The Scientific Case for Decriminalizing Sex Work

[Suzanimal]

Good grief, it's the oldest profession, decriminalize it already.


Arguments in favor of decriminalizing prostitution often rely on empathy for sex workers themselves: Journalist Melissa Gira Grant contends, for example, that criminalizing sex work implicitly condones violence against sex workers, who are often afraid to go to the police to report violence and are frequently ignored when they do. Current laws (sex work is illegal in 116 countries) require that sex workers render themselves largely voiceless and invisible — which makes their interests easy to ignore.

But new research suggests that existing legislation against sex work may also be harming society at large — and that decriminalizing sex work could help slow the spread of HIV.

On Tuesday, scientists at the annual International AIDS Conference in Melbourne, Australia, recommended decriminalizing sex work across the globe — arguing that legalization is the most effective way to reduce global HIV infection rates. According to new research — a series of seven studies recently published in the Lancet medical journal — scientists estimate that HIV infection rates among sex workers could be reduced by between 33 and 46 percent if the activity were not illegal. “Governments and policymakers can no longer ignore the evidence,” asserted Kate Shannon, an associate professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia and the lead author of the study.


The research, conducted in Kenya, India, and Canada, found that high rates of violence against sex workers, police harassment, and poor working conditions — all circumstances exacerbated by sex work’s illegal status — combined with lack of access to HIV prevention and care significantly increased the risk of infection among sex workers. According to recent data from the World Health Organization, female sex workers are 14 times as likely to have HIV as other women, yet fear of arrest and stigma often prevents them from seeking medical care. (A Kenyan woman quoted in the study added that when doctors at the health center she visited realized she was a sex worker, she was denied treatment.)

Additionally, many countries, including the U.S., use condoms — and the act of carrying multiple condoms — as evidence of prostitution. (Though a bill abolishing this distressing practice passed New York’s assembly last year, it seems the NYPD is still “reviewing” the legislation.) As a result, sex workers often stop carrying (and using) condoms out of fear of arrest. (I did not know that:eek:)

This January, Human Rights Watch reiterated its call for the decriminalization of voluntary sex work by adults, asserting criminalization “undermines sex-worker health.” Researchers at this week’s conference also cited New South Wales, Australia, where sex work has been decriminalized since 2009 — and where sex workers now have a lower rate of HIV prevalence than the general population. For its part, Canada’s Supreme Court struck down the country’s anti-prostitution laws last December and may decriminalize the activity this year. Let’s hope that others follow suit.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/07/scientific-case-for-decriminalizing-sex-work.html

[parocks]

It's physical therapy, it's health care. There is plenty of science to support that. The crime would be providing health care without a license, not to say I would support those laws, but we should be looking at it that way. Things are getting relentlessly shttier, so I don't expect that the physical therapy services provided by the candy stripers would be covered by Obamacare, but I don't see why they shouldn't, given all the crazy bs ("no, you're not crazy, you actually are a woman trapped in a man's body, and we can cure you by chopping your dick off") that we have now.

[Ronin Truth]

No crime without a victim.

The online edition of Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country by Peter McWilliams
http://deoxy.org/ccrime0.htm

[PRB]

if sex work benefits women, don't you think the feminazis would've legalized it by now? I mean, after all we're in an age where liberals and feminists control everything, aren't we?

[Suzanimal]

if sex work benefits women, don't you think the feminazis would've legalized it by now? I mean, after all we're in an age where liberals and feminists control everything, aren't we?

I've never said sex work benefits women. Personally, I think prostitution is a bad idea for women and men (male prostitutes and johns) but I don't think it should be illegal.


don't you think the feminazis would've legalized it by now? I mean, after all we're in an age where liberals and feminists control everything, aren't we?

I dunno, I'm not a "feminazi" and I've never said I believe we're in an age where liberals and feminists control everything. So I guess I'm not qualified to answer that question.

[juleswin]

if sex work benefits women, don't you think the feminazis would've legalized it by now? I mean, after all we're in an age where liberals and feminists control everything, aren't we?

Feminazis would be against it cos it also benefits men too. I bet they would be totally OK with it if it was girl-girl only. But the blatant sexism of such a law would fully expose the whole philosophy behind feminism.

[VIDEODROME]

I did a few years working as a truck driver and I often wished there could have been a legit legal brothel. I mean really, imagine what that could do for truck drivers physical and mental health. Not to mention the way Trucking has notoriously high turnover and is always short on drivers. This would help offset the weariness and solitude of that kind of job.

[juleswin]

I've never said sex work benefits women. Personally, I think prostitution is a bad idea for women and men (male prostitutes and johns) but I don't think it should be illegal.

I dunno, I'm not a "feminazi" and I've never said I believe we're in an age where liberals and feminists control everything. So I guess I'm not qualified to answer that question.

The good pay with little time investment are the benefits of prostitution, lots of jobs are soul and time steal, body breaking, and mind numbing. Some of jobs that are legal today are guaranteed to shorten your life by a lot but society still thinks its Ok to do. Its a good paying job that most women who have no skills can pull off. So apart from not locking women up when they are caught, it benefits women by being a reliable fall back, good paying profession option when they are desperate. If I had not marketable skills and was desperate for money, its day labor for me and that is even more embarrassing than prostitution.

[Working Poor]

I for anything that might cause law enforcement to work on violent crimes rather than meddling in the private lives of people.

[Suzanimal]

The good pay with little time investment are the benefits of prostitution, lots of jobs are soul and time steal, body breaking, and mind numbing. Some of jobs that are legal today are guaranteed to shorten your life by a lot but society still thinks its Ok to do. Its a good paying job that most women who have no skills can pull off. So apart from not locking women up when they are caught, it benefits women by being a reliable fall back, good paying profession option when they are desperate. If I had not marketable skills and was desperate for money, its day labor for me and that is even more embarrassing than prostitution.

I don't disagree with anything you've said.

[presence]

No victim no crime. That's all I have to say. Next....

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

if sex work benefits women, don't you think the feminazis would've legalized it by now? I mean, after all we're in an age where liberals and feminists control everything, aren't we?


So PRB is a liberal AND a feminist? I learn something new every time he posts.

[dannno]

if sex work benefits women, don't you think the feminazis would've legalized it by now? I mean, after all we're in an age where liberals and feminists control everything, aren't we?

No they are usually on the opposite side of the spectrum and think there needs to be harsher laws, particularly against John's and sex traffickers. They believe prostitution causes sex trafficking, when in fact it is ILLEGAL prostitution that causes sex trafficking.

Using your logic, conservatives who are anti-gangs would be for the legalization of drugs, because that would put the drug dealers and most of the street gangs out of business. But they are actually for harsher penalties, most of the time.

[tod evans]

Sex laws only benefit the ugly and moral segments of the population..........

[Yung_Hustler]

Legalize it!

[Christian Liberty]

No they are usually on the opposite side of the spectrum and think there needs to be harsher laws, particularly against John's and sex traffickers. They believe prostitution causes sex trafficking, when in fact it is ILLEGAL prostitution that causes sex trafficking.

Using [your] logic, conservatives who are anti-gangs would be for the legalization of drugs, because that would put the drug dealers and most of the street gangs out of business. But they are actually for harsher penalties, most of the time.

Fixed it. Using logic would be more accurate. The problem is that lots of conservatives and feminists do not use logic.


Sex laws only benefit the ugly and moral segments of the population..........

How does it benefit any of those people?

I'd probably qualify as "ugly and moral" (morally conservative at any rate, which I think is what you meant) and I fail to see how I benefit from this.

[tod evans]

How does it benefit any of those people?

I'd probably qualify as "ugly and moral" (morally conservative at any rate, which I think is what you meant) and I fail to see how I benefit from this.

Ugly folks have a much better chance of getting laid if prostitution is illegal 'cause as we all know if something is illegal it cost more which leaves out a vast segment of society....

Moral people benefit from imposing their morals on others whether they want them or not, just as many of the laws we all bitch about are.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Legalize it!

The blank slate of living means you are naturally free to do it. Government restricts and criminalizes it.

That might seem like a subtle distinction, but still important. Advocating legalization lends credence to government authority, at least in an academic sense.

Government does not grant rights. It can only take them away.

[parocks]

I did a few years working as a truck driver and I often wished there could have been a legit legal brothel. I mean really, imagine what that could do for truck drivers physical and mental health. Not to mention the way Trucking has notoriously high turnover and is always short on drivers. This would help offset the weariness and solitude of that kind of job.

All jobs, not just trucking, and even the unemployed.

[heavenlyboy34]

Sex laws only benefit the ugly and moral busybody segments of the population..........

FIFY. Lots of moral people don't mind other people engaging in prostitution. Myself, for one.

[Rothbardian Girl]

if sex work benefits women, don't you think the feminazis would've legalized it by now? I mean, after all we're in an age where liberals and feminists control everything, aren't we?

Sex-positive feminism is a relatively new spectrum of feminist thought that sees sexual freedom as an important component of women's freedom. In fact, this wave can probably be seen as a direct response to the efforts of anti-porn (and prostitution) feminists. So feminism is again, not too dissimilar from most ideological movements in that there is a lot of internal dialogue and debate between factions.

The research shows that in addition to these health benefits, prostitution's legalization seems to help reduce the number of victims of human trafficking, as well as violence against sex workers overall. This is the case in Germany (http://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/german-prostitution-model-reducing-violence-against-sex-workers/) (a country that used an imperfect approach to "legalizing" prostitution, yet there have been some successes). Even demand-side approaches to fighting prostitution (locking up people who solicit prostitutes) result in no real changes in either the number of prostitutes or their customers.

[otherone]

People are free to boink hundreds of partners of either sex; but let some money change hands and it's immoral. Is this actually about vice? Or unregulated commerce? Does the State feel awkward being in partnership with whores?

[VIDEODROME]

People are free to boink hundreds of partners of either sex; but let some money change hands and it's immoral. Is this actually about vice? Or unregulated commerce? Does the State feel awkward being in partnership with whores?

It's still legal to pay 2 other people to have sex while you film them and sell porno tapes. Pay some to have sex with you and it becomes illegal.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PVpdBCzFFq8/UZFN3dBuJfI/AAAAAAAAC_U/Ne90YlUVz5A/s1600/cantexplainthat.png

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

///

[Christian Liberty]

Ugly folks have a much better chance of getting laid if prostitution is illegal 'cause as we all know if something is illegal it cost more which leaves out a vast segment of society....

Wouldn't more ugly people be able to hire prostitutes if it were legal and cheaper?




Moral people benefit from imposing their morals on others whether they want them or not, just as many of the laws we all bitch about are.

I'd actually consider busybodies of this sort to be immoral, but I guess I get your point. Personally I'm ultra-conservative in my personal life and morals, and I don't think prostitution is moral or something that evangelical churches should tolerate in their churches. But its absolutely nobody's right to use force to prevent it.

Paul the Apostle said in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 that sexual transgressions are only the church's business if they occur within the church and that the remedy is to excommunicate unrepentant sexual sinners from the church. Paul says that it is none of the church's business if it occurs by people who are not in the church.

The religious right either has never read Paul, or they think they know better than him. Either way its plain sad.


People are free to boink hundreds of partners of either sex; but let some money change hands and it's immoral. Is this actually about vice? Or unregulated commerce? Does the State feel awkward being in partnership with whores?

Well, ANY sexual relationship outside of the marriage union is immoral as far as I'm concerned, and as far as the Bible is concerned. IT doesn't make any difference if its for money or not.

Certainly not something that should be criminalized.

[VIDEODROME]

In other words...... some scientists somewhere are horny.

[tod evans]

Wouldn't more ugly people be able to hire prostitutes if it were legal and cheaper?

You're missing the point;

Many ugly people would choose to neglect their peers in order to imbibe in poontang way out of their league if it were more affordable, leaving a large segment of ugly society frustrated and unfulfilled...




I'd actually consider busybodies of this sort to be immoral, but I guess I get your point. Personally I'm ultra-conservative in my personal life and morals, and I don't think prostitution is moral or something that evangelical churches should tolerate in their churches. But its absolutely nobody's right to use force to prevent it.

Paul the Apostle said in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 that sexual transgressions are only the church's business if they occur within the church and that the remedy is to excommunicate unrepentant sexual sinners from the church. Paul says that it is none of the church's business if it occurs by people who are not in the church.

The religious right either has never read Paul, or they think they know better than him. Either way its plain sad.

"The Church" is notorious for "using force" ie; government, to do their bidding....

Try to express your desire to not use government to enforce morality to the congregation in your church and see what response you get...

I too am a Christian but I know the majority of my brethren in my congregation believe it's their duty to enforce their beliefs on others through government edict and enforcement. For this reason I shun the lot of 'em.....

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You're missing the point;

Many ugly people would choose to neglect their peers in order to imbibe in poontang way out of their league if it were more affordable, leaving a large segment of ugly society frustrated and unfulfilled...





Heh heh.

[satchelmcqueen]

in all seriousness, if it became legal, id be first in line at the next trucking school! fun times ahead! lol
I did a few years working as a truck driver and I often wished there could have been a legit legal brothel. I mean really, imagine what that could do for truck drivers physical and mental health. Not to mention the way Trucking has notoriously high turnover and is always short on drivers. This would help offset the weariness and solitude of that kind of job.

[Henry Rogue]

Good grief, it's the oldest profession, decriminalize it already.
Arguments in favor of decriminalizing prostitution often rely on empathy for sex workers themselves: Journalist Melissa Gira Grant contends, for example, that criminalizing sex work implicitly condones violence against sex workers, who are often afraid to go to the police to report violence and are frequently ignored when they do. Current laws (sex work is illegal in 116 countries) require that sex workers render themselves largely voiceless and invisible — which makes their interests easy to ignore.

But new research suggests that existing legislation against sex work may also be harming society at large — and that decriminalizing sex work could help slow the spread of HIV.

On Tuesday, scientists at the annual International AIDS Conference in Melbourne, Australia, recommended decriminalizing sex work across the globe — arguing that legalization is the most effective way to reduce global HIV infection rates. According to new research — a series of seven studies recently published in the Lancet medical journal — scientists estimate that HIV infection rates among sex workers could be reduced by between 33 and 46 percent if the activity were not illegal. “Governments and policymakers can no longer ignore the evidence,” asserted Kate Shannon, an associate professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia and the lead author of the study.*


The research, conducted in Kenya, India, and Canada, found that high rates of violence against sex workers, police harassment, and poor working conditions — all circumstances exacerbated by sex work’s illegal status — combined with lack of access to HIV prevention and care significantly increased the risk of infection among sex workers. According to recent data from the World Health Organization, female sex workers are 14 times as likely to have HIV as other women, yet fear of arrest and stigma often prevents them from seeking medical care. (A Kenyan woman quoted in the study added that when doctors at the health center she visited realized she was a sex worker, she was denied treatment.)

*(I did not know that)

This January, Human Rights Watch reiterated its call for the decriminalization of voluntary sex work by adults, asserting criminalization “undermines sex-worker health.” Researchers at this week’s conference also cited New South Wales, Australia, where sex work has been decriminalized since 2009 — and where sex workers now have a lower rate of HIV prevalence than the general population. For its part, Canada’s Supreme Court struck down the country’s anti-prostitution laws last December and may decriminalize the activity this year. Let’s hope that others follow suit.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/07/scie...-sex-work.html Scientists are a little slow on the know. Economists figured this out long ago.

[Henry Rogue]

Additionally, many countries, including the U.S., use condoms — and the act of carrying multiple condoms — as evidence of prostitution. (Though a bill abolishing this distressing practice passed New York’s assembly last year, it seems the NYPD*is still “reviewing” the legislation.) As a result, sex workers often stop carrying (and using) condoms out of fear of arrest.
In the days of old
When men were bold
And rubbers weren't invented
Men wrapped there clocks
In woolen socks
And that's how babies were prevented

Clocks was a purposeful typo.

[Suzanimal]

You're missing the point;

Many ugly people would choose to neglect their peers in order to imbibe in poontang way out of their league if it were more affordable, leaving a large segment of ugly society frustrated and unfulfilled...


I'm not sure I get this...are you saying ugly men would choose to pay for sex with a good looking woman rather than have a relationship (sexual or otherwise - or are you referring to just sex) with an ugly woman?



"The Church" is notorious for "using force" ie; government, to do their bidding....

Try to express your desire to not use government to enforce morality to the congregation in your church and see what response you get...

I too am a Christian but I know the majority of my brethren in my congregation believe it's their duty to enforce their beliefs on others through government edict and enforcement. For this reason I shun the lot of 'em.....

This part, I can agree with.

[Christian Liberty]

You're missing the point;

Many ugly people would choose to neglect their peers in order to imbibe in poontang way out of their league if it were more affordable, leaving a large segment of ugly society frustrated and unfulfilled...

OK. I'm not sure how terribly likely this would be, but maybe. I'd probably suffer from prostitution being legalized then:p (since I'd never hire one.) Oh well, such is life, I still don't want to criminalize it.





"The Church" is notorious for "using force" ie; government, to do their bidding....

Indeed.




Try to express your desire to not use government to enforce morality to the congregation in your church and see what response you get...


Well, I've never done so to the whole church (ie. I've never spoken from the pulpit on the subject) but I've had conversations with a number of people in my church about politics.

None completely agree with me, but several do to a significant degree and those who don't at least understand where I'm coming from.

Mind you, I'm in NYS. And in a fairly Reformed (as in our pastor and probably about half of the theologically knowledgeable members of the congregation are Reformed) congregation. The fact that its NYS means that going to church isn't just a cultural thing, so the people who go are generally at least somewhat serious about it. And the relevance of Reformed is that in general fundamentalists and dispensationalists (postmillennialists to to some extent, and I don't think we have any in our church) tend to be much more "theologically" politically conservative than Reformed people. (What I mean by that is: a lot of Reformed people are politically conservative but not all and even those who are are generally more "tolerant" of alternative viewpoints, whereas many fundamentalists and dispensationalists will almost act like you are in sin if you aren't part of the "religious right").

So, the dynamics of my church is probably different from yours. Even still, its not a paragon of liberty, or anything like that. There are things that frustrate me in my church, on the political end. But its a lot better than the more standard fundamentalist type churches, while still being very theologically conservative.



I too am a Christian but I know the majority of my brethren in my congregation believe it's their duty to enforce their beliefs on others through government edict and enforcement. For this reason I shun the lot of 'em.....

Hold on, you shun them and yet you're still in the congregation? That doesn't make sense to me, could you explain your church's dynamic and how that works? It would seem to me that if the people in your congregation are so far gone that you would shun them, you wouldn't continue attending that church; right?


Also, I'm honestly curious how you interact with any cops that may be in your congregation (if there are any) seeing as you are one of the few people I'm aware of who is probably still more anti-cop than I am.

