I just don't get it. Selling is legal, and fucking is legal. So, why isn't it legal to sell fucking? Why should it be illegal to sell something that's legal to give away? I can't follow the logic. Of all the things you can do for a person, giving them an orgasm is one of the best things. In the army they give you a medal for killing people; in civilian life you can go to jail for giving someone an orgasm. Am I missing something?

Religion - it's not right, but it is the reason. (eom)

-- Modified on 4/28/2008 2:15:47 PM

suck all the fun out of sex, and make it a purely miserable occurance, then it will be legal.

If the government could figure out how to take 70% of your orgasmic bliss and give it to people too lazy to find or make pleasure on their own, then it would be legal!

If the government could figure out how to make you have sex with people you don't want to have sex with and deny you the ability to have sex with who you want to, then it will be legal.

When the government figures out how to get its' hands on all the money transferred in the sex trade and can figure a way to spend more money collecting that money than what they take in, then it will be legal.

When the government can come up with a plan to start charging a tax on consensual sex, then it will be legal.

If the government could figure out how to bog down sex for money with a ton of paperwork and laws, then it would be legal...of course then they would call it "marraige".


I blame Ted Kennedy, who once quipped to a fellow Senator who had just uttered the words, "if I may tax your memory..."

"Now Why Didn't I Think Of That!"

So why isn't buying your vote legal?
We also don't let people sell their body parts (kidneys).
We also don't let people sell themselves into slavery.
You can't sell your kids.

None of that is religious, per se.

Part of the foundation of our society is the stability of the family unit. Protecting that unit is a legitimate societal goal, regardless of whether it coincides with religious values (like murder, theft, etc.).

Prostitution undermines the integrity of the family unit. Yes there are other attacks on the family unit that society permits. But this is just one area that society has chosen to address.

Legality is one thing, social image is another.  We can reduce risk to get in legal trouble, but I alway come back to the general social image on prostitution that is not likely to change anytime soon.

-- Modified on 4/28/2008 2:39:53 PM

Socially the image is unlikely to improve. Girls are always portrayed negatively in the media, the words associated with the working girl all have negative connotations in social interaction and these salacious stories in the news only further the image.

I don't see it becoming legal anytime soon. I mean, Nevada is one thing, but could you imagine a federal attempt to legalize it? There's no way. Hell, even liberal CA can't get it done, nor do they have any desire, it appears.

The revenue is too great, though, busting up rings of prostitution and the accolades for finding that one sex slave are too great.

Btw, that being said, I was in LA last night and was shocked at how brazen the LAX area streetwalkers are. They might as well have had a neon sign over their heads. Wow. I wouldn't have had the balls (or desire.) The cops just ignored them, too. Odd.

Katie

Ironically, for many centuries, prostitution was an accepted social and cultural institution as a way of protecting the sanctity of the marriage and the family.  Now it's viewed as a threat to both.  Go figure.

Of course, as someone else mentioned, this is the result of religion's influence on social behavior and our almost limitless ability to self-delude regarding human nature.  Obviously, it's another example of "do as I say, not as I do."

Even as birth control and modern medicine have removed any of the lingering, worn-out stigmas about prostitution, I'm afraid the inertia of centuries of brainwashing are hard to reverse.

between selling our votes, selling our body parts, selling our children, selling ourselves into slavery, and the selling of pussy. The afformentioned acts are exceedingly more despicable in nature than selling pussy of one's own free will, but much less focused upon than prostitution by LE and society in general. It would be more than difficult to state a case for legalizing any of those acts, while legalizing prostitution probably has as many proponents as detractors.

I also fail to see how prostitution undermines the family unit. In fact it actually increases it, as many wives are better than one, especially one that does not fuck. As a matter of fact many spouses are much more tolerant of eachother when left to achieve sexual gratification by their own means.

you are employing the religious based presumption that the family unit must be a monogamous Mother and Father with the little kiddies in tow.  That "foundation" is fundamentally religious based.  Even so, you are discounting the very large segment of society who are not married.  According to your logic, by making prostitution illegal in order to protect the family unit, you are, as a fundamental part of the very foundation of our society, punishing those who you are not trying to protect, namely, the single people.  A better fit to your position would be to continue to make adultery illegal and allow prostitution, then you would accomplish your goal.

