I'd like to see it legalized, regulated and taxed, but it is a state's rights issue.

I vote yes. Good regulated whorehouses. Safer for the girls, healthier for everybody involved.

It's interesting that producing porn is legal while prostitution is not. It seems that to legally have sex with a prostitute for money one would just have to film the encounter to "produce porn" and be protected by the First Amendment. Making prostitution illegal seem pretty silly ....

Philosophically, I am not opposed to legalized prostitution. I am concerned that there appears to be a strong correlation between prostitution and other criminal activity. I suspect, for example, that even with legalization there will continue to be slavery and exploitation associated with it. I readily acknowledge that not all prostitutes are victims of slavery. The point is that legalizing, I suspect is not going to solve any problems, just create new variations on existing problems. On the up side high price call girls would no longer have to worry about run ins with the law.

Skip the "we will regulate it and control it and everything will be wonderful" idea. We have way too many licensing entities that do nothing but increase costs and reduce competition.

Legalize it. As long as it is consensual, it's none of the government's business. These would just be more "nonviolent offenders" that the cops wouldn't have to worry about arresting or jailing.

If our state legislature wants to eliminate prostitution, just legalize it, regulate, license it and tax it. That will drive the business out of California like so many other enterprises.

I'm for legalizing it. I call it renting orifices as opposed to selling your body, but whatever. I would never date someone who saw hookers-we're all allowed to have dealbreakers and that's one of mine-but grownups should be allowed to do it. I also know in practice it isn't usually empowered woman making the choice to make good money but people with no other options, but making it legal would just make their lives a bit easier.

I too find it very odd that a 3rd party can pay 2 people to have sex with each other, but can't pay someone to have sex with them. What if the porn producer is also an actor in the film? He's paying someone to have sex with him. The legal gymnastics involved boggle my mind.

Legalize it, Canada fashion.

In BC (not sure about the rest of Canada) you can be an escort (whatever goes on behind closed doors is nobody's business) but you cannot streetwalk.

This seems to be the most reasonable solution.

There is a strong correlation between ILLEGAL prostitution and other criminal activity.

Another point; it is illegal to exchange cash for sex. However, it's not illegal to be one of many "girlfriends" who get gifts.

What if the porn producer is also an actor in the film?

From what I understand he/she can't be in most jurisdictions. Not that it matters, he/she will get plenty of action on the side.

Sorry, my comment was in response to Bill O rights comment that there as a correlation between prostitution and other criminal activity. My point was that the correlation was between one criminalized activity and another.

Using your point, there is some correlation between alcohol use and criminal activity. However, during prohibition that correlation sky rocketed. Legalization of anything will not cause all illegal activity to cease in that area, but will have an impact due to the activity no longer being driven underground.

(Note, though, that over regulation and over taxation will have the same effect of driving an activity underground.)

I expect there is a strong correlation between ILLEGAL anything and other criminal activity. This is one reason why stupidly making things illegal (like prostitution) is, well, stupid.

We have way too many licensing entities that do nothing but increase costs and reduce competition. -- Bill O Rights at December 27, 2011 8:26 AM

I'm going to have to split the difference on this one. It is a state's (locality) issue, example Nevada, just as gambling is.

The regulating part needs to be considered carefully. How often would the woman or man need to be tested for what? Can the john's and jane's sue for infection? Not coming first? Breach of privacy?

Could you have sex worker's union that would be responsible this regulation and standards and doesn't involve the government?

Would there be the ability to vote it in and out of local areas, like some states have for alcohol?

What if had in home service in my little berg but she was based out of another city where it where it was legal? So if I pay cash it is not legal, but using a PayPal account it is?

I am for legalizing prostitution -- but it needs to be done with deliberation and diligence.

Sense of decorum. Whatever the root for it - religious conviction or personal sense of worth - as a society we need a line in the sand. As you've said yourself when you are criticized for being judgmental, you have values therefore you make judgments. Where to draw the line is the crux of the problem and where political debate concerns itself. The answer to guarding against government taking over every aspect of your life is not anarchy of everyone doing whatever the heck they want, even that which does not harm others. There is no universal answer, but the line must still be drawn.

That would be a valuable service. At this point I would just like to buy a hug from a pretty lady. Think of the old people folks.

Will they have coupons and sales and things?