[Philhelm]

I'm a veteran of "The Hobby" although I do not partake anymore. There are escort review sites out there, and some of the escorts even have their own accounts and will chat and have off topic threads just like any other forum. The purpose was mostly for review and safety. Men could more safely meet women and avoid law enforcement or scams, as well as know what sort of service they could expect from an individual. The women could help keep each other safe.

I was fit and good-looking, so some of the women would ask why I did it, but I found it exciting. From conversations, most of their clients were older, married men. One woman said that she saved marriages by doing what a man's wife won't do. A lot of these women were going through school, or perhaps already had a degree, and they certainly weren't forced into it, and it didn't seem like they had a pimp or anything like that. In fact, they called themselves Independent Providers.

One important observation: They were very strict about the use of condoms and getting check-ups...far, far more strict than "civilian" girls.

I had actually went out with one a couple of times; we saw the movie "Atlas Shrugged Part 1." She said that she was an Objectivist.

[PRB]

I've never said sex work benefits women. Personally, I think prostitution is a bad idea for women and men (male prostitutes and johns) but I don't think it should be illegal.


What should be legal if it's bad idea for everybody??



I dunno, I'm not a "feminazi" and I've never said I believe we're in an age where liberals and feminists control everything.


Well then, you either are not paying attention or don't need to be here. Last time I checked the whole reason we need Ron Paul and a Republican party renaissance is because liberals have taken our country for too long. If liberals don't own this country, I'll go back to sleep.



So I guess I'm not qualified to answer that question.

fine with me

[Mani]

It's legal in parts of Asia.


In HK it's legal if it's an independent woman doing it working without any boss (and she has legal residence). But it's illegal if she has a pimp/mamasan she's under, and it's illegal if they are tourists brought in for sex. I also think it's illegal if there's 3 people in the room or something like that I don't know the exacts.

In HK I've heard if a guy gets busted during a raid in a brothel that's illegal, the cops will just tell the guys to scram and get lost, but the guys don't get charged with anything. It's the pimp or whatever you call it, that gets in trouble, plus the girls whom probably are on some tourist or visitor visa and not allowed to do that work. (I can't verify this, so don't blame me, if you get busted!)


I know in Singapore there's a street that's also legal, and those women get regular checkups and they are certified and stuff.

Japan has some legal areas as well.

Of course those countries also have plenty of illegal prostitution, but I thought it was interesting they've addressed this issue and have a legal channel for this type of activity.

It's all over asia, you name the country, some type of prostitution is going on. Most of them have legal ways and have illegal brothels as well.

The U.S. is quite backwards on this issue. There should be some form of legal way to do this.


I remember also a SWAT team video a few months ago of them berating an Asian woman who was running a massage parlor. There was some accusations she was running a place that gave happy endings or something. I remember thinking...WTF!? What's the big deal? Who cares??? Why would anyone bother with that? Who exactly is being harmed that cops need to march in and shut it down?

Maybe because pretty much a zillion corner spas in HK or various parts of Asia that provide happy endings that it's really not much of a big deal.

I've stayed in a couple of Hotels, like 4 star good quality hotels in China (international brand chains), and in your toiletries kit they include a couple of condoms. I used to wonder...Are they expecting me to use these??

Imagine if a hotel Chain in the US had wrapped condoms sitting in your bathroom next to the toothpaste kit, and dental floss. What an uproar that would bring.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

What should be legal if it's bad idea for everybody??



Well then, you either are not paying attention or don't need to be here. Last time I checked the whole reason we need Ron Paul and a Republican party renaissance is because liberals have taken our country for too long. If liberals don't own this country, I'll go back to sleep.



fine with me


Another neg rep for lying. You have now told me you voted for Ron Paul twice. You did not vote for Ron Paul.

All your threads are in the vein of This is what liberals says but I'm not a liberal. All of your threads confront every RPF member this way. You detail the arguments ad nauseum, but conclude with a single line how you don't believe any of it.

I don't have to actually see the crook steal the purse to conclude something about his guilt or innocence.

[dannno]

It's still legal to pay 2 other people to have sex while you film them and sell porno tapes. Pay some to have sex with you and it becomes illegal.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PVpdBCzFFq8/UZFN3dBuJfI/AAAAAAAAC_U/Ne90YlUVz5A/s1600/cantexplainthat.png

Ya I don't understand why they don't have legal brothels where they film the guy having sex with the prostitute, then give him the option of purchasing the tape that was made.

[PRB]

Another neg rep for lying. You have now told me you voted for Ron Paul twice. You did not vote for Ron Paul.


How do you know I didn't vote for Ron Paul?



All your threads are in the vein of This is what liberals says but I'm not a liberal.


Yeah, what's wrong with that?



All of your threads confront every RPF member this way. You detail the arguments ad nauseum, but conclude with a single line how you don't believe any of it.


And?



I don't have to actually see the crook steal the purse to conclude something about his guilt or innocence.

I can't stop you from accusing me, I can only ridicule you if your views are baseless.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

How do you know I didn't vote for Ron Paul?

I don't need to see you pull the lever to make a reasonable determination about the person for whom you did not vote.

I don't have to actually see the crook steal the purse to conclude something about his guilt or innocence.





...if your views are baseless.

The base is your entire posting history. You lay out the detailed liberal argument in every thread you debate: gun control, public education, global warming, government intervention in the economy, etc. etc. You then conclude with a single line how you're for less government.

[parocks]

I'm not sure I get this...are you saying ugly men would choose to pay for sex with a good looking woman rather than have a relationship (sexual or otherwise - or are you referring to just sex) with an ugly woman?



Many would. And the idea that this is just about ugly and not ugly isn't on the mark. If it's regulated, if it's part of health care, it could be argued. A lot of things would change. And I think that's why the feminists don't want this. But what a great deal for men. Even if the government doesn't want to call it health care and make it free, if it's really mainstream, that's what a lot of guys would do. Doing things you don't want to do in order to get laid would be a thing of the past.

[parocks]

//

[PRB]

I don't need to see you pull the lever to make a reasonable determination about the person for whom you did not vote.

I don't have to actually see the crook steal the purse to conclude something about his guilt or innocence.


Why do you believe I didn't vote for Ron Paul? Really.



The base is your entire posting history. You lay out the detailed liberal argument in every thread you debate: gun control, public education, global warming, government intervention in the economy, etc. etc.


Where have I ever said I favor gun control or public education?
Where did I ever say I want government intervention (beyond warning) on global warming?
Where did I ever say I want government intervention on the economy?



You then conclude with a single line how you're for less government.

Answer the above question please, thanks.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Where have I ever said I favor gun control or public education?
Where did I ever say I want government intervention (beyond warning) on global warming?
Where did I ever say I want government intervention on the economy?
Answer the above question please, thanks.


You answered it all in your own posting history. It's all there for everybody to see. What you're counting on is that most people won't even take the trouble to look, so you can just deny it.

Go ahead, though; keep talking. I love it when they keep talking.

[PRB]

You answered it all in your own posting history. It's all there for everybody to see. What you're counting on is that most people won't even take the trouble to look, so you can just deny it.

Go ahead, though; keep talking. I love it when they keep talking.

No, I'm counting on you to go look. You seem to know where I posted it, so I challenge you to find it.

No, I won't run and delete or modify them, so go ahead, find them, repost them here. Prove me wrong.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

No, I'm counting on you to go look. You seem to know where I posted it, so I challenge you to find it.

No, I won't run and delete or modify them, so go ahead, find them, repost them here. Prove me wrong.

Find it?! All you have to do is click your profile and then click your posts.

No, of course, you don't actually claim I'm for gun control and here's why. That would defeat the purpose of your game. You do, however lay out the anti-liberty argument in detail. You then conclude with a single line about how you're for less government.

Keep talking some more.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Any other sub-forums where you'd like to have your game exposed to people who don't know it yet? You're in two tonight.

[PRB]

Find it?! All you have to do is click your profile and then click your posts.

No, of course, you don't actually claim I'm for gun control and here's why. That would defeat the purpose of your game. You do, however lay out the anti-liberty argument in detail. You then conclude with a single line about how you're for less government.

Keep talking some more.

how exactly did I lay out an anti-liberty argument? show me.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

how exactly did I lay out an anti-liberty argument? show me.

That's your answer?!

You know, you're really not even much a challenge. You're on an anonymous board and can't even come up with a good story. I asked you about why you're on this forum, and the best you can come up with is I'm for less government and fewer taxes.

Get me somebody who at least knows how to manage a simple online persona.

[parocks]

how exactly did I lay out an anti-liberty argument? show me..

The burden is on NCLiberty, who is probably right but should take the time to prove the case.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

.

The burden is on NCLiberty, who is probably right but should take the time to prove the case.

Read his threads. Any of them. I've shown it in other threads, but he counts on people not paying attention.

I don't have to actually see the crook steal the purse to conclude something about his guilt or innocence.

[bunklocoempire]

Listen to a police scanner. Baring the nosy neighbors who think they have to call the cops... all day long you will hear of the state going on your dime to domestic after domestic (partners/spouses/boyfriend girlfriend etc). If two people can't live together harmoniously what exactly is the relationship based on? An exchange of goods? Services? Why the hell does the state think it has to maintain those clusterf**** day in and day out decade after decade?

("clusterf****" is the perfect term):toady:

I don't agree that prostitution is good for any involved, but at least it's honest about what it is on some level and doesn't pretend to be something it is not.

The state hates that loss of ambiguity. Truth = loss of control

[Keith and stuff]

Let us look at New England, where by far the least bothersome prostitution laws in the nation existed in Rhode Island. The research shows that regulation lowered crime and violence against women. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/17/when-rhode-island-accidentally-legalized-prostitution-rape-and-stis-decreased-sharply/


The statewide incidence of gonorrhea among women declined by 39 percent, and the number of rapes reported to police in the state declined by 31 percent, according to the paper.

[Peace&Freedom]

"No victim, no crime?" Here we go again with a one dimensional, presumptively secular approach that confuses libertarian principle with culturally liberal sentiment.

GOD is victimized by prostitution (the Holy Spirit grieves when sins are committed). It represents a misuse of His property and His intent for the Creation. The practice thus does violate the consent of a party relevant to the transaction. If one responds that not all of us believe in God or think God should be reflected in "the law" (civil law), it can be countered that not all of us believe the law can be neutral, or that de-facto agnosticism should be the default position of the law when it comes to reflecting (or ignoring) His property interests.

Some believe moral and civil law should be entirely separate, others believe they can or should intersect. This is a cultural divide, but not innately a divide between libertarian and authoritarian perspectives, as libertarians and authoritarians can be found on both sides of the divide. Those stressing that the social right not force 'their' morality-based views on others apparently prefer that the social left force 'their' morality-neutral views on others through the law. On this and other issues, some here only prefer a "libertarian" stance that discomfits the social right. In fact, however the government applies the law, somebody may reasonably view its stance as being a "busybody."

So this suggests a bit of toleration of multiple solutions or approaches to each social issue question is in order, roughly translating to the "localism" Ron Paul has advocated. I.e., let the Vegas area people have their bunny ranches, let the Bible belt area people have their outright bans. "Mind your own business" applies to respecting both communities, in their manner of figuring these things out.

[RonPaulIsGreat]

They should legalize it, we have millions of baby mommas out there, and the only job they know how to do has been made illegal. These poor women have no choice at present but to give it away to the nearest deranged thug, so as to keep the baby factory producing welfare checks, and ebt cards. If they could do what they were born to do, and "f*ck" everything in sight for 20 a pop without requiring a baby to be produced for profit, these "ladies" would be driving around in BMW's and the roofers, truck drivers, and lumberjacks, wouldn't have to go to bars to find them.

[juleswin]

"No victim, no crime?" Here we go again with a one dimensional, presumptively secular approach that confuses libertarian principle with culturally liberal sentiment.

GOD is victimized by prostitution (the Holy Spirit grieves when sins are committed). It represents a misuse of His property and His intent for the Creation. The practice thus does violate the consent of a party relevant to the transaction. If one responds that not all of us believe in God or think God should be reflected in "the law" (civil law), it can be countered that not all of us believe the law can be neutral, or that de-facto agnosticism the should be the default position of the law when it comes to reflecting His property interests.

Some believe moral and civil law should be entirely separate, others believe they can or should intersect. This is a cultural divide, but not innately a divide between libertarian and authoritarian perspectives, as libertarians and authoritarians can be found on both sides of the divide. Those stressing that the social right not force 'their' morality-based views on others apparently prefer that the social left force 'their' morality-neutral views on others through the law. On this and other issues, some here only prefer a "libertarian" stance that discomfits the social right. In fact, however the government applies the law, somebody may reasonably view its stance as being a "busybody."

So this suggests a bit of toleration of multiple solutions or approaches to each social issue question is in order, roughly translating to the "localism" Ron Paul has advocated. I.e., let the Vegas area people have their bunny ranches, let the Bible belt area people have their outright bans. "Mind your own business" applies to respecting both communities, in their manner of figuring these things out.

If this post was a serious post then I have to say that the LP in NY is doomed with someone like you having any meaningful post in it. I mean, I don't even know where to start cos there's just so much BS contained in this one post. I hope you comeback and tell us this whole post was a silly joke.

[Suzanimal]

What should be legal if it's bad idea for everybody??



Well then, you either are not paying attention or don't need to be here. Last time I checked the whole reason we need Ron Paul and a Republican party renaissance is because liberals have taken our country for too long. If liberals don't own this country, I'll go back to sleep.



fine with me



What should be legal if it's bad idea for everybody??

I said I think it's bad for them, maybe they don't feel that way, maybe they enjoy being a prostitute. I do shit that's bad for me all the time, that doesn't mean it should be a crime.

Anything that deprives another person of their life, liberty or property. I have no interest in telling other people how to live.


Well then, you either are not paying attention or don't need to be here. Last time I checked the whole reason we need Ron Paul and a Republican party renaissance is because liberals have taken our country for too long. If liberals don't own this country, I'll go back to sleep.

I think evil has taken over this country no matter what label they like to slap on themselves. The Republicans had a pretty big hand in f-ing up this country too, there's plenty of blame to spread around.


fine with me

:)

[Suzanimal]

Many would. And the idea that this is just about ugly and not ugly isn't on the mark. If it's regulated, if it's part of health care, it could be argued. A lot of things would change. And I think that's why the feminists don't want this. But what a great deal for men. Even if the government doesn't want to call it health care and make it free, if it's really mainstream, that's what a lot of guys would do. Doing things you don't want to do in order to get laid would be a thing of the past.



Many would.
:(
My man better not, that's all I'm sayin'.;)


And the idea that this is just about ugly and not ugly isn't on the mark.

I agree with you there. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyway.



If it's regulated, if it's part of health care, it could be argued. A lot of things would change.

Good point, I never thought of that.:o



And I think that's why the feminists don't want this.

Some do, see Rothbardian Girl's post.


But what a great deal for men. Even if the government doesn't want to call it health care and make it free, if it's really mainstream, that's what a lot of guys would do.

I don't think men would be running to prostitutes if it were legal. I just don't. I could be wrong though, I'm not a man.


Doing things you don't want to do in order to get laid would be a thing of the past.

:eek: You tellin' me my husband does things he doesn't want to just to get a piece of tail?!;)

[otherone]

GOD is victimized by prostitution (the Holy Spirit grieves when sins are committed). It represents a misuse of His property and His intent for the Creation.

http://static1.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/a_scale_large/700-1/photos/1312082023-muslims-march-for-sharia-law-zones-in-the-uk_772281.jpg

[Peace&Freedom]

If this post was a serious post then I have to say that the LP in NY is doomed with someone like you have any meaningful title in it. I mean, I don't even know where to start cos there's just so much BS contained in this one post. I hope you comeback and tell us this whole post was a silly job.

Substance, anyone? Apparently you didn't provide a serious post response, but validated the comment by casting ridicule at it. That is not rebuttal. My point remains that some here only want a libertarian approach to personal liberty that universally presumes God is irrelevant, that the only authoritarian aspect is that coming from social conservatives, or that the moral law is necessarily separate from the civil law.

One can debate those presumptions in either direction, but the point is those are not libertarian principles, nor should be baked into its cake. I reject the one size fits all take where we must all agree on "the" unitary libertarian view of these issues, regardless of worldview. There isn't one. I agree with Paul (who has made similar "unserious" comments, by your take) that these matters should be decided locally, which means they will, and should be handled in different ways.

[otherone]

Substance, anyone? Apparently you didn't provide a serious post response, but validated the comment by casting ridicule at it. That is not rebuttal. My point remains that some here only want a libertarian approach to personal liberty that universally presumes God is irrelevant, that the only authoritarian aspect is that coming from social conservatives, or that the moral law is necessarily separate from the civil law.


The primary purpose of Government is to secure our Rights, one of which is our Right to offend deities. Supernatural entities don't have Rights.

[PRB]

.

The burden is on NCLiberty, who is probably right but should take the time to prove the case.

he thinks "you contradict yourself in every post" is going to cut it.

[PRB]

That's your answer?!


It's my question. You're the one who can't give an actual answer. You're counting on people to believe you when you say "just click and see all his posts, it's obvious", instead of just posting these examples as you're so sure they're there.



You know, you're really not even much a challenge.


Yeah, that explains why you can't prove I am a liar or I contradicted myself. Saying you did doesn't count.



You're on an anonymous board and can't even come up with a good story. I asked you about why you're on this forum, and the best you can come up with is I'm for less government and fewer taxes.


yeah, sorry i can't give you better reasons.



Get me somebody who at least knows how to manage a simple online persona.

ask and wait all you want.

[dannno]

You're missing the point;

Many ugly people would choose to neglect their peers in order to imbibe in poontang way out of their league if it were more affordable, leaving a large segment of ugly society frustrated and unfulfilled...


Wait a minute, women ALREADY do that to men, and they do it to them during their sexual prime.. Younger women can have sex out of their league whenever they want, if a man wants sex out of his league he usually has to pay for it. As they say, the top 85-90% of women have open sexual access to some man, if not MANY men, in the top 10-15% simply because men are more willing and ready to have sex on a consistent basis without emotion involved.

Now, a lot of men in the lower %s can appear at times to be in the top 10-15%, especially if a woman is drunk and he can get lucky once in a while, but for the most part a lot of men get screwed (or not screwed) during this time in their lives while women can go sew their oats wherever they want.

Then you have the issue where birth control and SSRIs are decreasing the sexual desires of women today - no wonder so many men are frustrated. We have more open sexuality these days, and women can have all the sex they want, but they are more selective and this leaves a lot of men out of the picture until women stop having sex out of their league and settle for a relationship with a guy who is in their league.

Women get a free pass to do whatever they want until they have to settle for a beta, and while some women appreciate the man who falls in love with them, others keep the beta locked up in these weird rules and often refuse to have sex with them.