Again, the root of the problem is the religous based morality laws.  

Bottom line is that prostitution does not undermine the kind of family unit that you identify, adultery does.  By blaming the prostitute, who should be able to service single people in your logic train, you are absolving the married man of his responsibility.


Just my 2 cents



-- Modified on 4/28/2008 5:19:05 PM

Morality is considered important by all, but there are a number of subjects that simply aren't clear. What is moral and what is immoral? Prostitution is one of those areas. Unfortunately, that means that your morals depend on what you believe. The US was founded on Christianity and if you follow the teachings of Christianity, then prostitution IS in fact immoral. Not all of us are Christian though. The problem is that the Christian morals are the foundation of the country and its laws and while things have been slowly changing, this is one subject that has remained the same in terms of large-scale society. The majority sees it as immoral still. So yes, the issue isn't legality, it is morality. If it is suddenly legalized, it would most likely still be immoral to the general society.

I don't see anything wrong with people considering it immoral because that is what they believe and that is what they have based their morals on. I understand the frustration with you having to follow laws based on moral beliefs you do not agree with, but that is America and that is democracy. Majority rule. And the majority says illegal and immoral.

The other issue is health. Legalizing prostitution would most likely increase prostitution and thus increase the general health risk. I know, I know, this is debatable, but on the whole I think we can agree that legal prostitution makes the average citizen a higher risk for STD's, especially AIDS, etc. And that alone will keep it illegal. It is for the greater health of overall society.

I don't argue the morality part, and I can't do much about the legality part...but I can still participate!!

Have fun and quit worrying about it. You know the risks. Be careful!

Tax cuts = vote buying.

in other countries where prostitution is legal, including the very religious countries of Latin and South America. Why the US version of religious intolerance is so out of step with the rest of the world is the bigger question.

Where the hell did you ever get that idea? Prostitution is legal in most of the world with the notable exeption of the US and the Islamic nations of the Middle East. What nice company we are in. Even the countries run by the Catholic Church like Brazil, Colombia, etc. have legalized prostitution with no ill effects.

Legalized prostitution, especially with mandatory health cards actually would decrease the incidence of STDs, not increase them.

Some years back, after a tabloid had published a paparazzi photo of him lying all over a bimbo on a boat off of Cape Cod, a fellow Senator came up to him and said, "I see you've taken an interest in offshore drilling."

Nowhere. I just always figured that was part of it. My whole point was that more sex=greater risk. I assumed more people would be careless (i.e. bareback) and thus create a more dangerous pool to play in. I guess I made a poor assumption.

it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, many of those countries are not corrupt as well. The subject was legalized prostitution, the level of corruption of the country/ies in question is completely irrelevant.

My point is prostitution is legal in most of the world. In most of those countries legalization is coupled with mandatory health checks. Which do think is safer, an illegal streetwalker tricking to support a drug habit or a provider that knows she has to remain STD free to be allowed to go to work everyday?

You are trying to impose reason upon an unreasonable issue.  If only we could.

Your very reasonable point as to how the corruption of the host country applies to the legalization of prostitution argument will always be repulsed because the traditional, religiously based view of prostitution is that is it inherently evil, unclean, and a pathway into debauchery (as an aside, in other words, my kind of thing), so it will always be equated with corruption.  It is a symptom of the larger issue that mainstream, religiously biased, America will not be easily or quickly able to accept what LG very nicely refers to as the Commercial Sex Industry (CSI as it should have been) because they have been taught from childhood that sex better be quick, dutiful and between the married only.  Therefore, any society that allows prostitution must be inherently evil and corrupt.

If I hit the lottery, I'm headed to Costa Rica with you, brother.

My favorite thing to do is argue points I don't agree with. I like to challenge people to think about why they believe something.

Ultimately I agree with most of the things you bring up. I was simply saying that you could make a point that legal prostitution/corruption are at least correlated in some way. I think that is the way many lawmakers and members of our society feel. The same goes for my post below assuming greater health risks for legal prostitution. I think much of the general public believes the way that I have been posting. They think that legalized prostitution is a step toward corruption and a step towards us destroying ourselves in health and morality.

I agree that making it legal wouldn't really change much. The perception of morality wouldn't change either. It would still be considered wrong by many. Unfortunately you are fighting a losing battle. It is an argument where you are right, but can't win. LOL.

