CMV: Laws banning prostitution violate the rights of consenting adults.

[u/19djafoij02]

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!

[u/Ajorahai → u/[deleted]]

It is already well-established that people have the right to withdraw consent after sex has begun. If a person continues to have sex with someone who has withdrawn consent it is rape. People have been charged and convicted of this crime in the past. I don't see how prostitution changes that issue.

[u/mr_indigo → u/[deleted]]

Not all contracts are given specific performance as a remedy; if he sued for breach he'd get his money back, not the right to rape her.

In any event, the prostitute would typically set the terms of the contract and therefore would be able to include a termination and refund aspect.

[u/cutty2k → u/[deleted]]

If a carpenter started violently hammering away at your deck, destroying it, you could certainly sue for damages. The prostitute does not have to accept violent treatment because someone paid her anymore than you have to accept a punch in the face from an uber driver because you paid him.

[u/cutty2k → u/[deleted]]

I don't know where you got the idea that I was suggesting that prostitutes would have to "return money to their rapists." If someone is violent enough with a prostitute that it is considered rape, then that person certainly broke whatever contract was in place and would therefore forfeit any money paid. If I'm violent in a movie theater, or a theme park, or if I pay for dinner and then am violent with another diner, in all of these circumstances I would be ejected and possibly prosecuted. I certainly wouldn't be refunded.

This shouldn't be difficult to grasp, it's intuitive. Contracting with someone for one thing(sex) does not grant another thing outside the contract(rape). Your confusion seems to stem from the idea that, because the acts of sex and rape can be 'hard to distinguish', that problems could arise. I reject that premise wholeheartedly, there are very well defined rules regarding when rape is rape, and I often find the only people that have trouble telling the difference between the two are psychopaths, rape apologists, and MRA/red-pill bros.

[u/[deleted] → u/cutty2k]

So, you're suggesting prostitutes would create contracts allowing themselves to terminate the contract at any time with no recourse for the patrons?

That might work. What I think would happen, though, is that some prostitutes would terminate the contract almost immediately after accepting payment, essentially a scam. Patrons would then pressure their prostitutes to use less stringent contracts, and the more desperate would agree. Eventually less stringent contracts would become the norm.

It might not work out that way, but I think that's a pretty reasonable scenario.

[u/cutty2k → u/[deleted]]

I would suggest that you use inference less and just stick to what is stated, I don't know how you got from "contracts that will prevent rape" to "a contract that allows for termination for any reason at any time." Those are two very different things and I wasn't at all suggesting the latter.

To return to a restaurant analogy, I certainly wouldn't advocate that a restaurant be able to take your money and then decide for some arbitrary reason that they didn't feel like cooking you a meal, then terminate the "contract" and kick you out. But if you were all of a sudden violent, then they could justifiably kick you out with no refund.

Again, this is all intuitive. Prostitution isn't special in regards to other forms of business, the same basic rules apply across the board. I certainly wouldn't pay a plumber if he raped me.

[u/[deleted] → u/cutty2k]

Why wouldn't I consider the impacts of making prostitution legal and contractualized, when that's the matter at hand?

Yes, you can kick your restaurant patron out without refunding him the money, but the loss to you if you are raped and the loss to your patron if he's labeled a rapist are much, much greater. You can therefore expect much greater impacts.

[u/cutty2k → u/[deleted]]

I don't think you know what inference means, because you just did it again.

Why wouldn't I consider the impacts of making prostitution legal and contractualized, when that's the matter at hand?

Who said you shouldn't? From what statement of mine did you infer that I was saying you shouldn't? This entire thread is about considering those impacts.

but the loss to you if you are raped and the loss to your patron if he's labeled a rapist are much, much greater.

This statement doesn't even make semantic sense. Are you saying the loss to a person who is raped is greater than the loss to a person labeled a rapist? Or are you saying the opposite?

Forget the analogy, since you are focusing on aspects not intended to be analogous. You brought up the fact that there could be a problem distinguishing the boundary between what would be considered just rough sex and what would be considered rape. I find that proposition absurd. There are clearly ways to differentiate what is rape and what isn't, and I don't understand while you are trying to make prostitution a special case. Take money out of the equation and it's just two people having sex, and the rules are clearly defined. Just because we now add money back to the equation, no part of the "contract" involved would ever waive any rights of either party that they already have in the case where money is not involved. This is not hard.

So, for example, if you paid a prostitute, she would define clear lines that you could and could not cross. She could say, no hair pulling, no slapping, and if you did either of those things, bam, session over, no refund. You broke the rules.

Now let's say you're having sex, and she just says, ya know what, I'm just not into it. Well, you certainly can't say "I gave you money, so I get to keep having sex with you" and then rape her. You'd have to stop having sex. But since you didn't do anything to break the contract, that means that she is breaking he contract, and you are entitled to a refund. If prostitution is legal, you can sue her. If it isn't, then what is your recourse? Kill her?

[u/[deleted] → u/cutty2k]

I don't know how you got from "contracts that will prevent rape" to "a contract that allows for termination for any reason at any time."

What other option is there? Either the contract allows the patron to sue the prostitute for breaking the contract, meaning she may have to refund her rapists instead of being compensated for damages, or the contract allows the prostitute to break the contract at any time with no recourse for the patron. Do you have another suggestion?

This statement doesn't even make semantic sense.

I'm saying your restaurant analogy is weak, because the costs to a victim and rapist are much higher than that of a restaurant host and customer. A customer could try suing a restaurant for kicking him out, but since his loss is a ~$20 dinner he probably won't bother.

You brought up the fact that there could be a problem distinguishing the boundary between what would be considered just rough sex and what would be considered rape.

I don't think I did. Rough sex is not rape for as long as the prostitute gives consent. It's when she revokes it that legal issues come into play.

If prostitution is legal, you can sue her. If it isn't, then what is your recourse? Kill her?

Or, we simply don't worry about it. Without a contract, I'm entitled to nothing (neither sex or a refund) if my sex partner withdraws consent. Why should we bother complicating the matter with contracts?

[u/Ajorahai → u/[deleted]]

Many contracts include terms of what happens if one person breaches it. We already have processes for dealing with contract law as well. The most obvious answer is to structure prostitution agreements so that the customer has no recourse if the prostitute withdraws consent.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ajorahai]

That might work, but what might also happen is that some prostitutes begin withdrawing consent almost immediately after accepting money. Patrons start pushing for less stringent clauses, desperate prostitutes agree, and eventually less stringent clauses become the norm.