opportunity to sample the goods but chickened out for fear of bugs or worse. After interviewing several and actually getting to know them on a level many do not there are several things that you must be made aware of:
1) there are different types of prostitutes;
- independents (escort / call girls) that may or may not have drivers to act as muscle when a John flakes. These are not pimps per se and in many cases are actually boy friends as weird as that may seem. They make the most money. These girls are very savvy and know exactly what they are doing. They typically have a circles of 2 to 5 other girls they know to watch out and help write copy for ad space as well as the occasional 3 some.
- massage spa workers that provide the 'happy ending', these are normally from other countries and make decent money taking a % of the fee. There are some from the US but use the facility for security of income rather then self marketing.
- strippers, similar to the spa worker but most often from the here. Some turn into escorts while others stick to the security and protection of the bar and manager. While not all stripers pull tricks, many eventually do for the income increase.
- street walkers, these are the saddest...some are run-aways, others drug addicts and still others were actually born into the business as bad as that sounds. When you find your self really hungry or strung out, turning a trick to get by is what you do to survive if you don't think there is a better way and can't (or won't) see the value of working at a fast food joint. The majority of these are protected by pimps, the independents do the stroll but can get the crap beat out of them by a pimp if they don't join the stable depending upon where they work.

2) There is also the human trafficking side of it and those come form all over. Some from really bad situations here in the states while many from central or south America and over seas. Not all are abducted like in the movies. Many are offered the opportunity (or so they think) to make serious money, hook up with a stupid American, get him to marry them then take him for all he is worth. The ones from eastern Europe or Russia or very very smart and very materialistic but so can the ones from Asia. These girls have a gift of brains, bodies and a seduction skill that is mind boggling. They can quickly figure out if you are a catch or if they should move on.

3) A few other things that many never seem to consider, there is a growing market for male prostitutes. Not the American Gigolo but homosexuals. With the rate of AIDS in control and decreasing the number of men turning trick has increased dramatically. Makes it even easier because now there is a reduced stigma to being gay so they can advertise more and actually the demand has increased do to the openness. I have interviewed a few gay escorts and frankly they are really freaky. Actually scary. Creeped me out to hear some of the stories and I don't creep out easy.

4) Another thing that many of you may assume is that all prostitutes were victims of a sexual abuse. This is not true. While many were there are a bunch I met that were not. They cross all socio-economic boundaries. Some of these girls are college educated, some from solid middle class back grounds, some from horrible lives, others were basically psychotic to put it bluntly. There doesn't seem to be a recipe save for one commonality: they all want to make money as easily as possible. And they do bank. Some make serious cash.

5) So, how do they do it? Well most become masters at disassociation. They simply turn off their ability to experience what is going on and seem to repress it. Booze and drugs help some to forget. The ties they form with other prostitutes allow them to develop this weird sort of brothers-in-arms mentality. The ones that actually survive for awhile have a network like this.

You may think that these women have low self esteem. While I did see some of that, the majority actually are pretty darn confident. You can't turn a trick and not have control of the situation. You would not last long.

They are not as different as many of us. One told me that I was a prostitute; I would basically use words to make money and she used what ever orifice worked at that time to do the same. I don't agree but a few things I learned on that project was 'don't think you can argue with a prostitute'. They have it all figured out, just ask them.

WHY IS IT ILLEGAL?

Because of what may happen if we make it legal. Would it then be "acceptable" to plan a future career as a pro? (I don't think this would actually happen)
There aren't many taboos left. Selling sex is still one of them but in some progressive countries in Europe it's almost OK. Note I wrote almost.

Regardless of location selling sex is on the fringes of society. The thought of total strangers having sex for the sake of money is something that creeps most of us out.
IMO, Men that regularly use prostitutes are actually a minority. Thoughts?

I wonder if money is the only motivator for some girls. Could it also be about sex and their desires?

Yes, but it is also under-reported. Nobody admits to it when asked. On wikipedia on the subject you will find that rates of men that engage vary greatly by country. 15% report that they had at least 1x contact in their lives in the US. If you double that and put into account that these surveys are not taken at the end of men's lives, you can easily see that probably half the male population in the US has hired a pro in their lifetime. How many of these are repeat customers will be tougher to guess. Maybe we should have an anonymous survey here on PPOT.

It is an ugly business IMHO but it being illegal only pushes it into the dark alleys and into the hands of organized crime. I am not an expert but it looks like in European countries where it is legal, it is organized pretty well with professional brothels in industrial areas outside of town that allow independent work by women in a secure / controlled environment.

G

I believe some people are more sexually adventurous than others, whether they are hookers or Johns. It not fair to label them as immoral or desperate. People have a lot of complexities and for some, these transactions can be mutually satisfying if conducted with respect and safety precautions.
MD, if you get time, you should check out a book called Hookers, Rounders and Desk Clerks. I believe it was written by anthropologists based on an ethnological study. Perhaps as interesting as what you are writing.
Thanks also to Foxpaws and McLovin for your contribution to the discussion.

didn't one of those tv preachers get arrested for paying to watch a couple have sex........ How was that different from porn by your explanation of why it is legal and not prostitution.

Personally I say make it legal - there is a darkness to it for sure and there will always be - making it legal will remove some of that

it's not illegal, you just have to say 'I love you' and all is forgiven.

Why is prostitution illegal?
 

Government treats EVERYONE like chattel and is really otherwise not much different than the pimps she decries. If you stand up to either, you get beaten. Both keep most of what you earn and toss you a few scraps. Both live ostentatiously on your money. Both promise "protection" as their core justification for existence (protection racket) yet often turn away from really standing up for those they protect in the face of trouble. At least the pimps are more entertaining and have a sense of humor occasionally - and are more honest about themselves.

It's pure delusion to think that government is much better. I also no longer think that just because something will "pay taxes" makes it a good thing. I'm starting to respect people and institutions that don't - just because they're helping to starve the slavering, bloated beast (speaking of the government as a whole here, not just HRC). I say good on anyone standing up for themselves and who's doing what they can to keep the money THEY have earned, but I digress... Back to prostitution:

We need a fundamental transformation in the way we think about government funding. And fwiw I don't entirely disagree with FP's views here on prostitution. It's unfortunate but if the criminal element can be removed (there are examples of societies that have done this with general success at it) it can be demystified and won't be taboo: the "unintended consequences" (such as the cheapening of sex) aren't bad things - they're honest. People should be together because they want to be, not because they feel they have to be (for sex - men; or for money / security - women). Both sides benefit from a healthy societal view of sex and sexuality, not the corny, religion-driven, puritanical, sex-is-dirty undercurrents that so much more harm to our society and women in particular (obsession with self-image, tremendous social pressure to marry / have kids / conform, etc.)

I say legalize prostitution but regulate it and crack down on traffickers and pimps HARD. I wouldn't be opposed to that. It beats the system we have now ("illegalize the world!") which largely only benefits the lawyers and law enforcement industry (and yes, it is most definitely an industry - a big one).

Or take pictures and call it art.

waded through 4 0r 5 pages of this and I believe this is not a man vs woman issue. It is a human issue. How do we get so confused?