Redistribution of income = vote buying

How else do you explain the popularity of Oprah?

-- Modified on 4/28/2008 9:05:10 PM

Prostitution and corruption are not always correlated. Prostitution in at least some form is legal in the UK, in Australia, and in parts of Europe, that you would not consider corrupt relative to the rest of the world.

First, I think you are right about the societal image. In countries where it is legal - Australia, for example - the societal image is not really different from the US.

Second, the streetwalkers in NYC are incredibly brazen also, especially in particular neighborhoods - and not skanky neighborhoods by any means.

Third, I'm glad to hear that you don't have balls. Somehow, I hadn't pictured you with them..

What's more, the logic of it is questionable. If the family is the foundation of society, then the family should be rescuing society, not vice versa.

I would contend that a society actually competes with family ties, far from supporting them. Areas of the world that are tribal with strong family ties generally have very weak societies, and generally where families have been strong, individual freedom has been non-existent. The middle ages are a good example.

Some groups known for very strong family ties are not otherwise conducive to sound, honest social system. One that comes to mind is the Mafia.

Then there's the problem of blood vengeance, vendettas and feuds. We trust our court systems to bring justice instead of having families carry out their wars.

Americans are the descendants of people who left their families behind and escaped to the New World, and then left their families behind to move further and further West.

Then in the 1950s, we came to the realization that the family was the bulwark of our society. A myth was born.

America was settled by Puritans first-- who, understand, were religious fanatics comparable to the Taliban. They believed that sexual morality was necessary to the health of society. Their sexual morality wasn't worse than any other sect at the time, it was just enforced more harshly. Prostitutes had it bad, but better than witches.

Things then relaxed a lot as the US expanded West and secularized and during the Civil War.

However, prostitution always had some things against full acceptance. First, it broke family ties. Prostitutes were generally alienated from their families. They also were also single parents, a fact not generally realized. The fathers of these children were unknown, and they  were usually under-educated, under-socialized and  became criminals. Third of course, was the spread of disease.

These three problems have been alleviated today.

One more thing needs to be noted: in the early 20th century, Women's Suffrage Movement and Populist Movement usually aimed at shutting down brothels and arresting prostitutes. It's the same coalition that brought us Prohibition, BTW.

Since then, the most vocal opposition to prostitution has come from women. Housewives especially, will never, ever approve of legality. If it happens, it will be as a matter of rights.

that's easy.

Its illegal because its against the law.

Your point was that "A" is legal and "B" is legal, so why isn't "A & B" legal.

I can vote;
I can donate my kidney & part of my liver before I die, and the rest of me after I die;
I can give and sell my labor temporarily;
I can give my kids up for adoptions

But, combine any of them with selling, and it is illegal.

Why are "the afformentioned acts are exceedingly more despicable"? If something about combining "A" and "B" makes them bad in your moral frame of reference, then you have to concede that combining other "B"'s, specifically "sex", can also be bad. It may not be bad in your moral frame of reference, but you have to allow that society can deemed it bad enough to prohibit.

Thus your initial premise has been refuted: "Selling is legal, and fucking is legal. So, why isn't it legal to sell fucking?"

"Why should it be illegal to sell something that's legal to give away? I can't follow the logic." The logic is: Sometimes society deems it "despicable" to sell something that you could otherwise give away (or sell in smaller amounts, such as labor). You may not agree with this particular decision, but do agree that, in certain situations, it is desirable for society to ban the sale of something you could otherwise give away.

I am not going to argue whether prostitution undermines the family unit. If you are going to ban something that you could otherwise give away, there must be a "good" that is trying to be achieved, or a "bad" trying to be avoided. Otherwise, what's the point of the ban? I was merely stating a reason to justify society putting  on the ban. You may disagree with the justification, but your disagreement does not, in and of itself, invalidate the ban.

Now if society could not provide a reason for the ban, that would invalidate the ban. Or, if all reasons for the ban were proven false, then that too would invalidate the ban. However, your point was not that you disagreed with the reason for the ban, your point was that society should not ban the sale of ANYTHING that you can give away.

> you are employing the religious based
> presumption that the family unit must be a
> monogamous Mother and Father with the little
> kiddies in tow.  That "foundation" is
> fundamentally religious based."