This isn't to say that women don't have their own issues, women usually find that their sexual adventures and one night stands that they get to have endlessly when they are younger ultimately become unfulfilling and want more emotion and romance. Ok.

But here's the kicker, and this is where I'll argue prostitution will be a good thing -

1. If a man ONLY wants sex from women and not a romantic relationship, then a woman who he does end up with will feel unfulfilled by the relationship and it might be better to let those men stick to prostitution and one night stands. I would argue there are not many men in this category, though they do exist.

2. If a man wants sex and a romantic relationship, then we have two options where prostitution can benefit and extend the relationship, assuming the wife doesn't ever find out what he is doing:

a. The man finds a woman who he is attracted to and has a good relationship, but he finds his sexual needs going unfulfilled (which are probably much stronger than yours if you are rolling your eyes and you shouldn't judge) - a prostitute, on occasion, in moderation can be very healthy for this type of relationship because the man doesn't feel trapped and uncomfortable in his own skin and unfulfilled and can continue a romantic relationship and life partnership with the woman he is married to who refuses to fulfill her husbands sexual needs.

b. The man finds a woman who he is not very attracted to, but they do find that they are the best each of them can find and do have a relatively fulfilling relationship with moderate sexual activity. This guy, although he is having sex on occasion may feel unfulfilled from these encounters because his wife is not very attractive and will feel very trapped and unable to express his true sexual nature - in this case a prostitute, on occasion to help spice things up a little can be a very good thing for a relationship as long as it does not detract from the attention he is giving to the woman he's with.


Now, I don't really expect very many women to understand this, if any. Of course I know a lot of Christians will be horrified because it goes against the rules in the book they believe in. Not that there's anything wrong with finding somebody who you want to commit to in that way, if both people are happy, then great. But the bottom line is not every partnership is going to result in a healthy sexual relationship and some relationships - and the men in particular - can benefit from prostitution and this can help to keep a healthier relationship with their partner.

[Christian Liberty]

"No victim, no crime?" Here we go again with a one dimensional, presumptively secular approach that confuses libertarian principle with culturally liberal sentiment.

GOD is victimized by prostitution (the Holy Spirit grieves when sins are committed). It represents a misuse of His property and His intent for the Creation. The practice thus does violate the consent of a party relevant to the transaction. If one responds that not all of us believe in God or think God should be reflected in "the law" (civil law), it can be countered that not all of us believe the law can be neutral, or that de-facto agnosticism should be the default position of the law when it comes to reflecting (or ignoring) His property interests.

Some believe moral and civil law should be entirely separate, others believe they can or should intersect. This is a cultural divide, but not innately a divide between libertarian and authoritarian perspectives, as libertarians and authoritarians can be found on both sides of the divide. Those stressing that the social right not force 'their' morality-based views on others apparently prefer that the social left force 'their' morality-neutral views on others through the law. On this and other issues, some here only prefer a "libertarian" stance that discomfits the social right. In fact, however the government applies the law, somebody may reasonably view its stance as being a "busybody."

So this suggests a bit of toleration of multiple solutions or approaches to each social issue question is in order, roughly translating to the "localism" Ron Paul has advocated. I.e., let the Vegas area people have their bunny ranches, let the Bible belt area people have their outright bans. "Mind your own business" applies to respecting both communities, in their manner of figuring these things out.


Substance, anyone? Apparently you didn't provide a serious post response, but validated the comment by casting ridicule at it. That is not rebuttal. My point remains that some here only want a libertarian approach to personal liberty that universally presumes God is irrelevant, that the only authoritarian aspect is that coming from social conservatives, or that the moral law is necessarily separate from the civil law.

One can debate those presumptions in either direction, but the point is those are not libertarian principles, nor should be baked into its cake. I reject the one size fits all take where we must all agree on "the" unitary libertarian view of these issues, regardless of worldview. There isn't one. I agree with Paul (who has made similar "unserious" comments, by your take) that these matters should be decided locally, which means they will, and should be handled in different ways.

I read what Ron Paul said about Lawrence v Texas awhile back, and I can assume he feels similarly about prostitution.

Ron said that the Federal government had no authority to force Texas to legalize sodomy, and thus that Lawrence v Texas was improperly decided. Constitutionally, Ron is clearly correct. The Federal government has no right to tell Texas whether it should have sodomy laws or not.

However, if you read what Ron wrote about the issue, Ron wasn't neutral on those laws. He was opposed to them. He simply recognized that it wasn't the Federal government's job to get involved.

Now, I know Ron Paul isn't the be all end all, he's a wise man who can and sometimes does err. But in this case I agree with him, and I'd apply the same set of principles to prostitution. No, Washington DC should not do anything if a Bible Belt state or some locality or whatever decides to ban prostitution, but that doesn't mean that such laws are prudent or wise.

I agree with you that the law can't be truly neutral. And my libertarianism is justified in a different way than that of many other libertarians. Sometimes I'll let these epistemological issues go when I'm talking to secular libertarians for whatever reason, but just because I don't bring them up in a certain conversation doesn't mean they don't matter to me. And, when talking to Christian conservatives and Christian neoconservatives, I frequently quote scripture at them in political debates, and they rarely, if ever, use any scripture other than Romans chapter 13 to argue any point (of course, theonomists use the entire Old Testament, and I disagree with their interpretation that the Old Testament law should be applied everywhere, but theonomists are comparatively rare and I've never met a true theonomist in person. But, most non-theonomist conservatives just twist Romans 13 to justify whatever they want to justify, in my experience.)

Now, if you want to say God is victimized by prostitution, that's fine with me. But then, let God deal with it. I don't feel that I have a duty, according to scripture, to use violence (governmental OR otherwise) to prevent God from being offended. And, if you look at 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, Paul certainly seems to feel the same way. His solution to illegitimate sexual offenders is to have them thrown out of the church, and to let God judge those outside. So, I understand and agree that the law can't be truly neutral, but the Bible agrees with libertarians that such laws are inappropriate.

Now, again, I'm not saying that the Federal government should have any role here. But I would oppose any laws regulating prostitution in my state, and I think everyone else should be opposed to them as well.

Now, WRT libertarianism, ALL libertarians agree on the non-aggression principle and private property rights. There are certain specific issues, such as abortion (For what its worth, I'm pro-life) or intellectual property (I'm not that opinionated on this yet) where the libertarian answers aren't terribly obvious, but in the case of prostitution, for adults at any rate (children are a different matter, obviously), the only possible libertarian answer is that it shouldn't be criminalized. There is no way you can argue that prostitution (despite its offensiveness to God) is an aggressive act, thus any libertarian who supports criminalizing it is at least with regards to this one issue not libertarian. And really, other kinds of sex outside marriage are offensive to God to, why is it special just because its for money?

And again, I know libertarians differ on WHY they are libertarians as well. Like C Jay Engel, I'm a scripturalist and I am a libertarian because I believe those principles are taught in scripture. Others are libertarians for utilitarian reasons, or natural law reasons, or whatever. And there are definitely some issues on which not everyone agrees whether an act of aggression has taken place. But this isn't really one of them, and there's really no libertarian argument to be had on this issue.

Mind you, I know there are other arguments that people use here, and I won't argue that there are very bad consequences at a societal level to prostitution (I think the consequences of prohibition are worse, but that's not the reason for my position.) But those aren't libertarian arguments. libertarian theory would say (and I think correctly) that if there is no person who is victimized that there is no crime. I don't think God qualifies as a legal entity, despite having zero doubt in my mind that he exists.

[Christian Liberty]

Wait a minute, women ALREADY do that to men, and they do it to them during their sexual prime.. Younger women can have sex out of their league whenever they want, if a man wants sex out of his league he usually has to pay for it. As they say, the top 85-90% of women have open sexual access to some man, if not MANY men, in the top 10-15% simply because men are more willing and ready to have sex on a consistent basis without emotion involved.

Now, a lot of men in the lower %s can appear at times to be in the top 10-15%, especially if a woman is drunk and he can get lucky once in a while, but for the most part a lot of men get screwed (or not screwed) during this time in their lives while women can go sew their oats wherever they want.

Then you have the issue where birth control and SSRIs are decreasing the sexual desires of women today - no wonder so many men are frustrated. We have more open sexuality these days, and women can have all the sex they want, but they are more selective and this leaves a lot of men out of the picture until women stop having sex out of their league and settle for a relationship with a guy who is in their league.

Women get a free pass to do whatever they want until they have to settle for a beta, and while some women appreciate the man who falls in love with them, others keep the beta locked up in these weird rules and often refuse to have sex with them.

This isn't to say that women don't have their own issues, women usually find that their sexual adventures and one night stands that they get to have endlessly when they are younger ultimately become unfulfilling and want more emotion and romance. Ok.

But here's the kicker, and this is where I'll argue prostitution will be a good thing -

1. If a man ONLY wants sex from women and not a romantic relationship, then a woman who he does end up with will feel unfulfilled by the relationship and it might be better to let those men stick to prostitution and one night stands. I would argue there are not many men in this category, though they do exist.

2. If a man wants sex and a romantic relationship, then we have two options where prostitution can benefit and extend the relationship, assuming the wife doesn't ever find out what he is doing:

a. The man finds a woman who he is attracted to and has a good relationship, but he finds his sexual needs going unfulfilled (which are probably much stronger than yours if you are rolling your eyes and you shouldn't judge) - a prostitute, on occasion, in moderation can be very healthy for this type of relationship because the man doesn't feel trapped and uncomfortable in his own skin and unfulfilled and can continue a romantic relationship and life partnership with the woman he is married to who refuses to fulfill her husbands sexual needs.

b. The man finds a woman who he is not very attracted to, but they do find that they are the best each of them can find and do have a relatively fulfilling relationship with moderate sexual activity. This guy, although he is having sex on occasion may feel unfulfilled from these encounters because his wife is not very attractive and will feel very trapped and unable to express his true sexual nature - in this case a prostitute, on occasion to help spice things up a little can be a very good thing for a relationship as long as it does not detract from the attention he is giving to the woman he's with.


Now, I don't really expect very many women to understand this, if any. Of course I know a lot of Christians will be horrified because it goes against the rules in the book they believe in. Not that there's anything wrong with finding somebody who you want to commit to in that way, if both people are happy, then great. But the bottom line is not every partnership is going to result in a healthy sexual relationship and some relationships - and the men in particular - can benefit from prostitution and this can help to keep a healthier relationship with their partner.

I just want to clear something up here for the sake of people like me or PeaceandFreedom who are more culturally conservative. The above certainly can happen in a libertarian society. ANd the above will, at times, happen in a libertarian society. But, that doesn't mean every libertarian has to support it.

To paraphrase Laurence Vance: "The libertarian doesn't want to put the libertine in jail."

Out of respect for my neighbors and out of a desire to be left alone when engaging in peaceful activities which other people disprove of, I to will live at peace with my peaceful neighbors and not seek to impose aggressive legislation against such people even when they engage in activities I despise. To paraphrase Walter Williams "If you just tolerate behaviors you like, that isn't freedom. Freedom is tolerating peaceful behaviors which you despise."

So, a cultural conservative need not consider the conclusions Dannuo comes to above to be positive in order to support legalizing prostitution.

For what its worth, I think any married man who goes to see a prostitute behind his wife's back is an absolute scumbag. I'd even say such a person makes your average cop look like a good guy in comparison. That's how disgustingly immoral that is. Even still, I wouldn't advocate putting them in prison.

[dannno]

Wait a minute, women ALREADY do that to men, and they do it to them during their sexual prime.. Younger women can have sex out of their league whenever they want, if a man wants sex out of his league he usually has to pay for it. As they say, the top 85-90% of women have open sexual access to some man, if not MANY men, in the top 10-15% simply because men are more willing and ready to have sex on a consistent basis without emotion involved.

Now, a lot of men in the lower %s can appear at times to be in the top 10-15%, especially if a woman is drunk and he can get lucky once in a while, but for the most part a lot of men get screwed (or not screwed) during this time in their lives while women can go sew their oats wherever they want.

Then you have the issue where birth control and SSRIs are decreasing the sexual desires of women today - no wonder so many men are frustrated. We have more open sexuality these days, and women can have all the sex they want, but they are more selective and this leaves a lot of men out of the picture until women stop having sex out of their league and settle for a relationship with a guy who is in their league.

Women get a free pass to do whatever they want until they have to settle for a beta, and while some women appreciate the man who falls in love with them, others keep the beta locked up in these weird rules and often refuse to have sex with them.

This isn't to say that women don't have their own issues, women usually find that their sexual adventures and one night stands that they get to have endlessly when they are younger ultimately become unfulfilling and want more emotion and romance. Ok.

But here's the kicker, and this is where I'll argue prostitution will be a good thing -

1. If a man ONLY wants sex from women and not a romantic relationship, then a woman who he does end up with will feel unfulfilled by the relationship and it might be better to let those men stick to prostitution and one night stands. I would argue there are not many men in this category, though they do exist.

2. If a man wants sex and a romantic relationship, then we have two options where prostitution can benefit and extend the relationship, assuming the wife doesn't ever find out what he is doing:

a. The man finds a woman who he is attracted to and has a good relationship, but he finds his sexual needs going unfulfilled (which are probably much stronger than yours if you are rolling your eyes and you shouldn't judge) - a prostitute, on occasion, in moderation can be very healthy for this type of relationship because the man doesn't feel trapped and uncomfortable in his own skin and unfulfilled and can continue a romantic relationship and life partnership with the woman he is married to who refuses to fulfill her husbands sexual needs.

b. The man finds a woman who he is not very attracted to, but they do find that they are the best each of them can find and do have a relatively fulfilling relationship with moderate sexual activity. This guy, although he is having sex on occasion may feel unfulfilled from these encounters because his wife is not very attractive and will feel very trapped and unable to express his true sexual nature - in this case a prostitute, on occasion to help spice things up a little can be a very good thing for a relationship as long as it does not detract from the attention he is giving to the woman he's with.


Now, I don't really expect very many women to understand this, if any. Of course I know a lot of Christians will be horrified because it goes against the rules in the book they believe in. Not that there's anything wrong with finding somebody who you want to commit to in that way, if both people are happy, then great. But the bottom line is not every partnership is going to result in a healthy sexual relationship and some relationships - and the men in particular - can benefit from prostitution and this can help to keep a healthier relationship with their partner.


To add:

As for women who feel sexually unfulfilled - first, your husband probably has a sex drive that meets your beats yours, so get creative, try different things... toys, relaxing vacations or time alone, pornography, show him what you want, communicate, sexual therapy, romantic couples getaways, KEEP TRYING new things, different things... maybe your husband needs practice or needs to exercise his sex muscles more often - the biggest mistake women make is when they think it's not fulfilling they stop or give up.. men never give up until after they have come, and that only lasts so long.. they are almost always willing to try new things when it comes to sex..

If all else fails, then fine, go cheat, have some amazing sex, then go home and at some point in the near future treat your husband to what you just had, give him some amazing sex and appreciate them for trying or caring about you.

I feel like men can go out and cheat and go back and as long as their partner appreciates them they can continue to provide the support and attention they need, whereas women seem to get more caught up and are more likely to fall in love, or possibly out of love with the person they are with.. Whereas when men finally have good sex after a long period of time they just kinda feel like a big weight has been lifted off their shoulders and they can focus on more important things and responsibilities in their life.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You're the one who can't give an actual answer. You're counting on people to believe you when you say "just click and see all his posts, it's obvious", instead of just posting these examples as you're so sure they're there.

You just gave me the answers in the Health Freedom forum and the Economics forum. People can read those threads and see that you said that ridiculing people on this board makes you happy and that is one of your purposes for being on this board.

[Christian Liberty]

To add:

As for women who feel sexually unfulfilled - first, your husband probably has a sex drive that meets your beats yours, so get creative, try different things... toys, relaxing vacations or time alone, pornography, show him what you want, communicate, sexual therapy, romantic couples getaways, KEEP TRYING new things, different things... maybe your husband needs practice or needs to exercise his sex muscles more often - the biggest mistake women make is when they think it's not fulfilling they stop or give up.. men never give up until after they have come, and that only lasts so long.. they are almost always willing to try new things when it comes to sex..

If all else fails, then fine, go cheat, have some amazing sex, then go home and at some point in the near future treat your husband to what you just had, give him some amazing sex and appreciate them for trying or caring about you.

I feel like men can go out and cheat and go back and as long as their partner appreciates them they can continue to provide the support and attention they need, whereas women seem to get more caught up and are more likely to fall in love, or possibly out of love with the person they are with.. Whereas when men finally have good sex after a long period of time they just kinda feel like a big weight has been lifted off their shoulders and they can focus on more important things and responsibilities in their life.

You're a scumbag danno. You're an awful person that makes the liberty movement look bad.

Neg rep. Its unfortunate that I can only give one. This is downright awful.

[dannno]

For what its worth, I think any married man who goes to see a prostitute behind his wife's back is an absolute scumbag. I'd even say such a person makes your average cop look like a good guy in comparison. That's how disgustingly immoral that is. Even still, I wouldn't advocate putting them in prison.

That's a very one-sided view, a lot of men who cheat on their wives have scumbags for wives who don't appreciate them and keep them trapped by their obligations through marriage and of course their kids.

Sure, some men are scumbags and their wives hate them because they are scumbags, but conversely, some men are great men who do a lot for their wife and family and it is their wife who is the scumbag and doesn't appreciate them.

Ya, I think a husband has some responsibility for taking care of their kids and whatnot, but if he has a scumbag wife who doesn't appreciate what he does and he has sexual needs going unfulfilled and this is affecting his capacity to continue to care for his children, then a prostitute can be a very good thing. He can go out, get laid and then stop worrying about pleasing his shitty wife and focus on keeping things civil and taking care of his kids.

You seem to think men in these situation should just "suck it up" and not have sex and do everything for his wife and family, do a bunch of shit in particular for his shitty wife who he HOPES may have sex with him some day, but in the mean time he has a shitty attitude and feels like crap because he isn't getting laid. A prostitute can do wonders for this type of relationship because it keeps the man in a good mood, deal with his crappy wife and continue to care for his kids without letting all of this negativity affect their relationship which often leads to divorce and fucked up kids.

[Christian Liberty]

That's a very one-sided view, a lot of men who cheat on their wives have scumbags for wives who don't appreciate them and keep them trapped by their obligations through marriage and of course their kids.

Sure, some men are scumbags and their wives hate them because they are scumbags, but conversely, some men are great men who do a lot for their wife and family and it is their wife who is the scumbag and doesn't appreciate them.

Ya, I think a husband has some responsibility for taking care of their kids and whatnot, but if he has a scumbag wife who doesn't appreciate what he does and he has sexual needs going unfulfilled and this is affecting his capacity to continue to care for his children, then a prostitute can be a very good thing. He can go out, get laid and then stop worrying about pleasing his shitty wife and focus on keeping things civil and taking care of his kids.

