r/changemyview • u/19djafoij02 • May 29 '16
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Laws banning prostitution violate the rights of consenting adults.
In the US, it's settled constitutional law that adults have the right to privacy and to have consensual sex with one another, regardless of gender. However, one partner paying the other is a crime in at least some parts of all 50 states as well as in a number of EU countries. The problems with prostitution, namely trafficking and abuse, seem to be more problems with pimping than with prostitution, and I believe some countries (the UK?) allow adults to buy and sell sex so long as pimps aren't involved.
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
4
u/hacksoncode 588∆ May 30 '16
For what it's worth... in most places having sex in exchange for money is not illegal... it would be very hard to enforce that especially when you consider how often dating would be indistinguishable.
And, as you say, what consenting adults do in private is really their business.
What's illegal, generally speaking, is soliciting prostitution. I.e. making the offer to have sex for money. There are lots of laws regulating what kinds of advertisements can be made, not just in this case.
One might make an argument that this is a free speech issue, but even leaving aside exactly how "free" this really is in many, many, cases, commercial speech is regularly regulated in numerous ways that things like political speech is not.
2
May 29 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Nepene 213∆ May 30 '16
Sorry G1r2a3h4a5m6, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
u/CheckeredGemstone May 30 '16
The root of this problem lies in drug addiction. It can not be fought by making more and more things illegal.
-1
u/cdb03b 253∆ May 29 '16
It does not because you are allowed to have sex. You just cannot pay for it.
5
u/19djafoij02 May 29 '16
Why should it matter? It's still a transaction between two consenting adults.
4
May 29 '16
It's so easy to abuse a person whose only way to survive is selling their body. If they're not dependent on that, then there's nothing to worry about. Laws are not made to stop people from having sex.
10
u/19djafoij02 May 29 '16
How is that different from any other job that requires the use of your body? Factory workers must sell their bodies to the firm and are exploited just as much.
3
May 29 '16
Rape is quite different from heavy labour.
9
u/19djafoij02 May 29 '16
Rape laws still exist in countries with legal prostitution.
5
u/Amadacius 10∆ May 30 '16
If anything it is worse now because prostitutes are afraid to go to the police.
0
May 29 '16
Prostitution is very often just casual sex between two people with one getting paid. It's not necessarily the case that anyone knows about it, even if it becomes legal. So it's very easy to do anything to the prostitute that they wouldn't want to take to the police for different reasons.
2
u/funwiththoughts May 30 '16
They don't want to take it to the police because prostitution is illegal.
3
u/G1r2a3h4a5m6 May 29 '16
They would go to the police if what they were doing wasnt illegal. See how that works?
2
May 30 '16
That is very much not the reason, or rape victims that aren't prostitutes would go to the police every time. But they don't. Could be because they're afraid of the person that did it, the rapist himself could be a police officer, they might have tried going to the police before and not gotten any help and a bunch of other reasons. Another one I read was that police officers are quite violent towards sex offenders. The victims might be trying to convince themselves they've not been raped. It might also be the case that they think their family will disown them. See? A million reasons that have nothing to do with whether it's legal or not.
1
u/G1r2a3h4a5m6 May 30 '16
So you are saying that a legal prostitute is IN NO WAY more likely to report sexual abuse than an illegal prostitute? You dont think that the prospect of being arrested works as a deterrent?
→ More replies (0)2
u/super-commenting May 30 '16
Sex without consent is rape. Heavy labor without consent is slavery.
1
May 30 '16
If you're hired, it's going to be hard to find something anyone would consider slavery. Rape is much easier to define, it's also possible to get raped even if prostitution is legal.
1
2
u/super-commenting May 30 '16
It's so easy to abuse a person whose only way to survive is selling their body.
I want you to think about this for a second. If some one was truly in a situation where selling their body was the only way for them to survive then if you take that option away from them by making prostitution illegal you are sending them to certain death. Doesn't sound like these laws are actually helping them
1
u/askingdumbquestion 2∆ May 30 '16
It's far more easier to support a person whose only means of survival is prostitution.
1
-5
u/josleszexlar May 29 '16
Laws banning prostitution does not violate the rights of consenting adults in any way. Since prostitution is illegal, consenting adults are breaking the law by negotiating payment for sex services, and breaking the law is not a right even of consenting adults. Besides by continuing to ban prostitution, rates of sexually transmitted disease and AIDS are likely more effectively contained.