Just because a law is supported by religion does not make it necessarily make it fundamentally religiously based. Religion is also against murder and theft. Should we also abolish those laws?

I didn't claim a particular family unit that needed to be protected. I would claim that it is the "commitment" of the family unit that society is protecting.

I would challenge you to show me any child that does not want a stable (non-abusive) family situation. Whether that situation be male/female, two males, 1 male and 100 women, etc.

> Even so, you are discounting the very large
> segment of society who are not married.  
> According to your logic, by making prostitution
> illegal in order to protect the family unit, you
> are, as a fundamental part of the very
> foundation of our society, punishing those who
> you are not trying to protect, namely, the
> single people.

So what? Lots of laws protect one class to the detriment of another. Note: I am not conceding whether single people should or should not be regulated, I'm just saying, regardless of whether they should be regulated or not, that it is tough cookies that they are caught up too.

> A better fit to your position would be to
> continue to make adultery illegal and allow
> prostitution, then you would accomplish your
> goal.

Could be. When infringing upon a Constitutional Right, the Supreme Court has determined that the "least intrusive method" must be used (i.e. freedom of speech). In this instance, there is no requirement to use the "least intrusive method".

> Again, the root of the problem is the religous
> based morality laws. Bottom line is that
> prostitution does not undermine the kind of
> family unit that you identify, adultery does.
> By blaming the prostitute, who should be able to
> service single people in your logic train, you
> are absolving the married man of his
> responsibility.

Whether the law is supported by religion is irrelevant since it can be justified with non-religious reasons. Whether the law is too heavy handed is a valid discourse, in and of itself, but it does not invalidate the law. Since I don't have to, I'm not taking a stand on whether single people should be allowed to be serviced. Who said I was absolving the married man of his responsibility? There are laws against the John too.

"Since then, the most vocal opposition to prostitution has come from women. Housewives especially, will never, ever approve of legality."

Let’s step back and review a few things.  
During the 1700s, due to the stationing of soldiers in New York and Boston these cities had fewer families, compared to the number of horny men, and thus created a need for prostitution. After 1810, prostitution became both a political and social problem. Prostitution rose due to rapid urbanization, expanding male population, low female wages and discrimination against women.  Prostitution was made illegal in most US States between the years 1910 and 1915; the exception being that 10 of 17 counties in Nevada had decided to keep prostitution legal.
I've often thought that prostitution was made illegal because wives and mothers got tired of competing with the local whorehouse for daddy's attention with the kids.  If you think back as recently as the 19th century it was LEGAL in most if not all of the United States.  I seem to be of the impression (and it could be urban legend) that Abraham Lincoln was removed from the Ford Theater after he was shot in the head and was not returned to the White House to die, which is only a few blocks away, but was delivered across the street to whorehouse he frequented.  
During the Victorian Era through 1920 we endured suffrage (women got the right to vote and men suffered... just joking p) and many saw the prostitute as a threat.  The view was that (a) the prostitute was an expense unique to family that competed against the wives family goals; (b) only seeing (being aware of) the street walker most assumed that all prostitutes lived a tough life that often resulted in a very early death; (c) the henpecked and cockled men in politics listened to their newly formed female constituencies (especially mothers, wives, and daughters); (d) that the same women who just received the right be peers of men – equals, were concerned about the street walker who didn’t have access bringing STDs into the family; and finally (e) from 1840 through 1900 American society engaged in the Victorian era and a stricter moral code was became the law of the land.
I think these five factors led to the crimilization of prostitution and it wasn’t any one of them but the combination of them that resulted in the backlash fro having no laws to prohibit it.  In all that time the two issues that result in prostitution were never addressed.  The first is that as a rule, men are horny.  Today’s woman, who would often rather push their spouses to the TV set rather than the bedroom, sees the problem as “Darwin be damned, men need to control themselves”.  The second problem is that given the US job market, where else can women make the type of money available to them as prostitutes?  Since anti-prostitution laws ignore these factors the industry grows in the black market.

Islamic nations have their own concepts of marriage, which are different than our Christian  beliefs.  