I wondered why this was Illegal, and the best argument I came up with is being hit by "Sales pitches" in situations where it's not appropriate.

Say, at the mall with your family.

And it would be...an experience to see ads for the local bordello in the sideshow before the movie.

I don't mind it, I just don't want to see it when I'm not interested.

Eh, Vegas is literally papered with nude photos advertising hookers. At least 8 years ago, we couldn't walk down the Strand at any time of day without scuzzy looking men thrusting the ads at us. So Erikz has a legitimate point. Vegas is no where I would ever take a child, but it COULD happen elsewhere.

If prostitution was legal, streetwalkers would become rare.

This would happen as a result of lowered demand, not supply.

Demand for streetwalkers would go down because it would be safer to go to bordello, or hire an escort from an online site, than pick up an unknown on the street.

The supply of streetwalkers would go down when it became unprofitable. The only streetwalkers left would be the bottom tier women who couldn't work in whorehouses. This would tend to make streetwalkers even more undesirable.

I think it should be legal, unregulated, and untaxed. The workers would be responsible for income taxes.

An interesting question is would a regular client have to give the hooker a 1099 at the end of the year? I think the law is more than $350 in payments in a quarter to any contractor means a 1099 is required. I don't know how much hookers cost, but I'm sure that threshold would be quickly met by a few johns.

"If prostitution was legal, streetwalkers would become rare."

Travel much outside the United States and Europe?

If so, I suspect you and I have a different definition of "rare."

Vegas is no where I would ever take a child, but it COULD happen elsewhere.

Actually prostitution is illegal within the city limits of Las Vegas. Hence some of my questions earlier.

I would argue no. You'd likely have an age limit set at eighteen, and Sally and Sammy Not-so-smart are going to drop out of high school and pursue this lucrative career, until age leaves them where? Living off welfare or under a bridge? Are they eligible for unemployment? Does this qualify them for Social Security? Some Federal Job program? Maybe they can be TSA screeners, they'd know where to look....

Are they covered under Obamacare?

Do we issue work visas for exceptionally skilled foreign talent willing to work for less? We already do it for computer programmers.

Can they form a union?

The libertarian in me says legalize. The adult in me says this wouldn't end well.

Let's be real about this, everybody.

I am being real about this. Let's switch to the idea that it becomes 100% legal. More women (hard to nail down a %) who weren't doing it before are doing it now.

Availability goes up, prices come down. They start competing like any other sales situation.

Yes, the mall is a private business. So what? It doesn't create a magical barrier that stops propositions.

I can't really predict what will happen since I haven't lived in a society where it's 100% legal.

"I'd like to see it legalized, regulated and taxed"

Living in legal prostitution country I have to point out that those second two points will ensure that there is always an illegal market.

""Sales pitches" in situations where it's not appropriate. Say, at the mall with your family.

Malls are private businesses. They aren't going to let you..."

That's exactly what did happen with medical marijuana ads though. I have to be tolerant of pot leaves if I want to read your column.

Yes it should be legal. If they (Supreme Court) make the healthcare mandate legal, it should be in the government insurance plans. All part of that "general welfare" and "pursuit of happiness" stuff. Mandate that hollywood stars donate some of their wealth (aka time) to help out the lonely.

To move beyond the practical and into the ethical, I say yes, it should be legal. There's a place for temporary relationships in this world and the other alternative is pumpin' and dumpin' and breakin' hearts. That's not very ethically defensible either.

I likes your old moniker, "Godless Harlot," better.

I have no problem with voluntary adult prostitution being legalized, as long as it does not involve people who are engaged or married. Otherwise, we'll have establishments such as "Vernajeanne's House of Homewreckers."

Big question for the behavioral scientist:

What affect would this have on society?

Robert Heinlein famously noted that strict Christian mores made for horrible problems: sexually incompatible persons, forced together with no experience, then cheat to get what they need.

Look at the USA now - public denouncement of Janet Jackson on TV, yet instant sellout of every magazine detailing the "Wardrobe Malfunction" afterwards. Parenting, both individual and governmental, insisting on "abstinence" while Cosmo still offers girls advice on "How To Make Your Guy Quiver At A Touch".

We have public schizophrenia. What I'm looking for is a tactic that will foment relationships that last - because we are in BIG trouble already from the Instant Gratification crowd.

