Debate Rounds (3)
2. If a woman wants to sell herself, that's HER choice.
3. If a woman/man is in a bad financial situation, this is a better option over working at MCDonald's and getting paid minimum wage.
4. Its better than somebody breaking into a house and raping somebody when they can just go to the local brothel and get sex morally and legally correct. And if a prostitute is raped than it will be reported and the client will suffer consequences.
5. It will generate a lot of tax revenue.
6. No matter what, it will still happen, so we should just legalize it.
You say that it should be a woman's choice. And yes, it should be, but that's overwhelmingly not the case.In a study submitted at trial with 854 women in 9 countries, including Canada, 89% of women interviewed said they wanted out of prostitution.http://www.feminisms.org...
And no, prostitution is not better than a McDonald's job.As adults in prostitution, 82% had been physically assaulted; 83% had been threatened with a weapon; 68% had been raped while working as prostitutes; and 84% reported current or past homelessness.Of the 130 people interviewed, 68% met DSM III-R criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. Eighty-eight percent of these respondents stated that they wanted to leave prostitution.http://www.arte-sana.com...
Here's another tidbit from the first link:
Women who gave affidavits of their experience in prostitution said that prostituting indoors is not safe. Some of the women said they preferred prostitution on the street because they had more control and they got to keep more of their earnings. Prostituting indoors means the brothel owner negotiates with johns. This person, whether they are called pimp, manager, or agency owner, has a vested economic interest in women pleasing johns, and is more likely to agree to johns’ demands to have sex without condoms and to engage in sexual acts women themselves wouldn’t agree to.
One of the applicants, Amy Lebovtich, reported in her affidavit that when she was working in a brothel a john tied her up and raped her. No one intervened and she was left tied up for nearly half an hour until someone found her. Another woman who gave an affidavit had this to say: “I have been raped and sodomized by johns while working in massage parlours, and was too scared and embarrassed to make any noise, and wouldn’t have even known who to call. Sometimes I would hear other girls screaming or crying and I didn’t know if it was part of an act or real. I never intervened…Screams in the house were frequent and no one ever got involved.” It isn’t exactly good business to report a violent “customer” to the police, even in a legalized regime.
Finally, there was ample evidence on the trial record that legal brothels in decriminalized countries serve as covers for child prostitution, trafficking in women and links to organized crime. In the Netherlands and Australia, the illegal sector comprises more than half of the prostitution industry. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women reported that in 2004 alone, 405 cases of trafficking in women were discovered in the Netherlands. The Dutch expert reported that there have been at least 50 documented murders of prostituted women in the Netherlands between 1992 and 2004 – several of these women were, “murdered in a brothel or ‘window’, and a few of them were murdered at home by their pimp.” She summarized her findings by saying, “…the new prostitution legislation of 2000 has not meant that prostitutes are now more safe. The ability to work indoors, the decriminalization of organizing prostitution and the legalization of sex work have not removed the risk of being beaten, abused or coerced…In short, the new legislation’s goals of reducing the violence against women and the exploitation of women have not been met.”
Here is an image showing describing a harrowing impact.http://40.media.tumblr.com...;
More information can be found here: http://casac.ca...
From these facts, I don't believe total legalization is the solution to this awful unethical industry. I support the Nordic model--where people who pay prostitutes are criminalized whereas the prostituted people themselves are not. Just because something will generate plenty of tax revenue and "still happen" does not mean that people who engage in it are exempt from criminalization.
Okay, this is how it is now in foreign countries. We can learn from they're mistakes. Like for example: there should be police personnel inside of each brothel to protect it from child prostitution and human trafficking and abuse of the prostitutes. We could ban registered sex offenders. We could have weekly or even daily inspections. Seriously, if we can to get it were to no prostitutes would be abused or murded, and no illegal activity going on without the police knowing, Then I think it would be okay. If we work on it enough, we can get to were no bad things like that could happen. Then we can legalize it. So tell me, if we do that than what's the problem?
If we did that, there would be no problem. But it's pretty meaningless to spend time on far-fetched hypotheticals that would take an intense amount of effort to enact. The fact is that the sex industries are harmful. When we discuss colonialism or child labor, we don't spend time pondering, "Well, what if we made sure nobody was being harmed?" because the systems have never been that way. When anti-capitalists want to abolish capitalism, they're not talking about the Barter Islands; they're speaking of the atrocity that's depriving people worldwide--which can only be solved by abolishing it.
Since the Nordic model--criminalizing people who solicit sexual services rather than the ones performing them--was implemented, THIS happened: http://feministcurrent.com...;
Liberals forfeited this round.
Oh well. I was hoping for a continued debate. Vote Con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mr.Lincoln 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's FF and all of Pro's points were refuted so points to Con
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.