Prostitution isn’t illegal in Islamic or Arab states, it’s hidden, in the best possible spot – Right up front and out in public.  According to Muslim laws there are two types of marriages the first is a permanent union but the second is temporary.  Sunnis don’t follow this practice but other Muslins still could.  Temporary marriages are just that, temporary.  The woman charges a fee, which the man pays, the relationship exists for a specific period of time and is then over.  While it doesn’t necessarily match prostitution, to a certain extend (this is the part I remember from both a history and law class in college) it opens the door both morally and ethically for a temporary sexual relationship to exist.  Imagine having a detailed contract with your favorite provider!  How cool is that!

If it could be effectively taxed, unavoidable license fees collected, along with multitudes of other regulatory/ancillary costs mandated our government would surely tell the religious/moral opponents of prostitution to drop dead.

  I’m personally convinced that if a small 6’x 6’ solar panel was developed that could easily heat and supply the total energy needs for an entire household; the government (and the entire energy industry) would find reason to make it a capital crime to own and utilize such a device.    

My only remaining disagreement with you is your statement that I am fighting a losing battle. I am nowhere near delusional enough to think I could have any bearing on the matter. I, like you do enjoy a little discourse from time to time and when the subject comes up I will offer my opinion.

Fortunately prostution laws effect me less than most. I am single, self employed, and travel often to places where it is legal. It's the poor schmucks who are enduring sexless marriages and are afraid of arrest and public exposure that I feel for. You are right, this extrogen run country isn't going to change, especially for the likes of us. lol

If there ever is a solution to this historical issue, it will come about when the principle that "consensual behavior between adults is not the business of government" is universally recognized.  If an adult engages in prostitution, that is a problem between himself and his god, if any; or his wife or SO. Such acts should not be illegal, but they are never risk free.  
Vices often associated with prostitution such as STD, trafficking, abuse,sexual slavery, child molestation, etc can be mitigated by more focused and effective law enforcement and public education.
Even a country that fancies itself as a nation of laws should not try to legislate morals -- it doesn't work, and morality is a personal issue anyway, not the business of law enforcement entities.  Just my opinion.

of all the responses here. As long as the Oprah crowd opposes it, what politician in his right mind is going to sponsor legislation to legalize it?

interesting. Sorry for the format, but I'm on my phone and I don't want my thumbs to come off.

You:
Just because a law is supported by religion does not make it necessarily make it fundamentally religiously based. Religion is also against murder and theft. Should we also abolish those laws?

Me:
Intentionally harming someone (taking their life or property) cannot be equated with paying for sex.  Beyond the fact that it's just not right, there are much stronger, non-morality and non-religious reasons for such laws.

You:
I didn't claim a particular family unit that needed to be protected. I would claim that it is the "commitment" of the family unit that society is protecting.

Me:
Again, you are equating "commitment" to monogamy, which is, IMHO, religiously based.  Also, adultery is the real culprit here, not prostitution.  According to your logic, Dad is OK as long as he doesn't pay anyone but Mom for it.

You:
I would challenge you to show me any child that does not want a stable (non-abusive) family situation. Whether that situation be male/female, two males, 1 male and 100 women, etc.

Me:
This equates prostitution with abuse, which I don't think you intend to do.  However, you are, I think, intending to imply that somehow, Dad simply paying for sex (not have multiple partners, because you used 1/100 as an example) would  destabilize the family.  First of all, how is the kid going to know, and second of all, if Dad gets caught, he is only "dirty" because of the religiously based view of prostitution.  Vicious circle.  Further, you show me a child who factors his or her parent's sex life into his or her own happiness, and I'll show you a child who needs therapy.

You:
So what? Lots of laws protect one class to the detriment of another. Note: I am not conceding whether single people should or should not be regulated, I'm just saying, regardless of whether they should be regulated or not, that it is tough cookies that they are caught up too.

Me:
Again, you are tying the protection of the family unit to PAYING for sex, not having it.  Disregarding the unenforced (for a large part) archaic laws regarding sodomy and adultery still on the books, just having sex is not illegal, but paying for it is.  Therefore, under your logic, Dad can go to a bar and bang whomever he wants for free and that's OK, but have him pay for it, and the family as we know it is doomed.  extrapolating that out, every person who is single can copulate within the confines of public decency laws to their hearts content, so long as they don't pay each other.  Argument fails the common sense test.