You seem to think men in these situation should just "suck it up" and not have sex and do everything for his wife and family, do a bunch of shit in particular for his shitty wife who he HOPES may have sex with him some day, but in the mean time he has a shitty attitude and feels like crap because he isn't getting laid. A prostitute can do wonders for this type of relationship because it keeps the man in a good mood, deal with his crappy wife and continue to care for his kids without letting all of this negativity affect their relationship which often leads to divorce and fucked up kids.

:rolleyes:

I'm not even going to argue with you on this. Because it is so obviously ridiculous.

Yes, its possible, likely even, that the wife is a scumbag.

Maybe I should clarify a bit because I know men give into temptation and get frustrated in ugly marriages or whatever. Men who ADVOCATE married men seeing prostitutes are subhuman scumbags.

[PRB]

You just gave me the answers in the Health Freedom forum and the Economics forum. People can read those threads and see that you said that ridiculing people on this board makes you happy and that is one of your purposes for being on this board.

I don't see how that has to do with contradicting my position that I want less government and less taxes, or whatever you claim I am lying about.

[osan]

Good grief, it's the oldest profession, decriminalize it already.

This is prima facie proof of the corruption and ignorance of so many so-called "governments" who arbitrarily criminalize acts that have no victims and can therefore not be crimes by definition. Either these people are stupid beyond every yardstick in the universe put together, or they are that corrupt. Either way the result is the same and that is the only crime to which anyone may attest.

I reiterate my oft-repeated query: when will people have enough of being treated as the property of others? Apparently never.

[Christian Liberty]

This is prima facie proof of the corruption and ignorance of so many so-called "governments" who arbitrarily criminalize acts that have no victims and can therefore not be crimes by definition. Either these people are stupid beyond every yardstick in the universe put together, or they are that corrupt. Either way the result is the same and that is the only crime to which anyone may attest.

I reiterate my oft-repeated query: when will people have enough of being treated as the property of others? Apparently never.

I think most of the Christian right is just thinking of it in terms of the activity being immoral and falling for the whole legalization = approval nonsense that they are never actually consistent about.

I think the politicians (including those who claim to be part of the Christian right) are primarily powermongers who want to control people, at the Federal level in particular. There might be more genuinely ignorant people at the state level, but at the Federal level I think they just want to control.

[otherone]

This is prima facie proof of the corruption and ignorance of so many so-called "governments" who arbitrarily criminalize acts that have no victims and can therefore not be crimes by definition. Either these people are stupid beyond every yardstick in the universe put together, or they are that corrupt.

the State claimed "GAWD" as the victim first, and then, in the "Age of Enlightenment" (and Communism), "the pEoPlE".

[Christian Liberty]

the State claimed "GAWD" as the victim first, and then, in the "Age of Enlightenment" (and Communism), "the pEoPlE".

The State makes itself out to be God these days. They'd never claim the actual God in heaven as the victim (note that just because I'm saying they won't do it doesn't mean I think they should). They'd claim "society" or themselves as the victim.

I once saw someone refer to the victim of "victimless crimes" as "the political society and her laws." Downright absurd.

[Christian Liberty]

Laws can't truly be religiously neutral because everyone, including secularists, has a religion and everyone's views on policy are affected in some way by their religion. For me its the Bible, but for other people its varying other religions.

If you look at my exchanges with Dannno you'll see this in action. I want to legalize prostitution because I feel the Bible teaches that I should live at peace with peaceful people and that that law applies to governing officials as well. Dannno wants to legalize prostitution because he thinks it is utilitarian for people to engage in it. So, his religion is sexual libertinism and utilitarianism, and it is that religion that is motivating him to want to legalize prostitution. My Christianity, as unusual as it may be in this day and age, is what motivates me to want to legalize prostitution. So, even though we want the same law, we want it for very different reasons.

So, essentially, neutrality isn't possible. If we don't make decisions based on one religion presupposition, we will make them based on another one. That doesn't mean you have to support theocracy, it just means that whether you like it or not, you are going to apply your religious assumptions to political issues. I'm honest about this. I support the NAP for religious reasons.

[heavenlyboy34]

This is prima facie proof of the corruption and ignorance of so many so-called "governments" who arbitrarily criminalize acts that have no victims and can therefore not be crimes by definition. Either these people are stupid beyond every yardstick in the universe put together, or they are that corrupt. Either way the result is the same and that is the only crime to which anyone may attest.

I reiterate my oft-repeated query: when will people have enough of being treated as the property of others? Apparently never.
As long as it's safer and more comfortable than the alternatives. This is why I don't believe the vast majority of people who claim they want "liberty". What people usually mean is "liberty" to have their jollies (screw everyone who doesn't like it and/or is hurt by it in some way) and "safety" from any consequences of their actions.

[Philhelm]

As long as it's safer and more comfortable than the alternatives. This is why I don't believe the vast majority of people who claim they want "liberty". What people usually mean is "liberty" to have their jollies (screw everyone who doesn't like it and/or is hurt by it in some way) and "safety" from any consequences of their actions.

I just want sweeping chaos; complete destruction of the social order.

[otherone]

So, essentially, neutrality isn't possible. If we don't make decisions based on one religion presupposition, we will make them based on another one.

Neutrality means a man's Rights are INVIOLABLE.

[Christian Liberty]

Neutrality means a man's Rights are INVIOLABLE.

No, that isn't neutrality. First of all, it isn't even really true. Generally one has the right to life and liberty, but if one commits murder these rights are lost or at least severely restricted, and there is nothing wrong with this. Secondly, even to the extent that this is true (And I will say that it is mostly true) its still biased against people who feel differently.

[juleswin]

Substance, anyone? Apparently you didn't provide a serious post response, but validated the comment by casting ridicule at it. That is not rebuttal. My point remains that some here only want a libertarian approach to personal liberty that universally presumes God is irrelevant, that the only authoritarian aspect is that coming from social conservatives, or that the moral law is necessarily separate from the civil law.

One can debate those presumptions in either direction, but the point is those are not libertarian principles, nor should be baked into its cake. I reject the one size fits all take where we must all agree on "the" unitary libertarian view of these issues, regardless of worldview. There isn't one. I agree with Paul (who has made similar "unserious" comments, by your take) that these matters should be decided locally, which means they will, and should be handled in different ways.

Sorry for being so dismissive but I really wanted to believe your post was a sick joke but I should have known it wasn't. The problem with your thinking is that the libertarian approach is the only approach that allows everybody else to layer their own belief on top. It always religious folks to enforce their way of life amongst the people who agree to it and at the same time allows non theists or just immoral people to do as they like. Anything else would be exclusionary on the people who wants to be left alone.

Btw principle is the need to be left alone. Doesn't mean those people will live in seclusion after they are left alone. Its like wanting to buy blank A4 paper when you go to the book store, you want it blank not because you want it to remain blank but because you want to apply your own design/writing to it. That is the libertarian principle.

[Christian Liberty]

Sorry for being so dismissive but I really wanted to believe your post was a sick joke but I should have known it wasn't. The problem with your thinking is that the libertarian approach is the only approach that allows everybody else to layer their own belief on top. It always religious folks to enforce their way of life amongst the people who agree to it and at the same time allows non theists or just immoral people to do as they like. Anything else would be exclusionary on the people who wants to be left alone.

Btw principle is the need to be left alone. Doesn't mean those people will live in seclusion after they are left alone. Its like wanting to buy blank A4 paper when you go to the book store, you want it blank not because you want it to remain blank but because you want to apply your own design/writing to it. That is the libertarian principle.

I didn't completely agree with his post but it really wasn't that bad. A lot of what he said was very similar to things that Ron Paul has said.

And, I suspect that this guy supports liberty on 98% of issues. He doesn't strike me as the anti-liberty type in general.

But, I still think that that post misses the clear Biblical facts of how the Apostle Paul dealt with sexual sin. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 deals with that, and it says it isn't the church's business unless it happens in the church. Done. Period. That's it.

[osan]

the State claimed "GAWD" as the victim first, and then, in the "Age of Enlightenment" (and Communism), "the pEoPlE".


Yeah, well I can claim my dick is only 50' long or that the moon is made of green cheese. Bare naked assertions do not provide proof or other justification. They are, simply put, pure bullshit until they are backed up with unbreakable reason. I have yet to see an example of this. 99.99++% of all so-called "law" is arbitrary bullshit foisted upon people for no other reason than "because we say so". I relish the day, which will likely never come in my lifetime, when decent people will decide they have had enough and will finally throw off the tyrants once and for all by any means necessary... which will probably mean great violence, but so be it because I for one am sick to death of these low rent pimps who think we are their chattel to dispose of as they see fit. Let them all be killed as far as care. The world will be a greatly improved place.

I am actually beginning to feel a book coming on... not that the world needs yet another on of those.

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, well I can claim my dick is only 50' long or that the moon is made of green cheese. Bare naked assertions do not provide proof or other justification. They are, simply put, pure bullshit until they are backed up with unbreakable reason. I have yet to see an example of this. 99.99++% of all so-called "law" is arbitrary bullshit foisted upon people for no other reason than "because we say so". I relish the day, which will likely never come in my lifetime, when decent people will decide they have had enough and will finally throw off the tyrants once and for all by any means necessary... which will probably mean great violence, but so be it because I for one am sick to death of these low rent pimps who think we are their chattel to dispose of as they see fit. Let them all be killed as far as care. The world will be a greatly improved place.

I am actually beginning to feel a book coming on... not that the world needs yet another on of those.

I could imagine you writing some good libertarian fiction actually. You seem the creative type.

[Christian Liberty]

You know, for some reason or another I've never felt any kind of passion for this issue (prostitution.) Don't get me wrong, there is no doubt in my mind that legalization is the correct position. But, this has never been an issue that angers me the same way gun control, drug laws (even though I don't have any desire to do any illegal drugs), the Fed, war, income taxes, taxation in general,
the TSA, the NSA, the Patriot Act, or even ridiculous speeding laws, laws forbidding gambling and cops as heroized tax ticks has.

I almost feel "meh" towards it, and I think the libertines are a big part of the reason why. Now, again, I want prostitution legalized, but at the same time, its one of the least important issues to me. If I had to pick one restriction of liberty that annoys me the least, this might be it.

[parocks]

:(
My man better not, that's all I'm sayin'.;)



I agree with you there. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyway.




Good point, I never thought of that.:o




Some do, see Rothbardian Girl's post.



I don't think men would be running to prostitutes if it were legal. I just don't. I could be wrong though, I'm not a man.



:eek: You tellin' me my husband does things he doesn't want to just to get a piece of tail?!;)


Changes would likely take place with people who are not currently in relationships. Less so with people who are in relationships. Single people going to the prostitutes vs going to some dance club trying to get laid. Things that are currently done out of a sense of necessity to try to get laid vs going to the prostitute.

You might be able to find some feminists who can support legalized prostitution for some ideological reason, but typically, single guys aren't going to deal with bs to try to get laid if there are legal prostitutes around.

[parocks]

You know, for some reason or another I've never felt any kind of passion for this issue (prostitution.) Don't get me wrong, there is no doubt in my mind that legalization is the correct position. But, this has never been an issue that angers me the same way gun control, drug laws (even though I don't have any desire to do any illegal drugs), the Fed, war, income taxes, taxation in general,
the TSA, the NSA, the Patriot Act, or even ridiculous speeding laws, laws forbidding gambling and cops as heroized tax ticks has.

I almost feel "meh" towards it, and I think the libertines are a big part of the reason why. Now, again, I want prostitution legalized, but at the same time, its one of the least important issues to me. If I had to pick one restriction of liberty that annoys me the least, this might be it.

Prostitution has pretty much always been illegal. So many of the things that are on the top of your list, and most peoples list, are things that weren't restricted 100 years ago. It might be a question of getting new freedoms vs getting the old ones back.

[osan]

"No victim, no crime?" Here we go again with a one dimensional, presumptively secular approach that confuses libertarian principle with culturally liberal sentiment.

Note is taken of your bare-naked assertion with absolutely nothing to support it. While we're at it, the moon is made of green cheese and my dick is only 50 feet long.

If I start in with rolling my eyes, I fear I will be unable to stop until they roll right out their sockets. But let us see if you improve as you go along.


GOD is victimized by prostitution

Nope. You get worse. Firstly, someone needs to slap you hard for having the temerity to speak for God. Unless you can prove this assertion with unbreakable logic backed with facts, vis-à-vis the usual bullshit that accompanies this brand of editorial content, your credibility falls to below-zero values. I challenge you - nay, I DEFY you to demonstrate your claim that God gets all butt-hurt by prostitution. My prediction here is that if you man-up and actually try, you will fail in some spectacular fashions such that I or one of our other esteemed colleagues here will have small game of demolishing your argument in such fashion that if you possess the least human decency you will feel such burning shame for having opened your mouth prior to engaging your brain, such as it may be, that you will feel compelled to wear a paper bag over your head not only in public but in private as well for not a day less than a year.

So please, have at it... that, or admit that this assertion is hubris itself and meriting not even ridicule or disdain, but mere dismissal. Choice is yours; lets see what sort of man you really are.


(the Holy Spirit grieves when sins are committed).

Ignoring that this claim suffers from the same malady as your previous ones, the tacit presumption under which you labor is that prostitution is a "sin" - another unproven assertion for which proof will likely prove impossibly elusive.

Thus far, you are batting a nice and even .000

Kudos for consistency.




It represents a misuse of His property and His intent for the Creation. The practice thus does violate the consent of a party relevant to the transaction. If one responds that not all of us believe in God or think God should be reflected in "the law" (civil law), it can be countered that not all of us believe the law can be neutral, or that de-facto agnosticism should be the default position of the law when it comes to reflecting (or ignoring) His property interests.


Blah blah blah... more of the same... you're putting everyone to sleep here with this trite and sadly clapped out nonsense. Now, if you want to get people interested, provide that factual evidence and ironclad reasoning that would perhaps make you eligible for a Nobel Prize for establishing that which no man has yet managed.


Those stressing that the social right not force 'their' morality-based views on others apparently prefer that the social left force 'their' morality-neutral views on others through the law. On this and other issues, some here only prefer a "libertarian" stance that discomfits the social right. In fact, however the government applies the law, somebody may reasonably view its stance as being a "busybody."

Finally, something resembling sense. Credit where due.


So this suggests a bit of toleration of multiple solutions or approaches to each social issue question is in order, roughly translating to the "localism" Ron Paul has advocated. I.e., let the Vegas area people have their bunny ranches, let the Bible belt area people have their outright bans. "Mind your own business" applies to respecting both communities, in their manner of figuring these things out.

Bullshit. Rights are rights and do not abrogate with local fashion. Were it the case otherwise, then rights would in fact not be rights at all, but mere privileges bestowed based on what some arbitrarily constituted "authority" decided to grant on Monday morning, perhaps only to rescind on Monday afternoon.

It seems to me your understanding of "rights" is wildly lacking. Now, we can correct that here, or you can pitch a fit or go dark or just stick your tongue our at us, call us poopie-faces, and run away. Choice is yours.

And yes, I am tough on you because I have enough respect for you to call bullshit what it is in the hope that you will seek to learn something different and make better your understanding of things that are actually pretty important to the quality of your daily life. but if you want to respond by calling me an asshole, that is also your choice.

[otherone]

And, I suspect that this guy supports liberty on 98% of issues. He doesn't strike me as the anti-liberty type in general.



sure. like most people...he believes the state's job is to shill for Gawd's will.

[Christian Liberty]

Prostitution has pretty much always been illegal. So many of the things that are on the top of your list, and most peoples list, are things that weren't restricted 100 years ago. It might be a question of getting new freedoms vs getting the old ones back.

Well, I'm only 19 years old and I don't remember a time when any of the above things on my list weren't the case.

I think its more how drugs have been actively declared war on by the US government, which has led to spending billions if not trillions of dollars, and led to millions of people being locked up. By contrast, that isn't really the case for prostitution. It goes without saying why gun ownership is important, last line of defense against tyranny. And the rest are issues that pretty much affect every person without exception.

And to be clear, I'm not trying to undermine the plight of people who have been negatively affected by prostitution prohibition either. But, for some reason, this law more annoys me than makes me angry.


Note is taken of your bare-naked assertion with absolutely nothing to support it. While we're at it, the moon is made of green cheese and my dick is only 50 feet long.

If I start in with rolling my eyes, I fear I will be unable to stop until they roll right out their sockets. But let us see if you improve as you go along.



Nope. You get worse. Firstly, someone needs to slap you hard for having the temerity to speak for God. Unless you can prove this assertion with unbreakable logic backed with facts, vis-à-vis the usual bullshit that accompanies this brand of editorial content, your credibility falls to below-zero values. I challenge you - nay, I DEFY you to demonstrate your claim that God gets all butt-hurt by prostitution. My prediction here is that if you man-up and actually try, you will fail in some spectacular fashions such that I or one of our other esteemed colleagues here will have small game of demolishing your argument in such fashion that if you possess the least human decency you will feel such burning shame for having opened your mouth prior to engaging your brain, such as it may be, that you will feel compelled to wear a paper bag over your head not only in public but in private as well for not a day less than a year.

So please, have at it... that, or admit that this assertion is hubris itself and meriting not even ridicule or disdain, but mere dismissal. Choice is yours; lets see what sort of man you really are.



Ignoring that this claim suffers from the same malady as your previous ones, the tacit presumption under which you labor is that prostitution is a "sin" - another unproven assertion for which proof will likely prove impossibly elusive.

Thus far, you are batting a nice and even .000

Kudos for consistency.





Blah blah blah... more of the same... you're putting everyone to sleep here with this trite and sadly clapped out nonsense. Now, if you want to get people interested, provide that factual evidence and ironclad reasoning that would perhaps make you eligible for a Nobel Prize for establishing that which no man has yet managed.



Finally, something resembling sense. Credit where due.



Bullshit. Rights are rights and do not abrogate with local fashion. Were it the case otherwise, then rights would in fact not be rights at all, but mere privileges bestowed based on what some arbitrarily constituted "authority" decided to grant on Monday morning, perhaps only to rescind on Monday afternoon.

It seems to me your understanding of "rights" is wildly lacking. Now, we can correct that here, or you can pitch a fit or go dark or just stick your tongue our at us, call us poopie-faces, and run away. Choice is yours.

And yes, I am tough on you because I have enough respect for you to call bullshit what it is in the hope that you will seek to learn something different and make better your understanding of things that are actually pretty important to the quality of your daily life. but if you want to respond by calling me an asshole, that is also your choice.

Where do rights come from?

[Christian Liberty]

sure. like most people...he believes the state's job is to shill for Gawd's will.