I suggest that it IS better for someone with huge sexual tension to relieve it. I further suggest that it would be difficult to inculcate value in a person who is merely renting another person's attention, and then it may be very tough for the customer to find someone to care for him at a professional skill level AND care about him as a person.

In short, how do you show the man who hires a whore the difference between that and a partner?

You guys should head over to The Honest Courtesan dot com and take a gander around. She talks about prostitution nearly every day. She is an ex-prostitute who takes sex trafficking hysteria to task. Has a lot of interesting stories about prostitution and is good at showing the difference between a streetwalker, a true whore, and us amateurs. Plus, like our host Amy, she is an excellent writer.

Are you saying the prostitute or the patron? And what stops either from picking picking someone in a bar? What if the husband is going to the prostitute because he loves his wife but she is paralyzed? What if he wants to do it with a guy every once in a while?

You are trying to put morality and personal decisions in the realm of legislation. That is not pretty.

Spartee - where I live the permissibility of sexual encounters has gone up in the past 20 years.

25 years ago there was no contact allowed in strip clubs. Now you can get a hand job in many strip clubs, and blow jobs aren't uncommon.

We have totally nude private show lotion clubs where the girl will rub lotion on the man, and massage parlors where the girls will have sex.

There are also plenty of escorts In-call and out-call, and we get an influx of sex workers in the winter that matches the snowbird season.

These behaviors aren't legal, they just aren't enforced. What is enforced is streetwalkers.

The cops will stop and approach any streetwalker. Additionally there are frequent stings targeting Johns. The police also run heavy DUI enforcement in the areas where the streetwalkers are.

30 years ago some streets in Phoenix - east Van Buren, west Buckeye and Main street in Mesa had dozens if not hundreds of hookers on them in the late night rush.

After almost 20 years of constant heavy enforcement, the streetwalkers have been mostly removed from the Phoenix area.

Most of the men I know who use hookers are all using the internet to find them, or meeting them in the strip clubs.

I only know one person who still picks up street walkers, and he complains that there is no street he can cruise to find them. He's stuck driving in circles around drug neighborhoods.

I say legalize it.

But I'm more curious right now with respect to unemployment Insurance. Many states have the rule you can't "not accept" a job in your previous salary level. Prostitution, is supposidly a very lucrative business, with very few resumeable skills. In a world where not taking a job, has financial consequences, legalization would have interesting consequences.

"Prostitution, is supposidly a very lucrative business, with very few resumeable skills."

But the job interview... !

They were talking about this on the radio today too...odd.

The "experts" were all for legalization at least in some form. All the callers were against legalization. All but one simply said "it is wrong." The other caller said more men would use these services and that would break up families.

" All but one simply said "it is wrong." The other caller said more men would use these services and that would break up families."

It would more liklely keep families together as the husband would be able to get what his wife was denying him, and his life would become more bearable.

For me the problem isn't legalizing it, but what areas would be designated for it? I mean there are alot of creepy lonely men out there, I just don't want a large quantity of them near my house.

(Sorry if you are a creepy man).

One can argue (for days and years, and so on) about 'lines in the sand', and the 'good of society', but in the end, when it really comes right down to it, it always ends up with someone saying (or implying) that the wishes of the group supersede the rights of the individual.

Always forgetting that the group is composed of those self same individuals, and that preserving the rights of the individual actually does protect the interests of the group (if not the interests of the clue free busybody who wants to impose their views on the group).

And, not even counting the innate rights of the individual, the biggest thing that escapes their grasp is the fact that all of the restrictions placed upon consensual adult behaviour do far more harm to the group, in the long run, than that behaviour itself does (see the drug war, etc.).

In a way, arguing legality (or not) is kind of missing the point.

There simply should not be any avenue of legal jurisprudence that applies in any way to consensual adult behaviour. It simply should not be on the radar, at all. There should be no more involvement than is applied to a group of friends playing 'Scrabble.' Okay, maybe with decriminalized prostitution, some reasonable regs for public health can be justifiable, as long as they're specifically targeted to the actual, potential problem.

The law should be involved if and only if the behaviour of an individual results in actual, definable, harm to another individual (and being offended doesn't count, offense isn't harm, the only person who can make you feel offended is you).

If some guy wants to give money directly to a woman for sex (as opposed to dinner and drinks, the more socially acceptable version of the same kind of transaction), who really has the right to give a shit?