You:
Could be. When infringing upon a Constitutional Right, the Supreme Court has determined that the "least intrusive method" must be used (i.e. freedom of speech). In this instance, there is no requirement to use the "least intrusive method".

Me:
Irrelevant.  We're not arguing Con Law here.  Nobody disputes the government's ability to regulate, I, and others, question why it is being regulated.  You argued that it was to protect the family unit, and I responded the family unit would be better protected by making the sex illegal (which I don't advocate) rather than the paying for it.

You:
Whether the law is supported by religion is irrelevant since it can be justified with non-religious reasons. Whether the law is too heavy handed is a valid discourse, in and of itself, but it does not invalidate the law. Since I don't have to, I'm not taking a stand on whether single people should be allowed to be serviced. Who said I was absolving the married man of his responsibility? There are laws against the John too.

Me:
As you challenged me on the child thing, I challenge you to provide just one non-religious or morality based reason to outlaw the PAYING for sex.  Not HAVING sex, which is legal, but the PAYING for it.  Prostitution has two elements: sex and exchange of money (transaction).  It is the transaction that makes it illegal, so all of those arguments about STD's and the like do not apply to this discourse because STD's are not passed with the money, but with the sex. I would put to you that a young couple hooking up in a bar, drunk and horny, are more apt to spread an STD than a provider.

Editing note:  the caps were for emphasis, not yelling. I actually like this kind of exchange.  Thanks

Good luck






-- Modified on 4/29/2008 11:58:22 AM

FWIW I agree with everything you said, but as you probably already know, it aint gonna happen. Not here at least.

One of the biggest problems comes down to one of your statements, "that is a problem between himself and his god, if any". Way too many people believe that it is a problem between himself and "their" god, who according to them is the only "true and all powerful god" that dictates to all of mankind not just his own followers.

"Housewives", though, in the traditional sense, have been a declining segment of the population since the 50's, so that can't be the reason. Traditional housewives are not as large a voting block compared to women in general as they were even 25 years ago. Working women and single mothers are a much larger population segment.

I would never argue that women shouldn't have the vote, but the fact is, the Suffragists in the US were one faction of women with a pretty well defined ideology. (With exceptions like Victoria Woodhull). The US was the 19th nation to give women the vote. In no other nation can I recall a Prohibition Movement.  

Prostitution was seen by suffragists as being essentially mens' fault. There has never been a great deal of understanding between women in the sex industry and outside of it. The two don't communicate, and one side clearly disdains the other.  

Sex-for-money has never been seen as a matter of rights, but it's really pretty basic, IMHO.

I wasn't talking about housewives in a traditional sense. I'm talking specifically about women who are committed to monogamy. They cannot, will not, understand women in the sex industry.

This post is mainly directed at you since you took issue with my post more than anyone else on this board. However you really weren't taking issue with me personally or my post, but with George Carlin. I have a book he wrote called "NAPALM & SILLY PUTTY". On the top of page 100 in that book is the exact statement I posted. It is another of his many sarcastic humorous social commentaries. I read it. I thought it was funny, and since it was kind of relevant to this board I thought I would post it tongue in cheek, to elicit a few yuks.

Selling is legal, fucking is legal, so why isn't selling fucking legal? Bwahahaha. Selling a FUCK !! I've never heard it put quite that way. In the army they give you a medal for killing people. In civilian life they they throw you in jail for giving an orgasm. Now there's an analogy to laugh at.

But instead I created a thread a half mile long about the social, moral, and religious ramifications of prostitution. I know many of the people on this board, and there IS a lot of humor among them, but they seem to have missed the boat on this one, especially you. Read it again and think about it. I still say selling a FUCK is funny, however I will admit in reference to this particular thread I may have been a square peg in a round hole. My sense of humor is not for everybody and evidently neither is George Carlin's. I really wasn't trying to put one over on anybody, but I guess it sort of turned out that way.

Not openly. That's just a fact about keeping peace at home.

Check out my post near the top of this thread titled Dear Mr. tokai, where's the laughter?

> Intentionally harming someone (taking their life
> or property) cannot be equated with paying for
> sex.

The severity of the offense is not the issue. The point is, just because a law is also supported by religion does not invalidate the law. Charging exorbitant interest is against the law in some states, and is also a religious law.