I don't think he even stated his opinion at all beyond the fact that it should be handled locally, which I agree with, albeit perhaps for different reasons than he does (I don't think any state has the right to forbid these actions, but I think FedGov preventing them from doing so would also be wrong.) He didn't actually say he wants government to ban prostitution.

[osan]

They should legalize it

No. It should be decriminalized. "Legalization" implies the authority to regulate this activity. No such authority exists. To accept legalization is to accede to self-assumed authority that has no basis in fact or reason. This is tantamount to an accession to arbitrary rule. What is granted can be as readily taken away for any reason or for no reason at all. This is how the tyrant operates and it is way past time that the people of this world stood tall and said "no more!" Until that time, they deserve every outrage foisted upon them and my pity I withhold.

[juleswin]

And, I suspect that this guy supports liberty on 98% of issues. He doesn't strike me as the anti-liberty type in general.

And the chimp genome is 98% similar to that of the human. The only difference is one will mangle your fingers if you got in his way i.e. not similar where it counts


But, I still think that that post misses the clear Biblical facts of how the Apostle Paul dealt with sexual sin. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 deals with that, and it says it isn't the church's business unless it happens in the church. Done. Period. That's it.

I am not very familiar with the verses in the bible but you do agree with me right?

[Christian Liberty]

No. It hold be decriminalized. "Legalization" implies the authority to regulate this activity. No such authority exists. To accept legalization is to accede to self-assumed authority that has no basis in fact or reason. This is tantamount to an accession to arbitrary rule. What is granted can be as readily taken away for any reason or for no reason at all. This is how the tyrant operates and it is way past time that the people of this world stood tall and said "no more!" Until that time, the deserve every outrage foisted upon them and my pity I withhold.

Under current law, decriminalization means that there are still civil penalties. In states where marijuana has been decriminalized there are still fines for use.

So, technically, "legalization" is the correct term to use to describe a situation in which the activity in question is no longer prohibited by law. Yes, I understand the laws are illegitimate and unjust and I do not mean to imply moral justifiability for those who enforce them, but the correct term still is "legalization."

Now, some want to legalize and regulate, I don't want the government regulating at all beyond* ensuring that nobody is forced into prostitution and that children aren't being exploited.



*And yes, I understand that the end-game goal is to eliminate all statism and to make any governments that exist operate voluntaristically on the free market. I completely favor this. But, much like I don't complain when the police arrest a serial killer even though I ultimately don't think a statist police department should exist, I would not complain about the State protecting people from being forced to be prostitutes and preventing those who are too young to consent from being prostitiutes as long as they do exist.

[Christian Liberty]

And the chimp genome is 98% similar to that of the human. The only difference is one will mangle your fingers if you got in his way i.e. not similar where it counts

I've got little patience for actual authoritarians but I don't think PeaceandFreedom is. Give him a chance to clarify his position.




I am not very familiar with the verses in the bible but you do agree with me right?


That prostitution should be legal? Yes, I 100% agree with that. But I do personally disprove of it and believe that its immoral, and I don't think unrepentant prostitutes or people who are unrepentant of buying the services of a prostitute are qualified to become a member of a church.

[otherone]

I don't think he even stated his opinion at all beyond the fact that it should be handled locally, which I agree with, albeit perhaps for different reasons than he does (I don't think any state has the right to forbid these actions, but I think FedGov preventing them from doing so would also be wrong.) He didn't actually say he wants government to ban prostitution.

reread his post. claiming supernatural victimhood is anti-liberty.

[PRB]

I've got little patience for actual authoritarians but I don't think PeaceandFreedom is. Give him a chance to clarify his position.

That prostitution should be legal? Yes, I 100% agree with that. But I do personally disprove of it and believe that its immoral, and I don't think unrepentant prostitutes or people who are unrepentant of buying the services of a prostitute are qualified to become a member of a church.

what about age of consent? should we repeal those laws?

[otherone]

Where do rights come from?

From the assumption of Equality. Without Equality is slavery.

[heavenlyboy34]

I just want sweeping chaos; complete destruction of the social order.

VIVE LA REVOLUCION! ;)

[Christian Liberty]

reread his post. claiming supernatural victimhood is anti-liberty.

I'm still not sure what he means by that though. I could be wrong, but I more read that post as a philosophical challenge of secular philosophy than literally saying that God should be considered a victim according to the laws on the books.

But again, I could be wrong. I really want to debate him on this, actually. I don't think this kind of response is helping.

Mind you, sometimes someone is a scumbag and deserves to be called out as such. FrankRep was rightly shouted down by the entire forum for defending the Kelly Thomas murder. The guys who defended that cop who shot at a car with kids inside, similarly, deserved unconditional condemnation. Its IMMEDIATELY obvious to any decent person why those things are atrocities.

I don't think the same applies here. Mind you, I have been clear regarding what side I am on, and it is most certainly not the side of prohibition. But, for those who support prohibition for whatever reasons, I want to be able to debate them rather than just calling them names.

what about age of consent? should we repeal those laws?

What does that have to do with anything? I'm talking about adults here. I'm not sure exactly how age of consent should work, or how it would work in a free society. Its obvious to me that an 18 year old who has sex with a 17 or 16 year old girlfriend shouldn't be criminalized. It seems equally obvious to me that there's absolutely no circumstance in which an adult could have sex with a 6 year old that would not be rape. Where exactly the line is I'm not sure, so I'll leave it to someone who's not me to figure out.

[Christian Liberty]

From the assumption of Equality. Without Equality is slavery.

Equality is antithetical to freedom.

[PRB]

What does that have to do with anything? I'm talking about adults here. I'm not sure exactly how age of consent should work, or how it would work in a free society. Its obvious to me that an 18 year old who has sex with a 17 or 16 year old girlfriend shouldn't be criminalized. It seems equally obvious to me that there's absolutely no circumstance in which an adult could have sex with a 6 year old that would not be rape. Where exactly the line is I'm not sure, so I'll leave it to someone who's not me to figure out.

Why should only adults get to consent? I'm glad you admit you don't know how a free society will deal with it.

[otherone]

Equality is antithetical to freedom.

EQUALITY OF RIGHTS; what are you referring to?

[Christian Liberty]

Why should only adults get to consent?

Again, I don't know exactly where the line is. There are certain ages that are gray areas that we could quibble about one way or another. But it seems painfully obvious that a six year old is not mature enough to consent. The NAP doesn't strictly apply to children, and rightly not, because they are not as mature and still need parents to take care of them.




I'm glad you admit you don't know how a free society will deal with it.

I don't know exactly how a free society would deal with it. If I were an arbitrator being hired to do so, I could use libertarian principles to derive a solution. But it is a continuum issue that's going to have gray areas. And I think the law should recognize the reality of those gray areas.

[Christian Liberty]

EQUALITY OF RIGHTS; what are you referring to?

Oh, Ok, fair enough, I had something else in mind. But just because rights are equal doesn't tell us anything about what those rights are. How do you know prostitution is a right?

[Suzanimal]

My replies are in red but the whole "out of his/her league" is nonsense. Sexual attraction is deeper than that and if you stay stuck on the superficial you're missing out.


Wait a minute, women ALREADY do that to men, and they do it to them during their sexual prime.. Younger women can have sex out of their league whenever they want, if a man wants sex out of his league he usually has to pay for it. As they say, the top 85-90% of women have open sexual access to some man, if not MANY men, in the top 10-15% simply because men are more willing and ready to have sex on a consistent basis without emotion involved.

Now, a lot of men in the lower %s can appear at times to be in the top 10-15%, especially if a woman is drunk and he can get lucky once in a while, but for the most part a lot of men get screwed (or not screwed) during this time in their lives while women can go sew their oats wherever they want.

Then you have the issue where birth control and SSRIs are decreasing the sexual desires of women today - no wonder so many men are frustrated. We have more open sexuality these days, and women can have all the sex they want, but they are more selective and this leaves a lot of men out of the picture until women stop having sex out of their league and settle for a relationship with a guy who is in their league.

Women get a free pass to do whatever they want until they have to settle for a beta, and while some women appreciate the man who falls in love with them, others keep the beta locked up in these weird rules and often refuse to have sex with them.

This isn't to say that women don't have their own issues, women usually find that their sexual adventures and one night stands that they get to have endlessly when they are younger ultimately become unfulfilling and want more emotion and romance. Ok.

(I can't speak for all women but I cared deeply for every man I've ever had sex with (not very many). I never used sex to sow wild oats - I used booze and drugs, like a normal person.:))

But here's the kicker, and this is where I'll argue prostitution will be a good thing -

1. If a man ONLY wants sex from women and not a romantic relationship, then a woman who he does end up with will feel unfulfilled by the relationship and it might be better to let those men stick to prostitution and one night stands. I would argue there are not many men in this category, though they do exist.
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.


2. If a man wants sex and a romantic relationship, then we have two options where prostitution can benefit and extend the relationship, assuming the wife doesn't ever find out what he is doing:
Okay, here's where I have a problem. Lying. Don't lie to your spouse, not cool.

a. The man finds a woman who he is attracted to and has a good relationship, but he finds his sexual needs going unfulfilled (which are probably much stronger than yours if you are rolling your eyes and you shouldn't judge) - a prostitute, on occasion, in moderation can be very healthy for this type of relationship because the man doesn't feel trapped and uncomfortable in his own skin and unfulfilled and can continue a romantic relationship and life partnership with the woman he is married to who refuses to fulfill her husbands sexual needs.

b. The man finds a woman who he is not very attracted to, but they do find that they are the best each of them can find and do have a relatively fulfilling relationship with moderate sexual activity. This guy, although he is having sex on occasion may feel unfulfilled from these encounters because his wife is not very attractive and will feel very trapped and unable to express his true sexual nature - in this case a prostitute, on occasion to help spice things up a little can be a very good thing for a relationship as long as it does not detract from the attention he is giving to the woman he's with.
(I don't even know how to respond to these scenarios, I was under the impression you're suppose to marry someone you love. Maybe the wife has some kind of hormonal problem and needs help? I find it odd how married couples don't talk about sex.:confused: My husband gets embarrassed when I talk about it (not sex in general but our sex life)but some shit just needs to be said to keep a relationship healthy. When either spouse starts losing interest, it's time to figure out what's wrong and how to fix it because sex is very important in a relationship - to men and women.

Now, I don't really expect very many women to understand this, if any. Of course I know a lot of Christians will be horrified because it goes against the rules in the book they believe in. Not that there's anything wrong with finding somebody who you want to commit to in that way, if both people are happy, then great. But the bottom line is not every partnership is going to result in a healthy sexual relationship and some relationships - and the men in particular - can benefit from prostitution and this can help to keep a healthier relationship with their partner.

[PRB]

EQUALITY OF RIGHTS; what are you referring to?
my guess is he's referring to equality of results

[otherone]

Oh, Ok, fair enough, I had something else in mind. But just because rights are equal doesn't tell us anything about what those rights are. How do you know prostitution is a right?

If your behavior doesn't affect me, then what Right do I have to stop you?

[PRB]

Oh, Ok, fair enough, I had something else in mind. But just because rights are equal doesn't tell us anything about what those rights are. How do you know prostitution is a right?

Because the Constitution says it is.

[PRB]

If your behavior doesn't affect me, then what Right do I have to stop you?

So if John Doe murders Jane Blow, what right have you to stop or punish him unless it affects you?

[otherone]

my guess is he's referring to equality of results

Ostensibly, but that has nothing to do with the origin of Rights.

[otherone]

So if John Doe murders Jane Blow, what right have you to stop or punish him unless it affects you?
None. You have no Right, though you may have justification.
Awesome. You just invented legitimate government!

[PRB]

None. You have no Right, though you may have justification.
Awesome. You just invented legitimate government!

justification without right? that sounds like either a contradiction or semantic distinction

[otherone]

justification without right? that sounds like either a contradiction or semantic distinction

What Rights does government have?

[osan]

Where do rights come from?

Where does the blue of the sky come from? It inheres from the very nature of oxygen, which is to say that the blue is part and parcel of what oxygen IS.

The same may be said of our rights. Our rights inhere of the very fabric of what we are. We are individual, sentient beings who come into the world by strictly mysterious means and there is NOTHING to which any many has yet been able to point that convincingly demonstrates the authority of one man over another. But one thing we can say about ourselves is that no man has yet demonstrated a claim to life superior to that of any other man. That is what is actually meant when one speaks properly of "equality".

If a man lives alone on a planet, his rights are apparent because there is nobody else present to alter, abridge, diminish, disparage, thwart, or otherwise violate them. He is free to do as he pleases. He may go about clothed or naked; may speak or remain silent; speak poetically or curse wildly; remain celibate or yank his crank like a wild-man. His choices are his and there is nobody to interfere with them.

If a second person is added, something new arises: the equal claims to life of the other, implying the equal right to act. But the real difference arises when there is conflict between the wishes of the two occupants. One wants to build a bonfire and the other wishes there to be complete darkness. One desire is not superior to another - they are merely different, each equally valid. In such cases we may presume the planet to be large enough that the two occupants may stake out sufficient territory such that they may each act in accord with their individual desires without trespassing upon the rights of the other.

A third person materializes and for the first time in history there exists the potential for the wills of two to weld against that of the remaining man. Has anything changed in principle? No. What has changed, however, is the material reality of raw physical power where the two allies may prove physically sufficient to overwhelm the third such that he is forced to do the bidding of the two who act in concert as a super organism, larger and presumably more powerful than the third. Therefore, the only thing that has really changed is the fact that a group may now act as one with superior material force to coerce behavior in the rest.

Three, four, forty... such numbers are not likely to result in such things happening, but four thousands appears to make avoidance of this brand of behavior very unlikely. People are, by their very nature, hopelessly corrupt even where they do not intend to be. If an expedient measure will get them what they want, people are mostly willing to rationalize their crimes and other violations against their fellows to almost any extent one might care to imagine. We see this in our lives every single day almost no matter where on the planet one may find himself. People instinctively understand the power of groups over individuals and have come to conveniently accept this when such exercise of brute strength provides them with those things they desire. They often wail like banshees, however, when the application of such means offends those desires and their suddenly delicate sensibilities. There is no end to human hypocrisy, rationalizing to convenience, and the bone-marrow corruption that underpins the willingness to engage in or at least tolerate the perfidious behaviors of bands of humans pursuant to whatever ends they have deemed worthy of such vile behavior. This is how human beings are and there are only TWO polar opposite ways of dealing with this: capitulate in toto and hope that on the whole you come out at least even, or butcher the life from anyone who dares place his unwanted hands upon your rightful territories.

Personally, I am 100% in favor of taking whatever material measures one deems necessary against anyone showing the temerity and disrespect required to trespass upon his fellows, for such men are not worthy even of basic life in any measure, in my opinion. When you intentionally trespass against another, you forfeit all claims to life and that life rightfully passes into the temporary ownership of those you have wronged or those who would come to the aid of the injured party. Whether they remove life from you or just give you a sound beating should be left to their discretion, though as a matter of personal view I also believe in sparing life if it makes sense to do so. But I do not feel any right to impose that viewpoint upon others. Violation of another should hold the inherent potential for terminal results. Were this to be practiced as it ought, the world would be a VERY different, and I daresay a greatly improved place. I do not for a minute believe that people would be running about murdering one another willy-nilly for the merest of violations, but rather that the responses would typically be far and away better measured. That much faith I do retain in men. However, it must also be acknowledged that a return to so sensible a way of human relations would have its rough spots until such time as people came to their proper wits in how to live with their neighbors. I do suspect, however, that this period of adjustment would likely be short because people like to live and if an action risks potentially terminal confrontations, the sense of enlightened self-interest would rapidly take over and guide people to the most rational solutions to conflict.

As things stand, general humanity is so heavily loused up that what now exists as "normal" cannot, in my estimation, be sustained for that much longer.

[PRB]

What Rights does government have?

only the ones which are justified.

[otherone]

only the ones which are justified.

lol. Now you are playing games.

God has no Rights
The State has no Rights
The People has no Rights.
That's why they can never be the victim.
Only individuals have Rights.

[dannno]

You're a scumbag danno. You're an awful person that makes the liberty movement look bad.

Neg rep. Its unfortunate that I can only give one. This is downright awful.

The problem is you really have no idea what the point of my posts are. You think I'm encouraging people to cheat, when it's really the opposite, but you don't realize it for whatever reason.

The point of my post was not to encourage women to cheat, it was to encourage women who are planning on cheating or getting a divorce (and have kids) anyway to figure out ways of avoiding doing so, at every length possible, and then when there are no options left how to do it without hurting your husband and your marriage. The number one goal for me would be for people who have working relationships to stay together, if for nothing else, for the kids. Sex really shouldn't have to be a reason why people get divorced, but it often is. If it is impossible for someone to fulfill their sexual needs within their marriage and it is affecting them negatively (sex is very healthy physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually and can be very detrimental to not have sex, especially for someone with a strong sex drive) then they can fulfill them outside of marriage and continue your partnership with their spouse, be appreciative and supportive of them, and keep the relationship together then I see that is better than getting a divorce if you have kids.

[juleswin]

lol. Now you are playing games.

This is what trolls do. They play games till they frustrate the hell out of u. He wants us to believe that a woman who is mature enough to be a prostitute doesn't know he has to buy some kind of cheap police protection? or doesn't have a friend and family looking out for her? Trolls like him whats us to waste all our time arguing about scenarios that would have a low probability of happening.

[Christian Liberty]

Because the Constitution says it is.

No it doesn't. And even if it did, so what? The Constitution doesn't have any intrinsic infallibility attached to it. Constitutional rights only make sense if we say that the writers of the constitution simply recognize rights that ultimately come from God.

Where does the blue of the sky come from? It inheres from the very nature of oxygen, which is to say that the blue is part and parcel of what oxygen IS.

The same may be said of our rights. Our rights inhere of the very fabric of what we are. We are individual, sentient beings who come into the world by strictly mysterious means and there is NOTHING to which any many has yet been able to point that convincingly demonstrates the authority of one man over another. But one thing we can say about ourselves is that no man has yet demonstrated a claim to life superior to that of any other man. That is what is actually meant when one speaks properly of "equality".

If a man lives alone on a planet, his rights are apparent because there is nobody else present to alter, abridge, diminish, disparage, thwart, or otherwise violate them. He is free to do as he pleases. He may go about clothed or naked; may speak or remain silent; speak poetically or curse wildly; remain celibate or yank his crank like a wild-man. His choices are his and there is nobody to interfere with them.

If a second person is added, something new arises: the equal claims to life of the other, implying the equal right to act. But the real difference arises when there is conflict between the wishes of the two occupants. One wants to build a bonfire and the other wishes there to be complete darkness. One desire is not superior to another - they are merely different, each equally valid. In such cases we may presume the planet to be large enough that the two occupants may stake out sufficient territory such that they may each act in accord with their individual desires without trespassing upon the rights of the other.