Are you being materially (and specifically) affected by that transaction? If it violates your beliefs, you don't have to engage in it. If it makes you have trouble sleeping, because you're obsessing about what other people do when you're not looking, there's therapy for that (and, perhaps, a sledgehammer to your temple).

Prohibition (whether for sex or drugs or whatever) does nothing but exacerbate the kind of problems the laws claim that they're in place to address.

To Assholio's point: I don't know.

If the cost is not really noticeable to the family and the wife doesn't find out, I think it could be a great benefit.

How often are guys going to be able to go before it starts affecting the family? I could easily see the cost becoming a big a factor as I doubt these places would be cheap.

I doubt most women would be OK with it so if she found her husband was having a bunch of fun time I think that might end the relationship. On a dating discussion site I used to frequent a poll was taken and none of the women were very open to the idea of their partner having seen a pro. A few said they could over look if it had been many years - e.g. they were young a foolish.

Purplepen has a good point to. A few years ago when zoning had to be redone there was a big deal about where strip clubs would be allowed. Everyone was NIMBY (Not In My BackYard).

"There simply should not be any avenue of legal jurisprudence that applies in any way to consensual adult behaviour."

Some minor clarification is in order for this statement. Contracts and other legally binding agreements that are set up or defined for the interaction between individuals is an acceptable modifier to the above statement.

The gist of the statement is that consensual adult behaviour should never be presumptively illegal.

To me, there are two important issues here.

First, "victimless crime" is a contradiction in terms. If neither of the two (or more) people involved files a criminal complaint with the police, the government has no role here.

Second, this is an exchange of services for money, i.e., a business transaction. As long as both parties to a transaction are content, it is none of the government's business. It doesn't matter what one person is purchasing from the other: a loaf of bread 10 kilos of crystal meth - if each party is content with the transaction, the government should not be able to forbid it.

The only possible role of the government is to tax and regulate businesses. It can impose a sales tax, it can impose special taxes (like the tax on cigarettes), it can impose licensing requirements. In the case of prostitution, it might, for example, make sense to issue licenses based on regular STD tests.

I mean for both prostitutes and customers, Jim P. I regard marriage as a sacred institution. If you want to become a prostitute or hire one, get a divorce, or don't get married in the first place.

"It would more liklely keep families together as the husband would be able to get what his wife was denying him, and his life would become more bearable."

WTF are YOU smoking?

"Oh yeah, honey, I said all that about love honor and cherish 'til death stuff, but you're just not enough. You're OK with that, right?"

"Dad, are you coming to the ball game after you do Miss Tart, or is Mom gonna drive us home?"

And that's not forget the inverse. Somehow, nobody's noticed that your lady can go see Mr. Studly when she gets bored, or you just aren't "man enough" for some reason.

Right?

Only in America is it illegal to sell something that you can legally give away for free.

Hell just work around the system:

"She's having sex with me for free, but to protect myself I'm buying the condom for $500."

Would a venereal disease be a worker's comp issue?

Purplepen:"I mean there are alot of creepy lonely men out there, "

Ah but it is often the lonelyiness which makes them creepy. And this could end the viscious cycle by making them less lonely and less creepy.

As is often said, confidence in men makes them more appealing, sex with a woman makes a man more confident. Ergo, men having sex makes them more appealing and less creepy.

"Ergo, men having sex makes them more appealing and less creepy."

Riiiight. Since you paid for it, or are in the habit of paying for it, women will find you more attractive.

Give the pipe back to Assholio!

"Living in legal prostitution country I have to point out that those second two points will ensure that there is always an illegal market. "

Well, the regulation and taxation have to be reasonable. There is such a thing as underground sales of untaxed liquor -- I used to know a place where one could get such. However, for most people, it's not worth the risk to save a few bucks in taxes. Hence, it's not a focus of organized crime today, unlike during Prohibition.

I would never date someone who saw hookers

And theres the problem, the reason alot of guys go to see hookers is becuase women already wont have a relationship with them

I wondered why this was Illegal, and the best argument I came up with is being hit by "Sales pitches" in situations where it's not appropriate.
Say, at the mall with your family.
And it would be...an experience to see ads for the local bordello in the sideshow before the movie.
I don't mind it, I just don't want to see it when I'm not interested.
Posted by: ErikZ

As opposed to familly movie night where you can see ads for condomos, vibratrs, boner pills, and class action lawsuits against the manufacturers of birth controll pills on damn near ever TV sttion every night?