> Again, you are equating "commitment" to monogamy,

I left the option open for a family unit having more that 2 adults.

> Also, adultery is the real culprit here, not
> prostitution.

Prostitution is a form of adultery. A form that is easy for courts to enforce. Enforcing a blanket ban on adultery starts infringing upon other rights. Regulating (including banning) commerce is a power granted to the government by the constitution.

> This equates prostitution with abuse ...

The context of "stable (non-abusive) family" was what a child would want. I don't think a child would want a stable family if he was physically abused all the time. It was not intended to imply a "stable (non-adulterous) family".

> how is the kid going to know [about the adultery]

The kid doesn't have to know about the adultery. The adultery is a significant factor that can destabilize a family unit. It is the instability that the child reacts to, not the adultery.

> just having sex is not illegal, but paying for it is. ...
> Argument fails the common sense test.

Just because a law is not perfect is not a reason, in and of itself, to abolish the law. As I said before, banning consensual non-commercial sex between two individuals starts raising a lot of privacy issues. Government had decided that it is not worth the hassle to write and enforce those type laws. Also, certain types of prostitution (street walking) has a negative effect on the surrounding community. That problem does not exist  (at least not yet) with horny people, except in airport bathrooms.

> We're not arguing Con Law here.
> I responded the family unit would be better
> protected by making the sex illegal (which I
> don't advocate) rather than the paying for it.

As previously discussed, you advocate something that is not practical.

With Law Enforcement, there is the question of whether it is worth the additional cost to prevent a crime, rather than just deter it (punish after the fact). Regardless of whether it is a constitutional right or not, there  is a limit to how much we want government to be intrusive in order to accomplish a good. When that intrusion (including taxes to pay for the intrusion) exceeds the good, we punt.

> I challenge you to provide just one
> non-religious or morality based reason to outlaw
> the PAYING for sex.  Not HAVING sex, which is
> legal, but the PAYING for it.

Your question presupposes the outcome. Just because something is legal does not make it "good". Why is gambling with the State  ok (lotteries), but gambling with someone else not?

So, if you assume that having sex in some situations can be bad, then  it is within the realm of government to ban the payment for sex in order to avoid those bad times. Yes, that also prevents people from paying for sex when it is not bad, but that is just tough. Sometimes it is safe to drive 100 mph on the highway, but we don't allow it because of the times when it is not safe.

That's a phrase economists use to describe a "strange bedfellows" arrangement that often explains American political regulations. On the one hand, you have groups that financially benefit from an activity or service being illegal. In the case of Alcohol Prohibition it was Al Capone and his gang, who were willing to make large profits by violating the prohibition (since with prohibition, supply decreases, and with constant demand price rises). The last thing Capone wants is for Prohibition to end. But of course, he wouldn't get anywhere making this argument. Fortunately, his interests in prohibition are shared with another group--in this case progressive religionists who felt the evils of alcohol could be eliminated simply by legal prohibition.

It's not so much they consciously "joined forces" but that both forces together accomplished things that neither alone could. Capone's minions, of course, include the paid-off, corrupted police and judiciary, who also didn't want to see those laws end.

For prostitution prohibition, the Bootleggers are ladies, agencies, "pimps" and others who, as part of their business routinely pay for police "protection" which can include running out others (esp. others who don't pay protection), keeping the prices up for the consumer.  Perhaps this force is less large with the growth of internet advertising, but I did hear stories that Eliot Spitzer, while Attorney General of NY, tried to close down brothels/agencies that, it turns out, competed against The Emperor's Club. Meanwhile, the Baptists--which is to say the religious right, as well as progressive left feminists who see all sex workers as victims--are always full in force.

The politicians get paid by the bootleggers while appeasing, and getting votes from, the Baptists.

I once heard someone argue against those who wanted prostitution illegal: "Prostitution is simply capitalism applied to sex. What don't you like, capitalism or sex?" In today's puritanistic and highly over-regulated America, the sad answer is "Both."

//Lecture over//

It's an EROTIC humor board. There is nothing erotic about legalizing prostitution. Besides, if stealing jokes from George Carlin is legal, and posting them on the erotic humor board is legal, why shouldn't posting stolen jokes be legal on any of the boards, or would that undermine the TER family unit?