A third person materializes and for the first time in history there exists the potential for the wills of two to weld against that of the remaining man. Has anything changed in principle? No. What has changed, however, is the material reality of raw physical power where the two allies may prove physically sufficient to overwhelm the third such that he is forced to do the bidding of the two who act in concert as a super organism, larger and presumably more powerful than the third. Therefore, the only thing that has really changed is the fact that a group may now act as one with superior material force to coerce behavior in the rest.

Three, four, forty... such numbers are not likely to result in such things happening, but four thousands appears to make avoidance of this brand of behavior very unlikely. People are, by their very nature, hopelessly corrupt even where they do not intend to be. If an expedient measure will get them what they want, people are mostly willing to rationalize their crimes and other violations against their fellows to almost any extent one might care to imagine. We see this in our lives every single day almost no matter where on the planet one may find himself. People instinctively understand the power of groups over individuals and have come to conveniently accept this when such exercise of brute strength provides them with those things they desire. They often wail like banshees, however, when the application of such means offends those desires and their suddenly delicate sensibilities. There is no end to human hypocrisy, rationalizing to convenience, and the bone-marrow corruption that underpins the willingness to engage in or at least tolerate the perfidious behaviors of bands of humans pursuant to whatever ends they have deemed worthy of such vile behavior. This is how human beings are and there are only TWO polar opposite ways of dealing with this: capitulate in toto and hope that on the whole you come out at least even, or butcher the life from anyone who dares place his unwanted hands upon your rightful territories.

Personally, I am 100% in favor of taking whatever material measures one deems necessary against anyone showing the temerity and disrespect required to trespass upon his fellows, for such men are not worthy even of basic life in any measure, in my opinion. When you intentionally trespass against another, you forfeit all claims to life and that life rightfully passes into the temporary ownership of those you have wronged or those who would come to the aid of the injured party. Whether they remove life from you or just give you a sound beating should be left to their discretion, though as a matter of personal view I also believe in sparing life if it makes sense to do so. But I do not feel any right to impose that viewpoint upon others. Violation of another should hold the inherent potential for terminal results. Were this to be practiced as it ought, the world would be a VERY different, and I daresay a greatly improved place. I do not for a minute believe that people would be running about murdering one another willy-nilly for the merest of violations, but rather that the responses would typically be far and away better measured. That much faith I do retain in men. However, it must also be acknowledged that a return to so sensible a way of human relations would have its rough spots until such time as people came to their proper wits in how to live with their neighbors. I do suspect, however, that this period of adjustment would likely be short because people like to live and if an action risks potentially terminal confrontations, the sense of enlightened self-interest would rapidly take over and guide people to the most rational solutions to conflict.

As things stand, general humanity is so heavily loused up that what now exists as "normal" cannot, in my estimation, be sustained for that much longer.

The sky being blue is a fact.

But you being free to engage in prostitution, or any number of other peaceful activities, is not in fact the case. Cops being thugs who will prevent you from doing so, using violence if needed, is a fact.

I say this is wrong because the Bible says so. What objective reason do you have?

[PRB]

lol. Now you are playing games.

God has no Rights
The State has no Rights
The People has no Rights.
That's why they can never be the victim.
Only individuals have Rights.

God has no rights?? I think we talk 2 different languages.

States are but people, people have rights. People is just plural for individual.

[PRB]

The Constitution doesn't have any intrinsic infallibility attached to it. Constitutional rights only make sense if we say that the writers of the constitution simply recognize rights that ultimately come from God.

Since the Constitution WAS written by people who understood the truth, so yes, the Constitution is intrinsically infallible, or else you're a liberal flag burning hippie.

[Christian Liberty]

Since the Constitution WAS written by people who understood the truth, so yes, the Constitution is intrinsically infallible, or else you're a liberal flag burning hippie.

:rolleyes:

The constitution allows the government to steal property as long as "A fair price" is paid for it.

The Bible says (1 Kings 21) that government leaders who steal property are thieves, and if they kill to enforce their evil edicts they are murderers.

The US Constitution is wrong.

[otherone]

I say this is wrong because the Bible says so. What objective reason do you have?

who has the Right to stop me?

[otherone]

God has no rights?? I think we talk 2 different languages.

States are but people, people have rights. People is just plural for individual.

Collectives have no Rights, comrade.

[PRB]

Collectives have no Rights, comrade.

that's like saying people can't ride drive cars because cars only have 1 driver seat.

[Christian Liberty]

who has the Right to stop me?

In a vaccuum, rights don't exist. They have to come from somewhere.

[Christian Liberty]

In a vaccuum, rights don't exist. They have to come from somewhere.

I actually agree that nobody has the right to stop you, but again, I make that claim based on my theistic worldview. God prohibits people from using violence against people who would engage in peaceful immoral acts such as prostitution.

But, if atheism is true, morality doesn't really exist, and so I have a right to use violence to stop you from doing whatever, or to ask government to do so on my behalf.

Rights cannot exist without God. The term is meaningless without some higher authority to define it.

[otherone]

In a vaccuum, rights don't exist. They have to come from somewhere.

Yes. Kindergarten. Or the Golden Rule. As long as there are at least 2 people, Rights exist. Robinson Crusoe didn't need them.

[otherone]

Rights cannot exist without God. The term is meaningless without some higher authority to define it.

Only according to Theists. Thankfully you people have some supernatural chaperone.

[otherone]

that's like saying people can't ride drive cars because cars only have 1 driver seat.

WUT???

[dannno]

My replies are in red but the whole "out of his/her league" is nonsense. Sexual attraction is deeper than that and if you stay stuck on the superficial you're missing out.

Sexual attraction is different for men and women. For women, it usually has more basis on a man's status (edit: see my next post for definition of status!!) and magnetic personality and looks are also part of it, for men it has more to do with looks and magnetic personality, status plays a more minor role.

When I say the top % of men, I'm not referring to just looks, I'm referring to the whole package. I guess I could say the same about % for women, but again looks are going to be the biggest part for men because that is just how it is... Sorry, that's just how we are built. That doesn't mean looks are everything, it's just higher on the priority list.



(I can't speak for all women but I cared deeply for every man I've ever had sex with (not very many). I never used sex to sow wild oats - I used booze and drugs, like a normal person.)

That is correct, some women care deeply about every man she has sex with, many do not.

However, consider that you are pretty, and the guys you had sex with you were likely very attracted to. What if you were not as pretty, and those same guys weren't very attracted to you? You may have been able to pull off dating guys who you saw as less attractive, maybe didn't have a great personality.. You might not have cared about them as much because they might not have cared about you that much and so you weren't willing to put yourself out there. but damn, eventually maybe you wanted to have sex with a guy you were really attracted to? Well, as a less attractive female, you could have done it and at least had that experience if that's what you wanted.. it probably wouldn't have resulted in a relationship, just a one night stand or a booty call, but you could have had sex with them. Men can't do that like women, and men actually have different types of needs, they also have similar needs to women but the priority is a little different.

My point was that if a woman is attracted to the top % of men and wants to have sex with them, she can. Men don't have that advantage, which would make life as a man much more comfortable. I realize this isn't a big deal to women, but they do take advantage of it anyway, trust me.



Okay, here's where I have a problem. Lying. Don't lie to your spouse, not cool.

I agree, in fact I think it would be better to break it off before cheating on your partner - but once you have kids that is difficult to do and it affects the kids. In fact, a lot of married couples end up getting divorced, and I think if your spouse cannot or will not fulfill your sexual needs and that is a big deal, it is better to have them fulfilled secretly rather than:

a) Lack of sex builds up negativity, causing fighting, possible violence

b) Getting divorced and fucking up your kids

But when you have them fulfilled by someone else, you should put that much more energy into being loving and supportive of your spouse. Some people have unequal sexual needs and are together, if it is painful for the wife to fulfill her husbands sexual desires and it is painful for the husband not to have them fulfilled, I see this as the best option over a) or b).



(I don't even know how to respond to these scenarios, I was under the impression you're suppose to marry someone you love. Maybe the wife has some kind of hormonal problem and needs help? I find it odd how married couples don't talk about sex. My husband gets embarrassed when I talk about it (not sex in general but our sex life)but some shit just needs to be said to keep a relationship healthy. When either spouse starts losing interest, it's time to figure out what's wrong and how to fix it because sex is very important in a relationship - to men and women.

Oh I definitely agree with what you said, women can have hormonal problems and thyroid problems that can lead to becoming unattractive over time. Husbands should be understanding of that and should avoid cheating if at all possible.. But some women are just lazy and let themselves go and this can send signals to the man that she doesn't really care about him or his needs, while he may be taking care of her and her needs extensively.

And you're right, I agree sex is important in a relationship and I think that too many women dismiss men's sexuality and think that they are fine without it when that is really far from the truth. I think sex is important and healthy for women too, but women tend to be the ones who ultimately drop the ball and are generally more ok doing without sex than men (not always true, just in general).

[dannno]

Sexual attraction is different for men and women. For women, it usually has more basis on a man's status

For the record, when I say a man's 'status', that can mean a lot of things. Yes, it could mean he is rich and is President of a company. It can also mean he has a lot of friends and is well liked and respected among his peers - his peers could be punk rockers, surfers, whatever, however many women find status to be an extremely attractive quality.

[Suzanimal]

I see what you're saying dannno, I disagree with some of it but thanks for responding and clearing up your point for me.


Sexual attraction is different for men and women. For women, it usually has more basis on a man's status (edit: see my next post for definition of status!!) and magnetic personality and looks are also part of it, for men it has more to do with looks and magnetic personality, status plays a more minor role.


When I say the top % of men, I'm not referring to just looks, I'm referring to the whole package. I guess I could say the same about % for women, but again looks are going to be the biggest part for men because that is just how it is... Sorry, that's just how we are built. That doesn't mean looks are everything, it's just higher on the priority list.

Okay, that's probably true but I've noticed that people I thought were good looking got uglier as I got to know them and vice versa.


That is correct, some women care deeply about every man she has sex with, many do not.

However, consider that you are pretty, and the guys you had sex with you were likely very attracted to. What if you were not as pretty, and those same guys weren't very attracted to you? You may have been able to pull off dating guys who you saw as less attractive, maybe didn't have a great personality.. You might not have cared about them as much because they might not have cared about you that much and so you weren't willing to put yourself out there. but damn, eventually maybe you wanted to have sex with a guy you were really attracted to? Well, as a less attractive female, you could have done it and at least had that experience if that's what you wanted.. it probably wouldn't have resulted in a relationship, just a one night stand or a booty call, but you could have had sex with them. Men can't do that like women, and men actually have different types of needs, they also have similar needs to women but the priority is a little different.

My point was that if a woman is attracted to the top % of men and wants to have sex with them, she can. Men don't have that advantage, which would make life as a man much more comfortable. I realize this isn't a big deal to women, but they do take advantage of it anyway, trust me.

I'll have to take your word for this but I don't think I would enjoy having sex with a man who didn't care for me.


I agree, in fact I think it would be better to break it off before cheating on your partner - but once you have kids that is difficult to do and it affects the kids. In fact, a lot of married couples end up getting divorced, and I think if your spouse cannot or will not fulfill your sexual needs and that is a big deal, it is better to have them fulfilled secretly rather than:

a) Lack of sex builds up negativity, causing fighting, possible violence

b) Getting divorced and fucking up your kids

But when you have them fulfilled by someone else, you should put that much more energy into being loving and supportive of your spouse. Some people have unequal sexual needs and are together, if it is painful for the wife to fulfill her husbands sexual desires and it is painful for the husband not to have them fulfilled, I see this as the best option over a) or b).




Oh I definitely agree with what you said, women can have hormonal problems and thyroid problems that can lead to becoming unattractive over time. Husbands should be understanding of that and should avoid cheating if at all possible.. But some women are just lazy and let themselves go and this can send signals to the man that she doesn't really care about him or his needs, while he may be taking care of her and her needs extensively.
FYI, men do that too.;)

And you're right, I agree sex is important in a relationship and I think that too many women dismiss men's sexuality and think that they are fine without it when that is really far from the truth. I think sex is important and healthy for women too, but women tend to be the ones who ultimately drop the ball and are generally more ok doing without sex than men (not always true, just in general).

[heavenlyboy34]

Since the Constitution WAS written by people who understood the truth, so yes, the Constitution is intrinsically infallible, or else you're a liberal flag burning hippie.
LMFAO!!! :D

[heavenlyboy34]

that's like saying people can't ride drive cars because cars only have 1 driver seat.

No, it's like saying abstract concepts have no sentience (which is correct).

[PRB]

No, it's like saying abstract concepts have no sentience (which is correct).

people is not an abstract concept. People is an actual thing : a group of persons.

[osan]

Wait a minute, women ALREADY do that to men, and they do it to them during their sexual prime.. Younger women can have sex out of their league whenever they want, if a man wants sex out of his league he usually has to pay for it. As they say, the top 85-90% of women have open sexual access to some man, if not MANY men, in the top 10-15% simply because men are more willing and ready to have sex on a consistent basis without emotion involved.

OK, what the hell is this "out of your league" deal? I've never understood this and I have borne witness to the most interesting destruction of this notion at the most unexpected times. I have seen people of either sex completely blind-sided by someone "less than" them. In the end, all this posturing is nothing more than that - pure bullshit based on more bullshit, which is in turn based on even more bullshit. It is the funniest thing (and something of satisfying) so see, for example, an "ultra-hot" woman go face-first into the pavement for a guy she never expected to even want to date. Attraction cannot be predicted with any real reliability and the sooner an individual comes to grips with this, accepts it, and cuts the shit with all the standardized one-size-fits-all mental and social posturing, the sooner they may have a shot at a life they will look back upon and deem it having been worth the living.

Even I have been caught in this, not having realized as a young adult that I actually mattered. In those days I really felt insignificant in that one single dimension of life. It took a couple of events where women I thought could have given the least shit about me let me know that what I said and thought affected them. I was utterly dumbstruck by this and it took a while for it to sink it. I just never saw myself that way - that what I thought and the simple fact that I was THERE actually meant something to a given person. This usually came as the result of my saying something spectacularly stupid, either about the person in question or some self-absorbed candy-assed shit like I don't even know why I go on with my life because it's SO stupid. All of a sudden someone I least expected would say something like "you're in my life and you mean a lot to me", perhaps even punctuating it with something as eye-opening as "I love you." Buh-WHA? But you're up there and I'm down here and every guy in town wants to get in your pants and I ain't shit and... After getting slapped around with a couple of those, it became clear to me that all this relative positioning and valuation is worth absolutely NOTHING - less than nothing because really all it does is make those one the low-end feel inadequate and those on the high end often VERY lonely.


Now, a lot of men in the lower %s can appear at times to be in the top 10-15%, especially if a woman is drunk and he can get lucky once in a while, but for the most part a lot of men get screwed (or not screwed) during this time in their lives while women can go sew their oats wherever they want.


This is do fucking demented I cannot really find the words to do it justice. Sadder still, it is largely true in practice. The world is choked with dysfunctional, sad, lonely, inadequate feeling people. It might be the way things are, but do they really have to be? I mean, would the world really be so boring without all this synthetic and eminently avoidable low-rent drama? Life is VERY short even when one lives well beyond 100 years. I myself wasted many prime years entangled in my bullshit and that may not qualify as a regret, but I can damned tell you that I'd do THAT BIT 100% differently if I could go back for a second shot. We teach our children the ways of wasting life far more feverishly than how to live well. That is so very sad and IMO needless. I see it adding NOTHING of value because I see growing into a well-adjusted adult as being one of the prime virtues of good parenting and a sane cultural environment. That is not to say the world should be all bunnies and light, but we have gone so far into the darkness that I wonder whether we as a species will ever again emerge into the light.


Then you have the issue where birth control and SSRIs are decreasing the sexual desires of women today - no wonder so many men are frustrated. We have more open sexuality these days, and women can have all the sex they want, but they are more selective and this leaves a lot of men out of the picture until women stop having sex out of their league and settle for a relationship with a guy who is in their league.


They have the same effects on men. I know several people who, once they began taking them, their libido checked out and stayed gone, even after stopping. These pill pushers are destroying lives literally by the hundreds of millions across the globe. Are they not the very the very embodiment of the third horseman - the pest? Seems that way to me. Perhaps the bible is not as full of shit as some claim?



But here's the kicker, and this is where I'll argue prostitution will be a good thing -

1. If a man ONLY wants sex from women and not a romantic relationship, then a woman who he does end up with will feel unfulfilled by the relationship and it might be better to let those men stick to prostitution and one night stands. I would argue there are not many men in this category, though they do exist.


Not always. I spent 6 months with a woman 10 years my senior. She was 50 and the only thing she really wanted from me was to knock boots and at that time in my life it worked wondrously well. Oh, we were great friends and even affectionate with one another, but there was no pretense of love or the expectation of anything more than dinners, movies, and lots of fucking. Be careful with pigeonholing the population at large. If you mean to make a statistical statement, you should be clear about that.


2. If a man wants sex and a romantic relationship, then we have two options where prostitution can benefit and extend the relationship, assuming the wife doesn't ever find out what he is doing:

a. The man finds a woman who he is attracted to and has a good relationship, but he finds his sexual needs going unfulfilled (which are probably much stronger than yours if you are rolling your eyes and you shouldn't judge) - a prostitute, on occasion, in moderation can be very healthy for this type of relationship because the man doesn't feel trapped and uncomfortable in his own skin and unfulfilled and can continue a romantic relationship and life partnership with the woman he is married to who refuses to fulfill her husbands sexual needs.


Here I agree strongly, but there remains the issue of the breaking of trust. I would submit that if the sexual aspect of the relationship is unsatisfying then the man is faced with the choice of finding another woman or settling himself with his attenuated relationship. Sex is WAY too important for many people for it to be a wise idea to settle for second-best.


b. The man finds a woman who he is not very attracted to, but they do find that they are the best each of them can find and do have a relatively fulfilling relationship with moderate sexual activity. This guy, although he is having sex on occasion may feel unfulfilled from these encounters because his wife is not very attractive and will feel very trapped and unable to express his true sexual nature - in this case a prostitute, on occasion to help spice things up a little can be a very good thing for a relationship as long as it does not detract from the attention he is giving to the woman he's with.


Ufff. the very thought of this makes my skin crawl. People do this shit mostly because they think they can do no better and/or are unwilling to be alone in the process of seeking a good match. So many people screw themselves terribly and it is a very sad thing to which to bear witness. I've seen enough of this to keep me vomiting for decades to come... good and worthwhile people settling for third-rate relationships for any of a raft of truly horrid reasons.