I would argue no. You'd likely have an age limit set at eighteen, and Sally and Sammy Not-so-smart are going to drop out of high school and pursue this lucrative career, until age leaves them where? Living off welfare or under a bridge? Are they eligible for unemployment? Does this qualify them for Social Security? Some Federal Job program? Maybe they can be TSA screeners, they'd know where to look....

Good points, I gues we'd better out law stripping and serving in the military in a war zone combat capaity as well then, right?

How often are guys going to be able to go before it starts affecting the family? I could easily see the cost becoming a big a factor as I doubt these places would be cheap.

Good point, but them again, unless the guy is a total asshole the only reason he'd see a pro is because his wife is unable or unwilling to do what he's willing to pay for

I regard marriage as a sacred institution.

I regard marrige as prostitution endorsed by government.

In protitution a hooker trades sex/compainionship for cash, in marrige the wife trades sex/companionship for a house, and cash, and labor. Aside form the emotional component(and given more than half of marriges end in divorce anyway it obviously int that importatnt) the onlt difference bettween prostitution and marrige s the amounts of sex and resources being traded

"I regard marrige as prostitution endorsed by government."

Lujlp that's just looney. You don't call the mother of your children a hooker. Anyways the good marriages that I see, I mean women do stuff for men too and because they love them.

Maybe momof4 can illuminate you...

Purplepen half of all marriges end, of the less than 50% that still stand mow many do you suppose could be qualified as 'happy'?

Yes, your point? Marriage is not prostitution. People don't get married for the sex.

Prostitution should of course be legalized, in fact it's a ridiculous question, the question should be the other way round - on what justification is something so obviously an inalienable right, banned in the first place. Banning mutually consenting private trade/activity between mutually consenting adults is an act of primitive barbarism (to be clear, the banning is the act of barbarism). These are inalienable rights we are talking about - even the idea of having a *debate* about 'whether or not to ban it' is primitive and barbaric ... since banning involves initiating *force* against consenting adults for engaging privately in mutually consenting and mutually beneficial trade, having a debate about banning it means we're literally sitting around the table discussing whether or not we think we should initiate force against innocent people doing no harm to anyone --- like a group of slave owners sitting around having a 'debate' as to how many hours their slaves should be required to work in the hot sun, the debate itself is vile.

"For me the problem isn't legalizing it, but what areas would be designated for it? I mean there are alot of creepy lonely men out there, I just don't want a large quantity of them near my house."

Visit a country where prostitution is legalized (e.g. New Zealand) and you'll see you can probably put your fears to rest ... it's so subtle you would likely never even realize it was legal there if nobody told you. In fact, legalizing prostitution makes it more subtle in many ways, because it takes girls literally 'off the street' (where it becomes obvious in an area) and into more discrete operating locations.

(Sorry, discrete => *discreet)

Marriage is not prostitution. People don't get married for the sex.

Women generally don't. Men, actually, do.

My husband, for example, made it 100% clear that he was getting married for (among other things, but primarily) a steady supply of safe sex (using exactly those words). After being systematically denied for more than 15 years by his first wife, he was cautious and careful to let me know his expectations. I find this admirable, in that we don't have hidden agendas in our marriage, and since I know what is important to him, he's easy to satisfy.

Since the topic is clearly out in the open between us, it makes for interesting conversation at times (she types, smiling...) but we are heading into year number 21 soon and find ourselves quite happy.

Now, back to the topic: I don't see any reason why a consensual activity among adults should be any business of the government (while I am not a fan of taxation, I suppose that is a necessary evil, but let's be clear: money earned illegally is already subject to income tax.)

If allowing consensual behavior between adults harms married or engaged people, well, they need to manage their relationships better. It's not the government's business to keep married or engaged people from getting their tender little feelings hurt.

Not sure where I stand on this issue, but I do know that legalizing it doesn't fix the problems of black market prostitution and the associated problems that go with it. I know a few years back the legal swiss prostitutes were pissed because the black market ones were getting all the clients, because they could go bareback, didn't have to get tested, etc.

So if you're philosophically for it for other reasons, its one thing. But if you think legalization will eliminate the problems of pimps, disease, underage kids, etc you are kidding yourself.