01-11-2005, 01:26 PM
Pete,Jan 10 2005, 05:45 PM Wrote:Hi,
That was a rationalization, not a rational. History has shown, again and again, that controlled legal prostitution spreads less STDs than does illegal prostitution. The moralists make a fundemental mistake in thinking that making something illegal will make it go away. The 'it keeps disease down' argument is a fallback position used by the moralists when they find that their bigoted arguments are insufficient. They depend on two principles to get their way: (1) Whatever is said loud enough and often enough is accepted as truth. (2) Most people would rather listen to authority than to do a little digging and a little thinking to establish the real truth.
--Pete
[right][snapback]64928[/snapback][/right]
Exactly Pete. Here in Holland prosititution is legal, but things like street prostitution is not legal except for a few streets in big cities, where there is a lot of control by the police, especially to protect this very vulnerable group of girls.
This means in Holland, that if you do not want to see prostitution, just don't go to the red light district and to those certain zones. While in other countries you see this poor girls standing in the freezing cold at some dark street.
I think the important idea here is that those girls (also in countries where it is illegal) are not ruthless criminals, they are victims. If they could get a better job, they would take it. Prostitution is a last resort. For this reason it is very important to regulate prostitution, especially in the interest of the girls which have to be protected against all kinds of maniacs.
The disease thing is another example. Of course regulation works better than prohibition.
Apparantly prosititutes deliver a "needed" service for a group of men. (probably the number of rapes would be much higher when there would be no prostitution).
To get back to deebye's first question. I think you have a point. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the one who pays does not take part in the act?