Now, I don't really expect very many women to understand this, if any. Of course I know a lot of Christians will be horrified because it goes against the rules in the book they believe in. Not that there's anything wrong with finding somebody who you want to commit to in that way, if both people are happy, then great. But the bottom line is not every partnership is going to result in a healthy sexual relationship and some relationships - and the men in particular - can benefit from prostitution and this can help to keep a healthier relationship with their partner.

Christian rules of relationships are not in themselves shit, but the way they are imposed with imperiously rigid universality most certainly is. The very vows are idiotic for most people. If you take them seriously, you had damned better choose well because you will be stuck for life with the person on the other side of the bed. Add to that the wholly irrational and demented-to-the-point-well-beyond-evil nonsense that even a woman who is beaten by her husband cannot divorce... that is wickedness imposed upon good people. The Muslims are not only no better, they are generally an order of magnitude worse where women are basically regarded as sacks of shit that happen to have a hole in which the man may stick his dick. Hindu, while better, still regards the woman as an object. The Hindu marriage ceremony requires the woman to acknowledge the husband as her GOD. Fuck's sake... really?

Anyhow, there is no justifiable basis for criminalizing prostitution. I've heard all the arguments and I have demolished them with cruel totality without so much as breaking a single bead of sweat. They are, without exception, as lame as it gets and carry zero credibility with any man of even moderate intelligence and a minimal proper understanding of human rights. And for the record, the moral arguments are the weakest and most embarrassingly pitiable of them all, followed closely by those go presume to speak for others on the points of "dignity" and so forth, as if one size fits all. Stupid and utterly corrupt souls who need to learn to mind their own houses and leave those of their fellows alone.

[osan]

Under current law, decriminalization means that there are still civil penalties. In states where marijuana has been decriminalized there are still fines for use.

So, technically, "legalization" is the correct term to use to describe a situation in which the activity in question is no longer prohibited by law. Yes, I understand the laws are illegitimate and unjust and I do not mean to imply moral justifiability for those who enforce them, but the correct term still is "legalization."

Now, some want to legalize and regulate, I don't want the government regulating at all beyond* ensuring that nobody is forced into prostitution and that children aren't being exploited.



*And yes, I understand that the end-game goal is to eliminate all statism and to make any governments that exist operate voluntaristically on the free market. I completely favor this. But, much like I don't complain when the police arrest a serial killer even though I ultimately don't think a statist police department should exist, I would not complain about the State protecting people from being forced to be prostitutes and preventing those who are too young to consent from being prostitiutes as long as they do exist.

You are playing Theire game by using Theire definitions. Bad move. It is high time we employ reason and truth to such matters, forsaking the inherent chicanery of "legality", which has NOTHING to do with law. Consider the Common Law. It contains but two fundamental admonitions, each based in principles that are readily derived from a single postulated assumption. They are "be good for your word" (essentially the basis for all contracts), and "do no harm" (the basis of criminal law). The rest of the Common Law is comprised of case precedents as examples of how the two fundamental precepts apply in practice. This is as law ought to be if we are to have such a thing in effect. Statute is NOT law. It is not even related. Statute is almost utterly arbitrary and thereby void of any authority. That men with guns will cage or even kill you pursuant to so-called "violations" of statute, it does not follow that those statutes are just and authoritative, legitimate as they may be.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Additionally, many countries, including the U.S., use condoms — and the act of carrying multiple condoms — as evidence of prostitution. (Though a bill abolishing this distressing practice passed New York’s assembly last year, it seems the NYPD is still “reviewing” the legislation.) As a result, sex workers often stop carrying (and using) condoms out of fear of arrest. (I did not know that)

Dang! - I have a case of them in the basement... Like 1,000... Though my roomie has raided it for about 200 units... Yeah - slut... ahem... So does that make my place a brothel... :rolleyes:

Hay - I like to buy bulk! Mega cheaper!!! Case lots rock!

-t

[Peace&Freedom]

I actually agree that nobody has the right to stop you, but again, I make that claim based on my theistic worldview. God prohibits people from using violence against people who would engage in peaceful immoral acts such as prostitution.

But, if atheism is true, morality doesn't really exist, and so I have a right to use violence to stop you from doing whatever, or to ask government to do so on my behalf.

Rights cannot exist without God. The term is meaningless without some higher authority to define it.

I agree with this, and note how the non-theistic centric worldview not only strenuously discounts it (as seen in the unfortunately useless rhetoric of osan), but tries to argue that worldview doesn't drive libertarian thinking to different conclusions on several issues, when it clearly does. The notion that prostitution is a personal liberty "right" is a conclusion deriving from secular thinking, meaning it is not universally valid, since not all of us are secularists. A secular social left law structure that insists on only this conclusion, is imposing its values or dogmas on the social right, any way you slice it.

My summary response to osan is that he is obnoxiously wrong, while Freedom Fanatic's position is inconsistent. Theistic libertarians recognize God as the source of rights, and that He is victimized by sinful acts that do not have His consent. This obviously leads to disagreement with the secular-centric line of libertarian thinking posing that behavior like prostitution involves "no victims," or is "consentual." Consequently, banning the behavior is not necessarily non-libertarian, nor is simply pointing out that this is the case non-libertarian.

Freedom fanatic acknowledges God and His relevancy, but does not in turn admit that it opens up the different, but legitimate line of libertarian thought that a government can make the practice illegal. It doesn't mean a government that acknowledges God must make it illegal, but neither does it mean a government that does is being non-libertarian, or initiating force. Yet FF then says "the" libertarian take on prostitution must be locked into the legalize/decriminalize mode anyway, meaning the secular-centric perception is to be the binding law on all. This is incoherent.

The notion of rights being God-derived, cannot be selectively "turned off" to support the idea that violations of His moral law are something that comes from God. Liberty, under God, or a culture or government that acknowledges God, means the maximum liberty of individuals under God's law. Not apart from God's law. Thus prostitution is not a protected personal liberty "right" under a theistic libertarian government, and can be prohibited consistent with those principles.

[Christian Liberty]

Christian rules of relationships are not in themselves shit, but the way they are imposed with imperiously rigid universality most certainly is. The very vows are idiotic for most people. If you take them seriously, you had damned better choose well because you will be stuck for life with the person on the other side of the bed. Add to that the wholly irrational and demented-to-the-point-well-beyond-evil nonsense that even a woman who is beaten by her husband cannot divorce... that is wickedness imposed upon good people. The Muslims are not only no better, they are generally an order of magnitude worse where women are basically regarded as sacks of shit that happen to have a hole in which the man may stick his dick. Hindu, while better, still regards the woman as an object. The Hindu marriage ceremony requires the woman to acknowledge the husband as her GOD. Fuck's sake... really?

A couple things here:

1. The bold is debated, but even to the extent that it is true, separation is still permitted and encouraged. So, while it may be impermissible (I would say that it is) for a woman to actually divorce and marry someone else according to Christian doctrine, nobody would suggest that she is required to stay with her husband and be beaten.

2. The reason for this is that marriage is supposed to be a picture of the relationship Jesus Christ has with his church. Its an inseparable relationship which was created by God. As the Bible says, what God joined let no man separate. Its a big deal in Christianity.

3. Although there may be some people who wrongly do otherwise, the Bible nowhere teaches that this is something that is supposed to be enforced on people. Its a Christian doctrinal issue. I have no desire to impose it on anyone outside the church.

4. And just to be clear, though my reasons are different than yours, I do not want prostitution or adultery to be criminalized.

[Christian Liberty]

I agree with this, and note how the non-theistic centric worldview not only strenuously discounts it (as seen in the unfortunately useless rhetoric of osan),
I understand. The fact that I come to some of the same conclusions as Osan doesn't mean I believe them for the same reasons.


but tries to argue that worldview doesn't drive libertarian thinking to different conclusions on several issues, when it clearly does.

To be clear, I don't dispute this. I am "big tent" in the sense that I believe that anyone who to a broad degree (I draw the line probably at around 90% but I understand this is arbitrary and you could just as easily demand perfect adherence or only 80% adherence) believes in the non-aggression principle and private property rights and applies these viewpoints to politics and government. But, its certainly undeniable that a scripturalist worldview, even if one believes (as I do) that the NAP logically follows from that scripturalist worldview, is going to lead to different conclusions on certain policy questions than any secular worldview. And, for what its worth, my biggest disagreements with Murray Rothbard (who I admire a lot) on political issues relate to the institution of the family.

That said, I think in this particular instance (prostitution) the secular libertarian comes to the correct result even though his reasoning that he uses to derive this position is invalid.


The notion that prostitution is a personal liberty "right" is conclusion deriving from secular thinking, meaning it is not a universally valid, since not all of us are secularists. A secular social left law structure that insists on only this conclusion is imposing its values or dogmas on the social right, any way you slice it.

I'm not positive I 100% understand this post. I think what you are trying to say is that secular thinking leads people to the conclusion that prostitution is a personal liberty, and that secularists who pass laws that legalize prostitution are imposing their values on the social right.

I'll address the second part first. I think that anyone (Secularist or not) who passes a law that legalizes prostitution is only imposing the value that it is wrong to use violence to prevent prostitution from happening. It is not imposing any value judgment one way or another on the morality of prostitution. Nor does such a law require you to tolerate prostitution on public property, or to associate yourself with prostitutes.

Now, again, I don't defend legalizing prostitution using the same arguments that the secularists do. I use different arguments. But I will note, again, that Jesus did not use violence against the prostitutes that he ministered to, nor did he call upon the Roman authorities to do so. I will also note that Paul, when dealing with a situation of sexual sin in the church (It wasn't prostitution precisely, but it was adultery which to me seems even worse, but regardless it was sexual sin) did not ask the church to petition their local government to deal with the problem, but instead said that the church should excommunicate the offender and that God would deal with those outside (see 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.) So, it seems to me that New Testament precedent wouldn't condone the idea of fining, arresting, or otherwise using physical violence against prostitutes via law enforcement (and I would even go so far as to say that LEOs who enforce such laws are in sin, as are those who enforce any other unjust law, which is basically all of them.)


My summary response to osan is that he is obnoxiously wrong, while Freedom Fanatic's position is inconsistent. Theistic libertarians recognize God as the source of rights, and that He is victimized by sinful acts that do not have His consent. This obviously leads to disagreement with the secular-centric line of libertarian thinking posing that behavior like prostitution involves "no victims," or are "consentual." Consequently, banning the behavior is not necessarily non-libertarian, nor is simply pointing out that this is the case non-libertarian.

The issue of victimless crime needs to be parsed carefully. Its a line that's good enough for its intended purpose, but sometimes needs to be hammered out further. I think this is one of those times.

When I say that an action is victimless, I mean that the action does not involve any violence, nor the threat thereof. And furthermore, that a specific human victim cannot be named. I've never heard anyone try to counter this idea by naming God himself as a victim, far more often its something abstract like "society" or so forth. Now, I will admit that I think that the standard of living of the average person in the US would be better off if nobody engaged in prostitution. There would be less ruined marriages (I know the libertines are going to argue the other way here, and I'm not interested in arguing the point since I assume you agree with me and I am having this specific conversation with you specifically.) Women who are now working in prostitution would now give that time either to more productive work or to raising their families. There would be fewer STDs. Etc.

But, there's still no actual victim (again, not considering the idea of God as a victim yet.) "society" is arguably harmed, but since society is an abstraction and not an actual thing, its completely immoral to use violence to protect it. And really, that's the argument I'm making here. And, I wouldn't so much say that this means people have a right to engage in prostitution (Which would be technically inaccurate) but that no human being has a right to use violence to stop an act of consensual prostitution from occurring. And, I think that would be more technically accurate because I would hold that God himself maintains the right to stop an act of consensual prostitution, or to do anything else that he wants for that matter.

Now, regarding God as a victim, I have a hard time with that idea. Now, its clear that prostitution offends God, but I think the idea that he's actually victimized by it is certainly up for debate. Consider the fact that God can certainly stop the act in question if he desires. And not only is he able to do so, he can do so effortlessly. Its not like God is helpless against prostitutes running rampant and desperately needs us people to create governments to stop this offensive activity. He can stop it whenever he wants.

Now, I acknowledge that in and of itself this doesn't establish my position as correct. But, I see nothing in the Bible that suggests that New Testament Christians should be endorsing laws against prostitution. And I see verses suggesting we should live at peace with other men as much as possible (Matthew 5:9, Romans 12:18) and that sexual sin outside the church should be left to God to deal with (1 Corinthians 5:9-13). Both of which seem to imply to me that Christians have no business interfering with secular prostitutes or asking the government to do so on their behalf.

Now, does that mean I'm conceding a "right" to engage in prostitution? I think legally, that right should exist (as long as nobody is being forced into the trade and there are not children involved since children cannot consent). But my reason for that isn't so much because of a right to sin as it is because I don't think anyone (save God himself) has the right to use violence to stop such activities. I have no issues with peaceful persuasion and such being used to prevent such activities without violence.


Freedom fanatic acknowledges God and His relevancy, but does not in turn admit that it opens up the different, but legitimate line of libertarian thought that a government can make the practice illegal. It doesn't mean a government that acknowledges God must make it illegal, but neither does it mean a government that does is being non-libertarian, or initiating force. Yet FF then says "the" libertarian take on prostitution must be locked into the legalize/decriminalize mode anyway, meaning the secular-centric perception is to be the binding law on all. This is incoherent.

I don't see this as secular-centric, because my argument doesn't require secular reasoning. But, I don't see how you can possibly argue that a government that bans this activity is initiating force. Allowing God to count as a victim opens up other huge cans of worms that maybe you didn't anticipate. Is blasphemy an act of aggression against God? (Maybe, but God can defend himself, he doesn't need you to do it for him except in the prescribed manner, which is to preach the gospel to all nations.) Heck, are my Presbyterian brothers offending God by baptizing their infants? Or if they are right, and I am wrong, is my Baptist church offensive to God because it rebaptizes people who were baptized as infants? Should such things be criminalized because they are against God's word? Should we go back to burning Catholics/Protestants at the stake again?

I see no Biblical reason to suppose that God is supposed to be considered a victim under civil law. I think you have to have a flesh-and-blood human victim in order to have a proper crime. If God is the supposed victim, than its a vice that shouldn't be criminalized.




The notion of rights being God-derived, cannot be selectively "turned off" to support the idea that violations of His moral law are something that comes from God. Liberty, under God, or a culture or government that acknowledges God, means the maximum liberty of individuals under God's law. Not apart from God's law.

I'm not turning off the notion that rights are God-derived. I think that the rights that you have do not include the right to ask your government to use violence against people who engage in sexual vices in which there is no individual victim. And I have defended that viewpoint from scripture. Similarly (though to a lesser extreme) you aren't given the right by God to send cops into the Chinese Buffet and look for people who overeat, but that doesn't mean you have a moral right to be gluttonous.

[The Free Hornet]

A couple things here:

1. The bold is debated, but even to the extent that it is true, separation is still permitted and encouraged. So, while it may be impermissible (I would say that it is) for a woman to actually divorce and marry someone else according to Christian doctrine, nobody would suggest that she is required to stay with her husband and be beaten.

Lemme get this straight. You are 19 years old and not only do you believe this nonsense, you drag it through life like a fucking boat anchor.

Ditch it.

[Christian Liberty]

Also, I don't understand the following about PeaceandFreedom's thought process.

Consider this scenario.

New York State decides to make prostitution legal.

Texas decides to ban it.

Now, as far as the Federal Government is concerned, this is fine, and the Feds should have no say in it either way. I think most of us agree on this point. But beyond that, I fail to see how both approaches are "fine."

If prostitution is a crime with a victim (whoever that victim is) than it stands to reason that it should be illegal everywhere, and that New York is acting immorally by making it legal.

If prostitution has no victim (even if we acknowledge that as a utilitarian matter it would be better if people didn't do it) it stands to reason it should be legal everywhere.

I mean, would we consider it "OK" if New York legalized theft? Even then, I'd say the Feds shouldn't get involved, but is such a law JUST? Of course not.

Or, by contrast, is it OK for any part of the country to ban firearms? Again, I'm not saying the Feds should get involved (although I understand this is going to be more up for debate due to the 2nd amendment, I still feel like it should be dealt with by the residents of that state) but is that "OK" anywhere?

Mind you, I agree with localization as a pragmatic matter. Its easier to switch counties than to switch countries. Its easier to get one county to accept freedom than the entire country. And, when forced to choose between varying types and degrees of authoritarianism, more options allows one to choose to "least bad" option for you (for instance, if Mr. A wants to have a gun and has no real interest in pot he can move to a place where guns are legal, while a stoner can move to a place where he can easily and legally buy marijuana.)

But I believe in localization for that reason, because its a pragmatic matter. Not because localities actually have some kind of moral right to create aggressive laws.

[Christian Liberty]

Lemme get this straight. You are 19 years old and not only do you believe this nonsense, you drag it through life like a fucking boat anchor.

Ditch it.

:rolleyes:
Yes, I am 19 years old, yes I believe this "nonsense", and no, it doesn't actually matter to the point I was making, which was simply to expound on what the Christian doctrine actually is on the point in question.

You are clueless, which is typical for the godless. You call my post "nonsense" but what's your reason?

[dannno]

Okay, that's probably true but I've noticed that people I thought were good looking got uglier as I got to know them and vice versa.

I've known girls who hate and despise guys who it turns out they are madly in love with. The fact that I have fantasized about having sex with some girls I have despised for various reasons doesn't really bother me that much, at least I don't fantasize about having a relationship with them.



I'll have to take your word for this but I don't think I would enjoy having sex with a man who didn't care for me.

Well again, you're pretty, female and you've probably never really had to consider it. Although even some girls who may be a bit more desperate still have the same values you do (values which I find subjective and incidental, not indicative of much except what it is ;))



FYI: Men do that too ;)

Ya, men do a lot worse things, like not caring about or respecting the woman they are with when she really cares about and respects him and is worth respecting, doesn't take responsibility for the family, doesn't treat the kids well and much, much more... I think anybody would be crazy not to know that men's behavior is one of the causes of married men not getting enough sex...but the thing is you can't just judge a relationship by the actions that are seen. It's important to know the actions that are unseen as well, and that is why I don't really like to pass judgement on guys who cheat on their wives or wives to cheat on their husbands. Their wives could be doing much worse things to them, or the wives who cheat could have husbands doing things much worse to them.

That's what I don't get about FF, he is so caught up in the husbands and wives cheating that it doesn't occur to him that the other partner could be doing much, much worse things before the cheating ever happened and they could really be completely absolved of their actions imo.

[Peace&Freedom]

Also, I don't understand the following about PeaceandFreedom's thought process.

Consider this scenario.

New York State decides to make prostitution legal.

Texas decides to ban it.