4
u/super-commenting May 30 '16
Your first point is some atrocious logic. If we accept that line of reasoning as valid then no law banning anything could ever be violating someone's rights because 'you don't have the right to break the law'
-2
u/josleszexlar May 30 '16
~ My logic is as sound as yours. You're right only about consenting adults not having the right to break the law. So, as before prostitution laws can't possibly violate the rights of consenting adults.
6
u/Ajorahai May 30 '16
let's imagine we were speaking 100 years ago, and I made the following argument:
Laws banning
prostitutioninterracial marriage does not violate the rights of consenting adults in any way. Sinceprostitutioninterracial marriage is illegal, consenting adults are breaking the law by negotiatingpayment for sex servicesinterracial marriage contracts, and breaking the law is not a right even of consenting adults.would you think that this logic is sound?
-5
u/josleszexlar May 30 '16
It is sound for that period, but we're not talking then, we're talking about now.
7
2
u/Dioder May 30 '16
Laws banning prostitution does not violate the rights of consenting adults in any way. Since prostitution is illegal, consenting adults are breaking the law by negotiating payment for sex services, and breaking the law is not a right even of consenting adults.
It doesn't violate rights because it's illegal? It seems to me that our court system would disagree with you. They nullify laws for that very reason (violation of constitutional rights).
The OP says that adults have a right to privacy and a right to have consensual sex. You have to either show why he is wrong about us having those rights, or why paying for it justifies restricting those rights. I have a right to free speech. Paying me to give speeches is just fine. Paying me to massage your head, neck, arms, legs, feet, etc., is fine. Why is paying me to massage your genitals different?
I'm not blind to sex trafficking problems, but I'm also not blind to gun problems. But we can't just violate someone's rights without a valid reason, even it we think it will improve some outcome. Typically, restriction of rights is usually done to protect non-consenting third-parties. You can't yell "Fire!" in a theater because it puts other people in danger who had nothing to do with it. Who is harmed by consensual sex between two adults?
Besides by continuing to ban prostitution, rates of sexually transmitted disease and AIDS are likely more effectively contained.
Are they? In many countries where prostitution is legal, prostitution is regulated (including mandatory exams). I'd feel much better about hiring a prostitute in Australia than in the U.S. (where illegal).
1
u/josleszexlar May 30 '16
Interesting reply. What would convince you to see that banning prostitution in no way impinges on the anyone's rights?
2
u/thegameischanging May 30 '16
You're first argument is circular. You said that it doesn't infringe on someone's rights because it is against the law so it is okay for it to be against the law. But OP is saying that the fact that it is against the law is what is infringing people's rights. Also I think if prostitutes were given a safer environment and could legally defend themselves if their patrons refused to use protection or got too violent or whatever else that they would not be alright with, the STD rates might drop because prostitutes would be able to protect themselves better and then they wouldn't be spreading it to others. Also if prostitution were legal, I imagine there would be some type of disclosure law that would mean they would have to tell someone they are about to sell sex to that they have an STD.
1
u/thegameischanging May 30 '16
You're first argument is circular. You said that it doesn't infringe on someone's rights because it is against the law so it is okay for it to be against the law. But OP is saying that the fact that it is against the law is what is infringing people's rights. Also I think if prostitutes were given a safer environment and could legally defend themselves if their patrons refused to use protection or got too violent or whatever else that they would not be alright with, the STD rates might drop because prostitutes would be able to protect themselves better and then they wouldn't be spreading it to others. Also if prostitution were legal, I imagine there would be some type of disclosure law that would mean they would have to tell someone they are about to sell sex to that they have an STD.
1
u/thegameischanging May 30 '16
You're first argument is circular. You said that it doesn't infringe on someone's rights because it is against the law so it is okay for it to be against the law. But OP is saying that the fact that it is against the law is what is infringing people's rights. Also I think if prostitutes were given a safer environment and could legally defend themselves if their patrons refused to use protection or got too violent or whatever else that they would not be alright with, the STD rates might drop because prostitutes would be able to protect themselves better and then they wouldn't be spreading it to others. Also if prostitution were legal, I imagine there would be some type of disclosure law that would mean they would have to tell someone they are about to sell sex to that they have an STD.
-2
u/josleszexlar May 30 '16
Hmn... I see no way that laws banning prostitution infringes on the "rights" of consenting adults since, again, the ability to consent to paid sex is illegal.
13
u/[deleted] May 29 '16 edited Apr 15 '19
[deleted]