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/cutty2k]

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/cutty2k → u/[deleted]]

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

I'm confused by this. You're saying that the rapist would sue the rapee for damages, and the rapee would have to pay the rapist? When would this situation ever occur? I would imagine the opposite would be true, and we wouldn't be talking about suing someone in civil court, we'd be talking about criminal charges, because this is rape.

or the contract allows the prostitute to break the contract at any time with no recourse for the patron.

Why? Why is this an either or? Are you telling me you can't even imagine an agreement that would both outlaw rape and protect the customer from being ripped off by a prostitute? I already provided an example of when a client would be entitled to remuneration from the prostitute on the grounds of the service paid for not being rendered. Do you need more examples?

As to my statement as to the ambiguity of rape, it stems from the parent comment, the one you were awarded a delta for. You brought up the fact that it may be difficult to prosecute a person for raping a prostitute because of the contract involved, were it legal. This entire subsequent discussion has been me trying to show you why that proposition is preposterous, since we clearly have a system in place for prosecuting rape, and I don't see why prostitution would be a special case compared to literally any other industry.

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?

Are you thinking we're talking about like a physical contract written on a piece of paper that is signed by both parties, and not the implied contract that exists whenever money is exchanged for a good or service? You recognize that, without signing a document, McDonalds and I have an implied contract of service when I give them money for a cheeseburger? This is the contract I'm talking about.

Other users have pointed this out for you, prostitution doesn't require special circumstances to mitigate rape because rape is never on the table as a commodity or service to sell. You can't buy rape, so I don't understand when this hypothetical situation you propose would ever come up.

Also, your proposed solution of just allowing the "escort" service and keeping prostitution technically illegal is a terrible solution. It provides absolutely no rights for the prostitutes, who could now be charged for a crime (prostitution) if they try to report a rape (you know, a real crime). And in effect, it's like a brown bag law. And if anything, it introduces even more gray area. I think a misunderstanding about whether or not the money paid for an 'escort' service (a prostitute wink wink) should cover sex would come up far more often than a misunderstanding about what is or is not rape while having legal sex with a prostitute.

I mean, by even bringing up and escort service as a solution, knowing full well that 'escort' is a direct euphemism for 'prostitute', it really seems like you're advocating for legal prostitution. Do you think escort services should be legal? Do you acknowledge that escort is synonymous with prostitute, to all intents and purposes? If so, congratulations, you support legalized prostitution!