Now, as far as the Federal Government is concerned, this is fine, and the Feds should have no say in it either way. I think most of us agree on this point. But beyond that, I fail to see how both approaches are "fine."

...But I believe in localization for that reason, because its a pragmatic matter. Not because localities actually have some kind of moral right to create aggressive laws.

Depending on different worldviews, certain things are, or are not crimes, or laws addressing those things may or may not be aggressive. The different states and regions of this country, and other regions of the world are not practicing aggression under libertarian analysis, just because your worldview leads to that view, while theirs does not. I'm not denying this creates an awkward situation in many people's eyes, I'm denying libertarianism resolves the situation, because worldview considerations drives libertarian thinking to different conclusions on several issues as to what "must" be a crime or aggression, or what conclusion "must" be universally applied. What I dislike is the over-sensitive branding of almost anything advocated by social conservatives as "aggression," while giving the left a pass, or ignoring the worldview factors that create presumptions that are disputable.

I brought up the left imposing its views on the right, since a law situation that reflects the secular social liberal perspective does exactly that, in the same sense that the left fervently complains about the legal expression of religious right views as imposing their views on the left. If 'imposing one's views' by itself is aggression, then it should be opposed by libertarians in both directions, or, if discounted (as aggression)when it comes to imposing views on the right, it should be discounted as aggression when it comes to imposing views on the left. Golden Rule. Thus I view local determinations as not just the better way to deal with social matters for pragmatic reasons, but also for the proper expression of self-determination of the people in disparate areas.

[Suzanimal]

//


I've known girls who hate and despise guys who it turns out they are madly in love with. The fact that I have fantasized about having sex with some girls I have despised for various reasons doesn't really bother me that much, at least I don't fantasize about having a relationship with them.


That's not really what I meant, have you ever met a girl who was very pretty but after you got to know her thought she was just disgusting? I dunno if you can understand but there are many people that I never considered attractive until after I got to know them.

Well again, you're pretty(Awww, that was sweet, you're getting rep for that), female and you've probably never really had to consider it. Although even some girls who may be a bit more desperate still have the same values you do (values which I find subjective and incidental, not indicative of much except what it is ;))


I agree but I think sex is best (mentally and physically) while in a healthy, honest, committed relationship.

Ya, men do a lot worse things, like not caring about or respecting the woman they are with when she really cares about and respects him and is worth respecting, doesn't take responsibility for the family, doesn't treat the kids well and much, much more... I think anybody would be crazy not to know that men's behavior is one of the causes of married men not getting enough sex...but the thing is you can't just judge a relationship by the actions that are seen. It's important to know the actions that are unseen as well, and that is why I don't really like to pass judgement on guys who cheat on their wives or wives to cheat on their husbands. Their wives could be doing much worse things to them, or the wives who cheat could have husbands doing things much worse to them.

I can agree with that, infidelity isn't usually about just sex.

That's what I don't get about FF, he is so caught up in the husbands and wives cheating that it doesn't occur to him that the other partner could be doing much, much worse things before the cheating ever happened and they could really be completely absolved of their actions imo.

[heavenlyboy34]

people is not an abstract concept. People is an actual thing : a group of persons.

Incorrect. "people" is an abstract collection of persons. It can refer to any collection of persons 2 or greater. Example: Caucasian people.

[2young2vote]

So you are saying government makes it worse? What a surprise. Government lovers are the cause of the problem.

[PRB]

Incorrect. "people" is an abstract collection of persons. It can refer to any collection of persons 2 or greater. Example: Caucasian people.

abstract collection? what other collections are there??

[dannno]

That's not really what I meant, have you ever met a girl who was very pretty but after you got to know her thought she was just disgusting? I dunno if you can understand but there are many people that I never considered attractive until after I got to know them.

That isn't really what you meant? Are you sure? The situation I was describing in vague detail was about a girl I knew whose roommate slept with a guy repeatedly and then he brought other prettier girls to her house who he was also having sex with and he did it even though he knew it made her feel like shit, and this roommate of hers talked shit on him all the time even though she was actually in love with him too. Of course, I had no idea, I was in love with her.. and if you think these girls all had no 'morals' or whatever, this girl was actually a virgin. And I found her at least 10 times more attractive after I got to know her and the guy who she was in love with was one of my best friends at the time and it killed me that she liked my friend who hurt her roommate. I know what you're talking about,




I agree but I think sex is best (mentally and physically) while in a healthy, honest, committed relationship.

and while this is true I also know what it's like to go through a dry spell and when I'm single I'm ok with hooking up with girls I don't plan or am not gung ho about having a relationship with, I don't lie or mislead them, I don't think that's very good etiquette. But ya, I prefer having a girlfriend, as I think you know.

[kcchiefs6465]

Sixteen pages? I'd imagine that the topics are hardly related to the OP and its merits.

You own your body. No victim, no crime. Vices are not crimes.

The socioeconomic problems that result from this particular prohibition being simply a compelling argument to be had.

[osan]

The sky being blue is a fact.

That was not the whole point, which you have either missed or are purposely ignoring. The salient point I made was that blue is inherent to what oxygen is. Blue inheres to oxygen, which is to say that it cannot be separated from it. Blue is part of the very definition of oxygen. The fabric of oxygen is partly constituted by blue.

There, I've written it four ways. Yes, blue is a fact; and now we know why in the broadest and simplest, yet correct sense.


But you being free to engage in prostitution, or any number of other peaceful activities, is not in fact the case.

You have made the same error of asserting a fact with zero supporting evidence in proof thereof. I've seen you do far better than this and must conclude you either have something to sell, perhaps because of your religious persuasions, or are simply being lazy.


Cops being thugs who will prevent you from doing so, using violence if needed, is a fact.

Directly observable. We agree.


I say this is wrong because the Bible says so.

That is not an objective reason in the same way your assertion about thug-cops is. If you did not know this, you do now.

You choose to believe the Bible is infallible or otherwise credible. It may be, but the mere fact that it makes sense to you is not a sufficiently reasoned basis for others to accept it as do you; much less one by which you impose by force its edicts upon others. The Satanic Bible says the polar opposite. How do you KNOW that it is not equally authoritative, or even more so? You likely don't. You may believe it, but blind belief at the relatively higher level of religion (vis-à-vis the metaphysically lower level of faith in one's five senses) does not constitute knowledge. It only demonstrates itself: blind faith.

I would also point out that the analytic results of all the assertions of the Bible are not consistent. Some claims pass the litmus test of reason, while others fail. The prohibition against murder is readily established as valid once one comes into possession of the correct fundamental presumption of equal claims to life. The proof is short, sweet, and we have been through this in these forums several times more than once, so I see no reason to go through it again as it is academically established. The case for prostitution, however, is pitiably weak. The argument basically goes like this:


And on the ninth day God spake, saying "prostitution is an abomination because fuck you."

Oooo... I'm sorry, but that does not pass the acid test. Let us be reminded that God gave us the faculties of logic and reason. He gave us our senses. He gave us a brain and I maintain that its primary purpose is not as a hat rack. Therefore, given all this I can only conclude that God intends for us to actually use our brains as more than hat racks. When we do; when we step outside of the fear that the Bible tends to generate in people due to what I am 99.99++% sure is gross misinterpretation of antique colloquial linguistic style mixed with a significant ignorance of context contemporary with the writing, we put those good brains and the tools given us to their proper use and voila!, we come to conclusions that vary with those we prior held. This tells us something important: that language is a tricky affair and that we need to be endlessly cautious with its usage.

Language design in computer science is one of the hats I have worn. I cannot claim to be the world's greatest expert, but I can claim some pretty serious understanding of the nature of language in general. I have designed several programming languages and implemented several compilers and interpreters. In the course of this and other work it has become clear to me just how tenuous our understandings of things tends to be. I had the endless benefit of my acquaintanceship with Bob Costello, a profound linguistic scholar and specialist in ancient languages including Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and Latin. He'd been a Jesuit scholar of uncommon gift and he taught me much about the nature of language and made clear to me the hazards of communication. That is why I question how people regard the Bible. It is not the book itself that necessarily fails under scrutiny, though in places it does that as well; it is humans who fail, often through no fault of their own. It is the nature of the combination of language's properties, changes in circumstance, and great wedges of time that drive understanding of a given ancient writing into error. Given this, nothing less than the greatest care must be given when undertaking to comprehend what such tomes purport. More importantly, it must be understood that the assertions of such writings cannot be validly taken on their faces, but must pass through the scrutiny of the properly employed faculties of logic and reason which have been provided us.

If, after having curry-combed a biblical assertion, we find it to pass the smell test, then we may take it as valid. This requires the clinical elimination of all emotional elements and the lapse into the mode of true scientists, willing to accept whatever truth is revealed no matter how it may chafe. This is readily achieved when addressing the idea of murder, and it fails miserably where prostitution is the subject of consideration.

This reduces the issue of prostitution to a matter of personal taste, rather than one of universal truth. It implies in a very strongly direct way that the assertion's "rightness" cannot be established as a universal for all people. This, of course, leads directly to the fact that imposition of such an individually-accepted value cannot be rightly imposed by force upon another.

QED, more or less.


What objective reason do you have?

If you re-read my statements, I have not made a value judgment as to whether prostitution is right or wrong. I wrote that there is no objective moral basis for forcibly prohibiting it. The two are not the same by a very wide margin.

[osan]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=5607376#post5607376)
In a vaccuum, rights don't exist. They have to come from somewhere.


A meaningless statement when placed under withering scrutiny, but I will not go quite there as it will take a lot of space and time and I have a lot of civil engineering work to do today.

I will, however, say that as with my example of the blue of oxygen, rights inhere to the fabric of life itself. More on this, below.


I actually agree that nobody has the right to stop you, but again, I make that claim based on my theistic worldview.

And that worldview is an example of an.... anyone?... anyone?... anyone?...

An OPINION. And you are well within your rights to hold that opinion. You are well within to hold it for whatever reason you choose, or for no reason at all. But because you cannot establish an objective, irreducible, and unbreakable basis for holding it, you cannot rightfully impose the results of that opinion upon others. If you can establish that your claim that "God prohibits", then you have something of which to talk. Until then, the belief is that and nothing more. It is your opinion and you are free to live by its dictates so long as your material actions do not violate the equal prerogatives of those around you. This is Proper Human Relations 001 (remedial :) :) :) )



God prohibits people from using violence against people who would engage in peaceful immoral acts such as prostitution.


Personally, I agree with this 100%, but even this is not established as a universal because it necessarily require positive first-hand knowledge of God's position, which we do not have, given the generally accepted definitions of "God". That, of course, could change with alterations in the assumptions... but then things get very sticky and complicated and none of it really helps us.


But, if atheism is true, morality doesn't really exist, and so I have a right to use violence to stop you from doing whatever, or to ask government to do so on my behalf.


CRASH! Ultra-mega-hyper-FAIL.

I have posted this before, but will repeat because finding what I wrote would be possibly very painful, given the horrid search engine on this site. God is an interesting character for a huge plurality of reasons. Among them is the apparent fact that he has done us the most severe of kindnesses by giving unto us the means of correctly deriving every precept of Proper Human Relations without the need to so much as acknowledge his existence in the least measure. Given the Cardinal Postulate (equal claims to life), all rock-solid human morality rapidly evolves therefrom in shockingly simple language, and with an ease that tends to startle. How could anything so important be this simple and easy? It is precisely because it is so important that God made it perfectly accessible to one and all. The failing is not God's, but rather ours.

May I also point out that in moral terms, there is a fundamental difference between those things that are morally prohibited and those which are merely repugnant. Murder is prohibited for what I should hope are clear reasons (once again, go back to the Cardinal Postulate and derive the principles). Prostitution, OTOH, is not the moral equivalent of murder for any of a number of reasons. Therefore, while it may be morally repugnant to one, there is no basis for its forced prohibition because it is NOT A CRIME.

Let us also bear in mind that there are gradations - flavors if you will - of prostitution, and I will add that some of those are not so clear in moral terms as in the case of the disease-ridden crack-ho' who be doin' she Johns so she be git her next "on". And what of the woman who dates and fucks her boyfriend only when and because he spends lots of money on her? Repugnant? Possibly, depending on one's view on such things. But not criminal and not within the prerogative of others to forbid with force of punishment.



Rights cannot exist without God.

And yet God is so endlessly generous to us that acknowledgment is not required in order to secure those rights.

God may have bestowed us with our rights, but the cost he imposed was that WE be the guardians of those rights and not he. But as the custodians, onus rests with us to use the other gifts so generously lain at our feet to understand the metes and bounds of those rights with propriety and justness. On that last bit we have as a whole fallen mightily, all good intentions to the contrary notwithstanding.


The term is meaningless without some higher authority to define it.

Incorrect. See above. :)

[osan]

I agree with this, and note how the non-theistic centric worldview not only strenuously discounts it (as seen in the unfortunately useless rhetoric of osan),

Holy shit... talk about failure. Firstly, you appear to use "rhetoric" in the sarcastically disparaging vein that politicians use to discount one another. Good job there, sparky.

More to the point, if you infer from my writing that my position is "non-theistic", which your own words seem to imply, then you really need to get yourself back into a basic reading class and learn how to parse sentences properly because it is clear that you have failed with some fireworks.



The notion that prostitution is a personal liberty "right" is a conclusion deriving from secular thinking, meaning it is not universally valid, since not all of us are secularists. A secular social left law structure that insists on only this conclusion, is imposing its values or dogmas on the social right, any way you slice it.


You have a stern habit of making assertions without any support. Your credibility is rapidly falling.

Secular thinking is more bent to universality than that of most religions with which I am familiar, including the Christian - this in my personal experience.


My summary response to osan is that he is obnoxiously wrong,

That is your opinion and to it are you entitled. But you have yet to offer a shred of evidence in proof. You're not looking too good here, I am sorry to tell you. It is clear by the apparent tone of your sentences that I have hit a nerve and you are unable to rebut what I have written. You have, therefore, fallen back on the use of "obnoxiously" in the weakest possible attempt to discredit me personally, rather than my argument. Were it otherwise, you would have resisted the use of the adjective in question. I have succeeded in annoying you precisely because you are, as yet, failed in demonstrating with stern reason and logic how and why I am incorrect. This is loosely analogous to sticking your tongue out at me, calling me poopy-face, and running away. Once again, it's a bang-up job, sir.


while Freedom Fanatic's position is inconsistent. Theistic libertarians recognize God as the source of rights, and that He is victimized by sinful acts that do not have His consent. This obviously leads to disagreement with the secular-centric line of libertarian thinking posing that behavior like prostitution involves "no victims," or are "consentual." Consequently, banning the behavior is not necessarily non-libertarian, nor is simply pointing out that this is the case non-libertarian.


Oh look everyone... there he goes again with his "God as candy-ass" assertions... Have you any idea how ridiculous it sounds to assert God as "victim"?

This is smelling like troll shit, the more I read, so perhaps I should beg off at this point because you are running in a circle of FAIL and I have far better things to do with my time.


This is incoherent.

Pot calls kettle "black". So noted.

I'm out.

[osan]

A couple things here:

1. The bold is debated, but even to the extent that it is true, separation is still permitted and encouraged. So, while it may be impermissible (I would say that it is) for a woman to actually divorce and marry someone else according to Christian doctrine, nobody would suggest that she is required to stay with her husband and be beaten.

The implication of what you have written is that she is obliged to remain married and either stay separated or remain to be further abused. Bull.shit.

If she finds another man, she cannot marry because she already is. If she has sex with him, she becomes the adulteress, the whore, so she is obliged to celibacy... oh yeah, that's so much fun for a 30 year old woman.

If she has no children but desires them strongly, she is obliged to return to the husband for service to that end or be the adultering whore with another man.

We could go on for a while on this, but perhaps the point is made?


2. The reason for this is that marriage is supposed to be a picture of the relationship Jesus Christ has with his church. Its an inseparable relationship which was created by God. As the Bible says, what God joined let no man separate. Its a big deal in Christianity.


That may be the reason for SOME people, but not all. Once again, one-sizes-fits-all morality contrived and applied with force at an inappropriate level of conceptual abstraction. This is why the world is in the shitter and just about to go down the drain. Between idiot Christians, idiot Jews, idiot Muslims, and idiots of every other stripe who simply refuse to see the more basic, lower-level truths in favor of the philosophical veneers that, while meaningful to them are uninteresting to others, the world is doomed because we are not longer confined to the numbers of people we may repress or murder by how much strength, skill, and stamina we possess in our arms and legs. No sir, we are now limited only by the numbers of actual people on the planet there are to kill with our city-leveling strategic nukes and biological agents.


3. Although there may be some people who wrongly do otherwise, the Bible nowhere teaches that this is something that is supposed to be enforced on people. Its a Christian doctrinal issue. I have no desire to impose it on anyone outside the church.


Thankfully, you appear to have a proper grasp on the most important aspect in all of this. Good on you for that.


4. And just to be clear, though my reasons are different than yours, I do not want prostitution or adultery to be criminalized.

Once again, we agree... though I am not sure that our reasons are in fact different. Care to elaborate?

[otherone]

The prohibition against murder is readily established as valid once one comes into possession of the correct fundamental presumption of equal claims to life. The proof is short, sweet, and we have been through this in these forums several times more than once, so I see no reason to go through it again as it is academically established. The case for prostitution, however, is pitiably weak. The argument basically goes like this:


And on the ninth day God spake, saying "prostitution is an abomination because fuck you."



The seminal message (which has extremely broad political ramifications) put forward by theists is that WE are God's possessions, and that all of our actions have to meet with God's approval. In this regard, there is NO fundamental presumption of an equal claim to life, only the expectation to act in accordance with God's will. It's terrifying.

[Christian Liberty]

Once again, we agree... though I am not sure that our reasons are in fact different. Care to elaborate?

I believe that the Bible teaches that we're supposed to treat others the way they want to be treated. As such, it would be immoral for me to advocate laws that restrict the behavior of peaceful people, because I do not want you advocate laws that restrict my peaceful actions. And Romans 12:18 says that I should live at peace with all men as much as it depends on me. Trying to pass a law against a peaceful vice such as prostitution would be a violation of this.

I honestly can't 100% parse your reasons, but I think it has something to do with Natural Law, which I don't believe in. Animals aggress against each other in nature all the time, that doesn't make it right.

As for the reason for prostitution being a sin, there actually is a reason. Ignoring cases where it involves lying: sex is one of the greatest gifts God gave mankind. It is meant to be enjoyed, yes. But its also supposed to be symbolic of something else, namely, the union between Christ and his church. That's what marriage is. And that's why marriage is inseparable. Its not because "screw you". And I already told you that before you asserted that there was no reason.

Now, again, I fully agree with you that such things should not be enforced. Only aggressive acts should be prohibited by law. But that doesn't mean that all non-aggressive acts are moral.