Metal Reviews

Not to mention that if you have to pay for sex you are a complete loser.

A lot of the problems you mention are because of how grubby it sounds, which I can sympathise with. Just going through your points and addressing them individually and dispassionately:

1. "It would lead to a systematic and large scale use of women as objects for whoever is willing to pay." - eh? How would it do that? Not sure what you mean by this.
2. "The idea that the government would test prostitutes for STD's and then send them back to the sex shop is absolutely revolting." - Well, presumably they'd have some sort of certificate proving their health supplied by the brothel and backed with a promise of compensation if you do catch something - or the free market would mean places with high stv levels would lose business.
3. "Women become prostitutes because they are either desperate for money or somehow feel trapped in that kind of lifestyle because of drugs, abuse as a child, violence, etc." - True in many, even most cases, but what if they enjoy it and are paid well, as a legal taxed business would have to increase their fees?
4. "By legalizing and regulating it, a government would essentially make it more socially acceptable." - True, but it's questionable how much of a bad thing that is.
5. "Not to mention that if you have to pay for sex you are a complete loser." - Studies have actually shown that people who use prostitutes aren't socially-awkward losers, but normal people.

Taking off my heartless libertarian cap for a second, yes, you're right, the idea of it does sound grubby and disgusting, but like drugs and abortion, legalisation would be the lesser of two evils - the lives of the women in prostitution are far worse in the illegal underground than they would be if it was legalised. People are always going to use prostitutes, abortion doctors etc, so at least by legalising it you can ensure safety and health for the people involved, and that's really all the argument I need.

Beyond what Zad said:
There's nothing inherently wrong with selling your body for the enjoyment of someone else- dancers do it, masseuses do it, athletes do it, etc. Just because you feel differently about a certain form of human interaction does not mean that it is objectively so, or carries the same implications for everyone else. It is your right to hold your opinions, and it is your right to refuse to visit prostitutes, but you cannot stop women (or men, for that matter) from choosing that line of work, nor can you stop people from using their services.

I would agree that without the moral argument it's impossible to argue against legalizing prostitution. That's why I would never attempt to do so. I believe prostitution is disgusting and immoral. Therefore, making it "safer" and more profitable for the government through regulation and taxation doesn't really hold up for me. I think no matter how "regulated" it is it would still lead to the potential abuse of women. In short, I think it's terrible for society.

Beyond what Zad said:
There's nothing inherently wrong with selling your body for the enjoyment of someone else- dancers do it, masseuses do it, athletes do it, etc. Just because you feel differently about a certain form of human interaction does not mean that it is objectively so, or carries the same implications for everyone else. It is your right to hold your opinions, and it is your right to refuse to visit prostitutes, but you cannot stop women (or men, for that matter) from choosing that line of work, nor can you stop people from using their services.

Letting your own personal moral convictions impede other people from engaging in sexual activities of their choice is an infringement of basic human rights and absolutely ridiculous.

Assuming that moral convictions are always personal is inherent in your liberal atheist bullshit. Ethics can be universal without a god. Citing human rights to enable the exploitation of another human being is laughable. And before you say it's not exploitation, look at the prostitutes in America. They are predominantly 14-18 year old girls who come from broken homes, are sold into the system by boyfriends who take them in, sold to pimps who then hook them up on drugs.

Now you might say legalization would prevent this slave trade yet your original statement wasn't in respect to that. The more I read on here the more I'm starting to agree with V.

I would agree that without the moral argument it's impossible to argue against legalizing prostitution. That's why I would never attempt to do so. I believe prostitution is disgusting and immoral. Therefore, making it "safer" and more profitable for the government through regulation and taxation doesn't really hold up for me. I think no matter how "regulated" it is it would still lead to the potential abuse of women. In short, I think it's terrible for society.

Assuming that moral convictions are always personal is inherent in your liberal atheist bullshit. Ethics can be universal without a god. Citing human rights to enable the exploitation of another human being is laughable. And before you say it's not exploitation, look at the prostitutes in America. They are predominantly 14-18 year old girls who come from broken homes, are sold into the system by boyfriends who take them in, sold to pimps who then hook them up on drugs.

Now you might say legalization would prevent this slave trade yet your original statement wasn't in respect to that. The more I read on here the more I'm starting to agree with V.

This.


Plus, according to Fridge's statement, pedophilia should be legalized.

Plus, according to Fridge's statement, pedophilia should be legalized.

Oh man I'm so proud of that statement. A course I took last spring quarter, a sociology course on Social Movements and Ideologies, in it, we analyzed liberalism and its logical conclusion of NAMBLA.

No, because pedophilia infringes upon someone's rights/health/etc. It's not the same thing.

No, because pedophilia infringes upon someone's rights/health/etc. It's not the same thing.

Oh man I'm so proud of that statement. A course I took last spring quarter, a sociology course on Social Movements and Ideologies, in it, we analyzed liberalism and its logical conclusion of NAMBLA.

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

@ Trapt - I wouldn't say libertarians are against ALL taxes. That's like saying all Muslims are terrorists, or all Communists love Stalin. Plenty who want to tax land rather than earnings, who are in favour of green taxes, so on, so forth. But yep, Rand had a very odd approach to sex, no doubt about it.

And it's not "have to pay" for sex, it's "want to" - to repeat myself, men who visit prostitutes often have normal sex lives, etc.

You guys' main problem with it seems to be the icky parts, and you're ignoring that, say, legalisation would actually do away with the slavery part of prositution, the pimps etc. Ignore Fridge's shakey moral ground and focus on the good that legalisation would do, as opposed to the bad that its illegality causes.

Bollocks.