Legal Prostitution
Prostitution has long been considered as illegal. But is it necessary to do so?
<br>
<br>It is said that prostitution causes inconvenience and troubles to general public. However, the act that considers prostitution as illegal causes inconvenience and troubles to prostitutes either. Does general public has the right to live without prostitution nearby, which will prevent prostitutes from making money with their 'resources', or do prostitutes have the right to make money with their 'resources', which will prevent general public from living in 'an more enjoyable' environment?
<br>
<br>This is obviously a conflict of interest. The right should be granted to the side with more social benefits. For example, if legal prostitution brings the social, says, $100 and at the same time causes $50 harms to general public, the right should be granted to prostitutes.
<br>
<br>One may argue that it is very difficult to determine which side brings larger social benefits. But under some situations, we can easily determine it.
<br>
<br>If prostitutions are located in some low-population-density areas, the harms or inconvenience caused by prostitutions will be smaller. But some may argue that although the inconvenience is smaller, people still suffer. If satisfactory compensations for people who suffer are available
, people are willing to suffer.
<br>
<br>The right to prostitute, or the right to stop prostitution should be granted to general public (or people who are affected by prostitutions) or prostitutes by the time the compensation system operates.
<br>
<br>However, it is very difficult to delimitate such right. What should be considered as prostitutions? If a female who provides a male with sex service for returns is said to be a prostitute, then is a wife who provide sex service for her husband for his love said to be a prostitute? Is having sex before marriage called as a prostutition? We can see that it is very 'costly' to delimitate such right.
<br>
<br>If
<br>
<br>It is said that prostitution causes inconvenience and troubles to general public. However, the act that considers prostitution as illegal causes inconvenience and troubles to prostitutes either. Does general public has the right to live without prostitution nearby, which will prevent prostitutes from making money with their 'resources', or do prostitutes have the right to make money with their 'resources', which will prevent general public from living in 'an more enjoyable' environment?
<br>
<br>This is obviously a conflict of interest. The right should be granted to the side with more social benefits. For example, if legal prostitution brings the social, says, $100 and at the same time causes $50 harms to general public, the right should be granted to prostitutes.
<br>
<br>One may argue that it is very difficult to determine which side brings larger social benefits. But under some situations, we can easily determine it.
<br>
<br>If prostitutions are located in some low-population-density areas, the harms or inconvenience caused by prostitutions will be smaller. But some may argue that although the inconvenience is smaller, people still suffer. If satisfactory compensations for people who suffer are available
, people are willing to suffer.
<br>
<br>The right to prostitute, or the right to stop prostitution should be granted to general public (or people who are affected by prostitutions) or prostitutes by the time the compensation system operates.
<br>
<br>However, it is very difficult to delimitate such right. What should be considered as prostitutions? If a female who provides a male with sex service for returns is said to be a prostitute, then is a wife who provide sex service for her husband for his love said to be a prostitute? Is having sex before marriage called as a prostutition? We can see that it is very 'costly' to delimitate such right.
<br>
<br>If